This ad was ruled misleading by an Australian judge because it buries the extra costs in the fine print.

One of Australia’s largest Internet Service Providers used misleading advertising to offer “unlimited broadband” for $29.99AU that hid the extra costs that came with the deal.

TPG Internet is well-known across Australia, and the company pitched its unlimited offer across newspapers, television, radio, and even movie theaters.  Consumers were offered unlimited Internet access — still a rarity in Australia — for just over $31US a month.  But when those interested phoned up TPG, they found the great deal had some significant costs:

1. An installation fee of $129.95AU.
2. Consumers had to purchase a home phone rental agreement for an additional $30 a month.

Australian consumer law mandates that providers disclose any up front, required costs to take advantage of a promotion, and TPG blatantly disregarded the law, the justice found.

Justice Murphy said the dominant message of TPG’s ads was that consumers would only pay $29.99 a month, not a substantial setup fee and phone line rental that doubled the price.

The Federal Court justice added that the desire for unlimited Internet service was so great, consumers were likely to sign up for unlimited plans even if their monthly usage was low enough to save money with a usage-limited plan.

“There is a tendency in some consumers to purchase the biggest, the best, or the highest quality product or service, seemingly regardless of whether that service is appropriate to their needs,” Murphy ruled.

The judge plans to meet with the offending ISP to discuss an appropriate penalty for the breach in advertising standards regulations.

Cornell University students pay an average of $37,000 a year (before housing, student fees, and other expenses) to attend one of America’s most prestigious universities.  When they arrive on-campus, it doesn’t take long to learn the college has one of the nastiest Internet Overcharging schemes around for students deemed to be using “too much Internet.”

For years, Cornell limited students to less than 20 gigabytes of Internet usage per month, only recently increasing the monthly allowance to 50GB this summer.  Cornell’s overlimit fee starts at $1.50 per gigabyte, billed in megabyte increments.  Now some students are pushing back, launching a petition drive to banish the usage limits that curtail usage and punish the 10 percent of students who exceed their allowance.

Christina Lara, originally from Fair Lawn, N.J., started the petition which has attracted nearly 300 signatures over the past few weeks.

“Cornell students, along with students across the world, rely on the Internet to pursue their academics, independent research, and leisure activity,” Lara writes. “We should not be subjected to charges for our Internet usage, particularly because our curriculums mandate we use the Internet. Despite this, Cornell University continues to adopt NUBB (Network Usage-Based Billing), which charges students for exceeding the 50 gigabyte per month ‘allowance.'”

Lara incurred bills as high as $90 a month in overlimit fees last year, thanks to regular use of Netflix and Skype for online video chats with friends and family back home.

Internet fees for on-campus housing are included in the mandatory student services fee.  Although Time Warner Cable has a presence on campus, most residence halls don’t appear to be able to obtain service from the potential competitor, which sells unlimited Internet access in the southern tier region of New York where Cornell is located.  Instead, Cornell students on campus rely on the university’s wireless and Ethernet broadband network, and DirecTV or the university’s own cable TV system for television.

Lara

The apparent lack of competition makes charging excess-use fees for Internet usage easy, critics of the fees charge.

“It’s much easier if you live off-campus or in one of the apartment complexes students favor,” says Neal, one of our readers in the Ithaca area who used to attend Cornell.  “The only complication is getting access to the University’s Intranet, which is much easier if you are using their network.”

Neal says Verizon delivers landline DSL to off-campus housing, but not on-campus.  Because the service maxes out at 7Mbps, most who have other options sign up for Time Warner Cable’s broadband service instead.

“It’s cheaper on a promotion and much faster, and it’s still unlimited,” Neal says. “Hasbrouck, Maplewood and Thurston Court were the only residential buildings that offered the chance for Time Warner Cable on-campus, and only if the wiring was already in place.”

Neal notes many apartment complexes off campus have contracts with Time Warner Cable, which means cable TV and basic broadband are included in your monthly rent.  Some Cornell students who live on or near campus try to make do with a slower, but generally free option — the Red Rover Wi-Fi network administered by the University.  Others reserve the highest usage activities for computers inside university academic buildings, where the limits come off.

