A firestorm erupted this week on Broadband Reports over news that Shaw Cable was turning its existing “soft” Internet Overcharging scheme into a “hard” system filled with usage limits and overlimit fees.  One of Shaw’s social media representatives tried to throw some water on the fire:

I’ve seen a lot of discussion here about the new policy, and quite a bit of inaccurate or incomplete information and speculation, so I’d just like to set all of this straight.

Essentially, the system works like this: your package includes an allowance for a certain amount of traffic. If you exceed that traffic for one billing cycle, you will receive a notice on your bill advising you of the fact. We also automatically activate your traffic monitor so that you can monitor your usage from that time forward.

Since the bill arrives, of necessity, after your billing cycle ends, we give you a cycle’s grace between the period when you exceeded and when we start charging. That is to say that if you exceed in billing cycle one, you’ll receive your bill part of the way through billing cycle two, and so we won’t start charging for excess traffic until billing cycle three.

As to how much bandwidth will cost, here’s how it works:

If you exceed your monthly traffic allowance, you’ll receive a bill for $1 per GB for Extreme and above, $2 per GB for High Speed and High Speed Lite. Considering how much media, etc, you can obtain in 1 GB, $1 is not expensive.

However, if you plan to exceed by a considerable margin, data packs are also available, and what these do is allow you to increase the traffic allowance by the following amounts:

• $5 for 10 GB
• $20 for 60 GB
• $50 for 250 GB

So this gives you the option to increase your monthly traffic allowance to meet your needs. It’s also considerably less expensive than the standard $1-$2 per GB rate.

The best part about the data packs is that you can apply them at any time up to three days before the end of your billing cycle. So if you discover that you’ve exceeded your included usage allowance, and still have three days to the end of the billing cycle, just give us a call (or chat) and ask that we add the appropriate data pack for you.

[…]I’ve seen some posts here suggesting that this new policy has been financially motivated to avoid upgrading our networks. That’s actually not the case. In fact, just a few weeks ago we increased the included usage for all of our services by 25%, just in time for NetFlix. If you want to think about it in financial terms, just consider how much more bandwidth the network would need to allow a 25% increase for every customer, and how much that kind of network upgrade would cost. It’s pretty clear that our motives are not financial. If they were, increasing the included usage would not be very sensible, would it? It would, after all, considerably reduce the number of customers exceeding their monthly traffic allowance, would it not?

I hope that this clarifies the situation, but if there are any questions, please do feel free to ask.

James – Shaw

Shaw tinkers with their Internet Overcharging scheme

In part, this rebuttal was also directed to Stop the Cap!, because we are actively participating in that discussion.  Shaw’s argument about usage limits and how the company’s implementation of them benefits their customers is familiar to many of our readers who fought off usage caps proposed by Time Warner Cable last year.  Somehow, the same company that sets unjustified limits and penalty prices on already-overpriced broadband service is doing customers a real favor by offering alternative pricing plans for heavier users that reduces war-crime profiteering to pickpocketing.

That’s logic Stalin might have appreciated, but most customers already burdened with high cable and broadband bills won’t.

Our response:

Don’t you just love it when Internet Overchargers always claim their new gotcha fees are never about the money?

“James” from Shaw offers a classic example of what happens when your broadband provider implements a scheme to boost your broadband bill and then claims it’s good news that the company has some options to keep those overlimit fees from stinging too badly.

When Internet Overchargers tell you it’s not about the money, it’s really ALL about the money.

Here's what happens when a third provider ruins a Canadian broadband duopoly

Who knew that an invisible border that makes unlimited Internet possible in Vancouver, Washington makes it impossible in Vancouver, B.C. Using Shaw’s argument, providers south of the border are headed straight for bankruptcy court while companies like Shaw barely hold on with “free usage upgrades” of existing limits.

But of course the financial reports for shareholders Shaw’s social media mavens don’t talk about tell the real story. Shaw enjoys considerable revenue from their broadband division thank you very much, and plans to do even better now that they can achieve ‘revenue enhancers’ from their enforced Internet Overcharging schemes.

That’s another way of saying Shaw’s Wallet Biters are back for more of YOUR money.