Lara complains Ithaca, and the southern tier in general, is hardly an entertainment hotbed, making the Internet more important than ever for leisure activities.

Time Warner Cable provides the rest of Ithaca with unlimited Internet.

“If Cornell was situated in a major metropolitan area with a vast nightlife that could accommodate the interests of most, if not all, our undergraduates, then many Cornellians wouldn’t be so inclined to stay in their rooms and get on the Internet,” Lara says. “But that’s not the case. Cornell’s Greek life dominates the social scene, making ‘nightlife’ a dividing factor in the community.”

Tracy Mitrano, Cornell’s director of information-technology policy, told The Chronicle the vast majority of students will never hit the cap, and those that do cannot be charged more than $1,000 a month in overlimit fees, regardless of use.  Those that do exceed the limit typically find a monthly bill for “overuse” amounting to $30.

“The approach that Cornell uses offers transparency and choice,” said Mitrano. She noted that Cornell provides students with clear information regarding their network usage by alerting them by e-mail when they are about to hit the limit and by setting specific rates for overuse fees.

“The choice seems to be using the university network or moving off-campus to buy Verizon or Time Warner Cable broadband to avoid the usage cap,” counters Neal. “I am not sure their ‘choice’ argument flies if students don’t have the option of signing up for Road Runner in their rooms on their own, bypassing the Internet Overcharging altogether.”

Both Neal and Gregory A. Jackson, vice president of Educause, seem to be reaching consensus on whether or not universities should be charging students for Internet separately from room and board.  Jackson notes it is a discussion being held at an increasing number of universities.  Neal thinks having a wide open access policy to deliver competition could solve this problem in short order, and students should make the decision where to spend their broadband funds themselves.

“If Cornell’s IT bureaucracy faced unlimited-access competition from Verizon and Time Warner Cable, do you think they’d still have a 50GB usage cap, considering only a small percentage of their captive customers exceeded it,” Neal asks.  “Of course not.”

[Thanks to PreventCAPS for the story idea.]

Their prices are sky high.

Back in May 2010, Stop the Cap! launched a debate with a few Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) that provide largely rural America with wireless access to the Internet over long range Wi-Fi networks.  The debate got started when Matthew Larsen, who runs the Wireless Cowboys blog, announced the arrival of an Internet Overcharging scheme at his WISP — Vistabeam, which serves residents in rural Wyoming and Nebraska.

WISPs are being increasingly challenged by the changing tastes of Internet customers, who are gravitating towards broadband multimedia content, saturating limited capacity networks and forcing regular infrastructure upgrades to keep up with increasing usage demands.  Unlike larger providers, many WISPs are independent, family-run businesses that lack easy access to capital and resources to rapidly respond to demand, especially when most have a rural customer base that numbers in the hundreds or thousands.

That’s one of the reasons why Stop the Cap! has not been as harsh on these providers when they implement usage limit schemes on their customers.  Because WISPs provide service where cable and phone companies usually don’t bother to serve, these wireless providers are the only option beyond satellite Internet, which we regularly label “fraudband” for claims of broadband speeds that are rarely delivered.  Still, we were not impressed last year with some of Larsen’s language about what his usage caps were intended to do (underlining ours):

I feel that these caps are more than generous, and should have a minimal effect on the majority of our customers.   With our backbone consumption per customer increasing, implementing caps of some kind became a necessity.    I am not looking at the caps as a new “profit center” – they are a deterrent as much as anything.    It will provide an incentive for customers to upgrade to a faster plan with a higher cap, or take their download habits to a competitor and chew up someone else’s bandwidth.

Ouch.

It’s been over a year, and Larsen is back with an editorial patting himself on the back for an Internet Overcharging success story well-implemented:

We have never raised prices on our services.    We still have a customer note on the wall that reads “Your bill was the only one I got this month that DIDN’T go up.   Thank you!”     I would have a hard time raising prices on this person because of their neighbors that are downloading 20x as much.   Usage Based Billing is a much fairer way to go, especially when the provider faces so much reinvestment cost to accommodate the heavier users.   After the first year of implementation, I am very glad that we took the time to implement it and intend to use the revenue to build a better network for all of our customers.

Larsen is also upset with those who believe in the concept of unlimited Internet:

Operating a broadband network is not free, and it is not a low-maintenance business.   I have a group of dedicated employees and subcontractors that have spent a lot of late nights and early mornings away from their families to build and maintain our network.   Anyone who thinks that unlimited broadband is a God given right should be forced to spend a few days in my lead tech’s shoes, getting a good look at what a broadband provider has to do to build a network and keep it running.

Larsen, like other WISPs are confronting the reality that Internet usage is on the upswing, and while we sympathize with the challenges faced by Vistabeam and other WISPs, his statements do not apply to every broadband network around.  And frankly, an increasing number of customers simply aren’t interested in Larsen’s challenges, especially if another provider can deliver service more cheaply and efficiently.  Vistabeam better hope nobody does, because their prices are simply not competitive if just about any other provider manages to work their way into his territory.

Vistabeam prices start at $29.95 a month for 384kbps/128kbps service with a monthly usage limit of 10GB.  Exceed that and you will pay an additional $1 per gigabyte.  Customers who need more speed pay dearly for it.  A tier providing 4/2Mbps service will run you $99.95 a month with a 60GB monthly usage allowance.

As of late, Larsen has been railing against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over recent broadband stimulus awards designed to improve coverage of broadband Internet in the same rural regions of the country Vistabeam serves.  He’s upset the USDA has awarded a $10.2 million infrastructure loan to the Hemingford Cooperative Telephone Company, which provides service in western Nebraska under the name Mobius Communications.

Larsen speaks highly of the fact Vistabeam delivers service in the absence of government funding or stimulus. But average consumers are not likely to care when they compare prices and consider the fact Mobius doesn’t appear to limit customers’ usage.

Mobius DSL Prices:

• 500kbps – $35.00
• 1.5Mbps – $40.00
• 3Mbps – $50.00
• 5Mbps – $60.00 (Currently available in Alliance and Chadron.)

Mobius charges effectively half the price Vistabeam charges, and offers faster tiers of service in some areas, without fear of overlimit fees.  It’s also important to recognize the “award” was actually a “loan,” which must be repaid.  Larsen seems less upset with the fact there are broadband stimulus programs than with the reality industry lobbying has effectively cut out many Wireless ISPs from standing any chance of winning one.

I get especially frustrated by loan awards like this one because I have operated two ISPs that have had to compete directly with Mobius and did not have access to any federal grant or loan programs.   The USDA Broadband and Loan programs are essentially only available to [regional phone companies].   When I made inquiries into the programs several years ago, I found that they would only loan to a single recipient in a region so that they were not funding competing projects.

Phillip Dampier

For Stop the Cap!, our constituents are consumers interested in obtaining the best possible broadband service at the best price.  Larsen’s views, understandable from the perspective of a business owner, would leave a number of consumers paying effectively double the price for usage-limited broadband. That would, however, satisfy a business argument that self-funded private providers should not face competition from other providers that can extend faster, unlimited DSL, cable, or fiber service with low interest loans.

Wouldn’t a better solution be to form a coalition to force open the same beneficial loan programs to Wireless ISPs who can more readily and affordably build up their networks and ease the Internet Overcharging that too often comes along for the ride?  We’re not accusing Larsen of gouging his customers for fun and profit, but we would like to see WISPs like Vistabeam develop win-win strategies that deliver success for their innovative efforts and lower priced, faster service for their customers.

The alternative may be the eventual arrival of those rural phone companies, increasingly equipped to deliver faster and cheaper service to Vistabeam’s current customers, eventually spelling disaster to that company’s business plan.  It has happened before.  Anyone remember the “wireless cable” industry that delivered a few dozen cable channels over microwave signals?  That’s a service whose time came and went, largely replaced with satellite television and rural telephone cable TV, better equipped to provide the kind of service consumers actually wanted, but wireless cable was ill-equipped to provide.

AT&T Internet Rationing Board - Do More With Less!