Whether it’s 20 cents per gigabyte (at least a 100 percent markup) or $2 (rape and pillage pricing), these schemes are hardly good news for Shaw customers. Indeed, if Shaw was truly concerned about saving their customers something under their cap ‘n tier regime, they’d deliver those “usage paks” to customers automatically instead of forcing them to call the company to add them when they go over the limit. If you remember to ask, Shaw gets extra profits they can take to the bank. If you forget, Shaw throws a Money Party on the extra high everyday overlimit rates.

What Shaw forgets to tell you is the cost to deliver increased usage and bandwidth to customers is ALWAYS dropping, and dropping fast. The price charged to move 10GB of traffic not too long ago moves 100GB today. So it’s hardly rough on Shaw to expand yesterday’s unjustified limit to today’s higher, still unjustified limit.

When one also considers yesterday’s “soft cap” is about to become tomorrow’s budget-busting “hard cap,” few Shaw customers are calling 1-800-FLOWERS to send a thank-you bouquet to Calgary.

Having been to Calgary, I know the people in Alberta and elsewhere across western Canada know a ripoff when they see one. They ask, “why is our broadband so overpriced and usage limited?” They wonder where the CRTC has been. They wonder why countries in Asia and even eastern Europe are now beating the pants off Canadian broadband with faster speeds at lower prices.

The fact is, Shaw pulls these overcharging tricks on their customers because they can. The broadband duopoly in Canada from cable and phone companies deliver punishing usage limits on Canada that are being banished in other countries around the world. Even notorious cappers like Australia and New Zealand are finally ridding themselves of broadband that is always capped, always throttled.

What would be sensible is that Shaw, a multi-billion dollar major player in Canada would plow some of their enormous profits into network capacity upgrades that can accommodate the needs of Canada’s growing knowledge economy, not inhibit its growth. Then, earn additional profits by selling even faster speed tiers and content customers can access over those networks.

Considering even Shaw admits only a small percentage of customers create traffic problem on their networks, it’s not hard to see the company’s new reliance on hard Internet Overcharging is designed to capture new revenue from those hitting their caps, thanks to the increasing number of broadband customers using their fast connections for high bandwidth content.

And hey — bonus: it also discourages those customers from even considering pulling the plug on their cable package to watch everything online.

Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, shows off the company's growing reliance on broadband streaming, moving away from its original DVD-by-mail rental business.

Last week, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings was showered with questions from Wall Street during the company’s third quarter-results conference call.  At the top of the agenda — the company’s shifting business model away from DVD rentals-by-mail gradually towards instant on-demand streaming over broadband networks.

At issue is how Netflix can survive a broadband industry that controls the pipeline Netflix increasingly depends on for its continued existence.

Hastings tried to assuage his cable competitors by telling investors the company is hardly a threat to cable-owned movie channels and basic cable.  But he admits ultimately the company will be in a real mess if Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles limit the amount of content customers can affordably access:

“We have some vulnerability depending on capped usage and what happens. Comcast has a cap, but it’s 250 gigabytes and so most users feel that they have an unlimited experience, and it gives us plenty of room to deliver a high-def stream. On the other hand, AT&T Mobile data on an iPad is now capped at two gigabytes, [and that’s] not enough room to deliver hours and hours of high-def.  We are definitely sensitive [to the issue] in the long term [whether] the industry ends up at 250 gigabytes or two at the other extreme.”

There is some limited evidence Netflix’s success in Canada is already being tempered by usage limits near-universally imposed in the country.  Rogers, a major cable company in eastern Canada, even reduced usage caps for certain tiers of service around the same time Netflix announced its imminent arrival north of the border.

Barry McCarthy, Chief Financial Officer notes fewer Canadians are converting their free trials of Netflix’s streaming service into paid subscriptions.

“We anticipate we are seeing slightly lower conversion rates in Canada than we see in the U.S.,” McCarthy told investors.

As Netflix moves towards higher quality video streams, the amount of data consumed increases as well.  In Canada, that eats into broadband usage allowances, and fast. As soon as customers start receiving warnings they are nearing their monthly usage limit, or receive a broadband bill with overlimit fees, Netflix is likely to lose that customer.

Cable and phone companies in Canada are already warning customers that online video is a major culprit of exhausted usage allowances.  Both are also happy to remind their customers they are happy to sell them access to unlimited video — through cable or telco TV subscriptions.  Rogers owns a major chain of video rental stores as well.

What can Netflix do about usage capped broadband?  Not much, admits Hastings.