Today should be your last day for doing business with AT&T’s DSL and U-verse services.  If you feel strongly about your broadband usage being counted and limited, it’s time to bail out of AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme, which took effect earlier today.

From this day forward, AT&T DSL customers are limited to 150GB of usage and U-verse customers top out at 250GB before the overlimit fee kicks in — $10 for every 50GB customers exceed the cap, billed in $10 increments. It’s classic AT&T Math, where $1.01 of usage is rounded up to $10.00.

AT&T certainly got off on the wrong foot on day one.  We’ve received more than a dozen messages today from customers who find AT&T’s usage meter offline, showing this message:

“We’re sorry, but we’re unable to display your Internet usage at this time.”

Do you think AT&T would accept that excuse if you enclosed a note telling AT&T you are unable to pay your Internet bill at this time?

On an ongoing basis, we intend to hold AT&T’s feet to the fire until they rescind this unwarranted overcharging scheme.  While company officials claim it is intended to protect their customers from a handful of “heavy users,” they also argue they have plenty of capacity for everyone.  The company cannot have it both ways.

Therefore, this week’s message to be shared with your friends and family is:

AT&T’s Broadband Network Is Not Good Enough to Handle Your Broadband Needs: Shop Elsewhere

AT&T’s wired broadband network, just like their bottom-rated wireless service, cannot handle their customers’ broadband needs.  The company proved that today by having to introduce a broadband rationing scheme, limiting customer usage.  Despite being America’s largest telephone company ISP, AT&T apparently cannot handle the traffic, telling DSL customers to lay off after 150GB and their “advanced” U-verse network customers to get offline after 250GB of use.  Evidently the company isn’t willing to invest some of their enormous profits to provide an ongoing level of broadband service their customers deserve to get, especially when compared with their closest cousin: Verizon.

“While Verizon is installing fiber optics to many of their customers’ homes and providing unlimited, blazing fast Internet service, AT&T admits through their own actions their network isn’t good enough to provide that same level of service to their customers — so now they are limiting the use of it,” says Phillip Dampier, editor at consumer group Stop the Cap! “If I was an AT&T customer, I’d shop around for an alternative provider that has a network robust enough to actually deliver the service customers pay good money to receive.”

AT&T’s U-verse service was touted to customers as delivering a next generation of broadband and television service that could provide healthy competition to cable television.

“AT&T wants U-verse to compete with the big cable companies, but usage caps tell us they can’t manage to do that,” Dampier says. “If their network is so great, why do they need to slap limits on customers?”

AT&T’s representatives claim the limits are intended to reduce congestion from a handful of heavy users, a claim that does not make sense to Stop the Cap!

“AT&T’s existing terms and conditions allow them to deal with any customers who create problems for other users on their network,” Dampier said. “Instead of expanding capacity or dealing with the so-called ‘handful’ of troublesome users, they have slapped an Internet Overcharging scheme on all of their customers.”

Stop the Cap! points out the irony AT&T has plenty of capacity for hundreds of television channels, but doesn’t have enough capacity to provide a worry-free High Speed Internet experience.

“AT&T’s U-verse has no problems finding space for more shopping channels, foreign language networks, and niche channels, but can’t find their way clear to leave customers’ unlimited Internet accounts alone,” Dampier adds.  “Their priorities are all wrong — giving you channels you didn’t ask for while taking away the service you do want.”

One of America’s largest midwestern cities is being victimized by not one, but two major Internet Service Providers with Internet Overcharging schemes that will limit broadband use by customers.

Charter Communications, which calls St. Louis home, delivers cable service to much of the city, and has lightly enforced arbitrary usage limits on its cable broadband customers since last November.  AT&T, the major telephone provider, plans to limit its DSL and U-verse customers starting in early May.

“Now we get to choose between Charter’s usage cap or AT&T’s,” says Reginald, a Stop the Cap! reader in St. Louis.  “As usual, AT&T is always the bigger ripoff — this company hasn’t done one consumer-friendly thing in at least a decade.”

Reginald is currently a U-verse customer who fled Charter around the time the cable company went bankrupt.

“Charter was, is, and will always be abysmal in providing good service and accurate bills, and I was not about to pay for their business mistakes,” Reginald writes.  “When U-verse became available I told AT&T I was signing up because they were offering unlimited use plans and Charter was playing games with their usage cap.”

When AT&T’s cap is in place, St. Louis residents will get to choose between the lesser of two evils:

Usage Limits

• AT&T DSL Customers:  150GB per month
• AT&T U-verse Customers:  250GB per month
• Charter Lite/Express: 100GB per month
• Charter Plus/Max: 250GB per month
• Charter Ultra 60: 500GB per month

AT&T will deliver three warnings and then a higher bill — $10 for each 50GB of “excess usage.”  Charter sends out occasional warnings, then reserves the right to terminate your service.

“It stinks, and if I had my way I would not do business with any provider who has a usage cap,” Reginald says.  “I would rather pay a few dollars more a month and not have to worry, and I can’t imagine I’ve ever used over 100GB in a month.”

Jess, another St. Louis resident, pulls the plug on AT&T U-verse May 2nd.

“I almost wanted them to charge me an early cancellation fee so I could pound them with their sudden change of terms,” Jess says.  “I am switching back to Charter on May 2nd, the day AT&T starts their crap.  AT&T acted all surprised about why I would possibly ever not do business with them over this issue.”

Jess says she would rather deal with warning letters from Charter than a higher AT&T bill.

“Every penny more AT&T gets from us goes right into their lobbying to screw consumers more, and here are the results for everyone to see,” Jess says.  “If Charter wants to pull their games with me and my family, the next step is to declare war on the politicians who let this stuff happen.”

Bill says AT&T offered him a discount to stay with the company — he is canceling his U-Verse service May 1st.  But he refused, telling AT&T he will not do business with a company that engages in Internet Overcharging.

“I’m not too worried about Charter,” Bill writes Stop the Cap! “If they try and threaten me, I’ll let them cut me off and then we’ll sign up under my wife’s name, and bounce from account to account.”

Your money = Their Money

For all three of our readers, none of whom claim they will exceed the allowance, it’s a matter of principle.

Reginald, Jess, and Bill all feel strongly usage caps and overlimit fees are unjustified, and are more about protecting video packages than “unclogging” providers’ networks.

Bob Zimmermann, an AT&T customer in Richmond Heights, tells the Post-Dispatch he doesn’t like the new limit either. He watches an occasional Internet movie, and sometimes downloads video to his iPad. He doubts he’ll exceed the cap, but he doesn’t want to worry about it.

He is shopping for alternatives.

“I’ll see if I can negotiate a better deal,” he told the newspaper.

Jess wishes him luck finding someone else in St. Louis.  She suggests customers like Zimmermann play AT&T and Charter off each other to get a lower bill, at least temporarily.

“What is most important right now is to tell AT&T you are leaving them because they are abusive, and then sign up with a new customer discount with Charter,” Jess suggests.  “Then if and when Charter cuts you off, go back to AT&T and see if you can get them to waive any fees after the third warning or else you are switching back to Charter.”

Another alternative is to sign up for Charter’s business service, which has no usage cap, but comes at a significantly higher price than residential service.  Their starter package includes unlimited Internet at 16/2Mbps speeds, a domain name, and a business phone line with unlimited long distance and calling features.  It runs a steep $120 a month.

“If Charter didn’t offer a 500GB allowance on their 60Mbps tier, I might consider a business package if I used my connection a lot,” admits Bill.  “Isn’t it ridiculous when someone wants to sell you a super fast package you cannot really use because of usage limits?”

Bill partly blames the state legislature for letting AT&T get abusive with customers.

“AT&T shows up with a lot of cash to dole out in the Missouri legislature and in return they get to abuse customers,” Bill notes.  “You notice Verizon cannot get away with this in the more consumer-protection-friendly northeast.”

Jess says the whole thing is a mess.

“It really shows how the midwest is getting screwed once again — this time for Internet access,” she notes. “There is no Verizon fiber here, and even Google showing up in Kansas City won’t be enough to shame the likes of AT&T.”