“There is a not a lot of improvement in compression techniques. But what we can do is just deliver a lower bit stream, a lower quality video experience. So, for example, not too high-def. So, that’s one possible way to partially mitigate that impact,” Hastings said.

Netflix will soon face increasing competition, especially from the cable industry’s TV Everywhere projects, and they won’t deliver a lower quality video experience.

Time Warner Cable and Comcast this month both formally introduced their respective video on demand services.

Comcast’s Xfinity online service arrives after months of beta testing.   Comcast customers can watch video selections from nearly 90 movie and television partners, including programming from HBO, Viacom, and Paramount.  Ultimately, the online video service is expected to deliver access to dozens of cable channels and individual programs from studios and networks at no charge to those who subscribe to a cable television package.

Time Warner Cable took a more modest approach last week by introducing ESPN Networks to its cable subscribers who register with the cable company’s MyServices website.  The new customer portal allows subscribers to review and pay their cable bill, add new services (but not cancel existing ones), remotely program DVR boxes, and also verifies subscriber status for future cable subscriber-only online video programming.

Netflix may soon find itself at the mercy of the cable and telephone companies which deliver broadband access to the majority of Americans.  Not only is it difficult to convince customers to pay a monthly fee for programming the cable industry may eventually give away for free, it may be downright impossible for Netflix to survive if those providers decide to squeeze the customer’s pipeline to unlimited Netflix content.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast Xfinity Ad Spot 10-2010.flv[/flv]

Comcast Ad Introducing Xfinity Online.  (1 minute)

Telephone companies will lose up to half of their broadband market share if they insist on sticking with DSL technology to deliver Internet access, according to a new report from Credit Suisse analyst Stefan Anninger.

Anninger predicts DSL will increasingly be seen as the “dial-up” service of the 2010s, as demand for more broadband speed moves beyond what most phone companies are willing or able to provide.  Credit Suisse’s analysis says DSL accounts sold in the United States top out at an average speed of just 4Mbps, while consumers are increasingly seeking out service at speeds of at least 7Mbps.  The higher speeds are necessary to support high quality online video and the ability for multiple users in a household to share a connection without encountering speed slowdowns.

A lack of investment by landline providers to keep up with cable broadband speeds will prove costly to phone companies, according to Anninger. He believes a growing number of Americans understand cable and fiber-based broadband deliver the highest speeds, and consumers are increasingly dropping DSL for cable and fiber competitors.  Any investments now may be a case of “too little, too late,” especially if they only incrementally improve DSL speeds.

Anninger says providers may be able to offer up to 18Mbps in five years by deploying ADSL 2+ or VDSL technology, but by that time cable operators will be providing speeds up to 200Mbps, and many municipal providers will have gigabit speeds available.

The impact on phone company broadband market share will prove bleak for phone companies in all but the most rural areas, Anninger predicts.  He says by 2015, cable companies will have secured 56 percent of the market (up by 2 percent from today), phone companies will drop from 30 percent to just 15 percent, Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-verse, and wireless broadband will each control around 7 percent of the market, with the remainder split among municipal fiber, satellite, and other technologies.

Anninger is also pessimistic about wireless broadband being a wired broadband replacement in the next five years.

A Credit Suisse online survey of 1,000 consumers in August found that less than half would consider going wireless only.  The reasons?  It’s too slow, too expensive and most plans have Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles.

Although cable companies are on track to be the big winners in broadband market share, still have one giant hurdle to overcome — a lousy image.  Just 36 percent of cable customers say they are “very satisfied” with their local provider.  More than 60% of FiOS and U-verse’s broadband customers said they are “very satisfied” with the services these advanced telephone company networks provide.  Consumer Reports has regularly awarded top honors to Verizon FiOS for the last several years.

Independent phone companies and smaller cable operators routinely score at the bottom, typically because they are relying on outdated technology to supply service.

This makes the marketplace ripe for disaffected consumers to jump to an alternative provider.  Unfortunately, as most Americans face a duopoly of the cable company they hate and the phone company that doesn’t deliver the services they want, there is no place for them to go.

Anninger also predicts the risk of broadband reform by reclassifying broadband under Title II at the Federal Communications Commission is now “minimal.”  That suggests Net Neutrality enforcement at the FCC is not a priority.  The Credit Suisse analyst says if action hasn’t been taken by winter or spring of next year, it’s a safe bet the Commission will never re-assert its authority.

"DVD's are so five years ago!"

Netflix, which has seen its Canadian streaming-only video service welcomed with usage cap reductions by Rogers Cable, has finally started to wake up to the threat its online video business model is one speed throttle or usage cap away from oblivion.

As the video rental company now contemplates launching a streaming-only version of its service in the United States, it has now firmly waded into the Net Neutrality debate.  In a filing earlier this month, Netflix impressed upon the Federal Communications Commission the importance of prohibiting providers from establishing blockades to keep its competing video service from threatening cable-TV revenue:

“The Commission must assure that specialized services do not, in effect, transform the public Internet into a private network in which access is not open but is controlled by the network operator, and innovative Internet-based enterprises are permitted effective access to their consumers only if the enterprises pay network operators unreasonable fees or are otherwise seen by such network operators as not threatening a competitive venture.”

Netflix online video packs a real wallop, as Americans embraces the service as a suitable and cheaper replacement for premium cable movie channels.

Sandvine, which pitches “network management” products to the broadband industry, reported Netflix now represents more than 20 percent of all downstream broadband traffic in the United States during peak usage times between 8-10pm.

The company’s financial results seem to affirm its growing impact as an online video entertainment player.  The Washington Post reports in the third quarter, Netflix saw a 52 percent gain in subscribers to 16.9 million. Revenue increased 31 percent to $553 million. But most interesting: 66 percent of subscribers watched more than 15 minutes of streaming video compared with 41 percent during the same period last year. The company predicted Wednesday that in the fourth quarter, a majority of Netflix subscribers would watch more content streamed from the Web on Netflix than on DVD.

That prompted CEO Reed Hastings to say Netflix should now be considered a streaming company that also offers DVD-by-mail service.

If providers launch Internet Overcharging schemes that limit broadband usage or throttle their competitors to barely usable speeds, that growth could come to an end quicker than the introduction of the next “unfair usage policy.”

Sandvine’s research confirmed something else.  As broadband speeds increase, so does usage.  In Asia where broadband speeds are dramatically higher than in the United States, Sandvine found median monthly data consumption is close to 12 gigabytes per household compared to 4 gigabytes in North America.  And Asians stay very close to their broadband connections, using them on average for almost 5.5 hours per day, compared to just three hours for North Americans.

When one considers the majority of broadband users are only starting to discover online video, those numbers are headed upwards… fast.

With continued inaction at the Federal Communications Commission, some stakeholders in the Net Neutrality debate continue to file comments with the Commission trying to find a “third way” to bring about guarantees for online free speech and access while softening opposition to “network management” technology that allows providers to manipulate broadband traffic.

Among such filers is the Communications Workers of America, which seeks a “middle-ground approach” to protecting a free and open Internet.

The CWA has always maintained its feet in two camps — with consumers looking for improved broadband and with the communications companies that employee large numbers of the union’s members, who will build out those networks and provide service.

The union shares our annoyance with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his complete inaction on broadband policy thus far.  In short, the Commission keeps stalling from taking direct action to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, restoring its ability to oversee broadband policy lost in a federal appeals court decision earlier this year.

The CWA used a piece by David Honig from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) to echo its own position:

MMTC isn’t alone in being frustrated with the FCC’s disappointing attitude toward real action this past year. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski expressed impatience with the glacial pace of policymaking at his Commission. Although he mentioned that the FCC, under his direction, has implemented some notable reforms, he conceded that “there is still a lot to do.”

Unfortunately, regardless of how earnest the Chairman is in his desire to move forward with the business of policymaking, his actions speak much louder than his words. Indeed, his yearlong pursuit of network neutrality rules — first via a traditional rulemaking proceeding and, most recently, via an effort to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service — has cast a long and almost suffocating pall over many of the items that the Chairman wishes to act upon. His inaction on civil rights issues — especially EEO enforcement — is just one example of how paralyzed the agency has become.

Recent news that Congress will not move forward to address the regulatory questions that currently vex the Commission (e.g., whether the FCC has authority to regulate broadband service providers) could embolden the Chairman to adopt the sweeping regulatory changes for broadband that he proposed earlier this year. Doing so in the absence of Congressional action would only invite immediate legal challenges that would mire the FCC in litigation, appeals, and remands for years to come.

To put it plainly, the FCC is stuck. Although it recently adopted some promising orders related to broadband (e.g., new rules for accessing new portions of wireless spectrum called “white spaces” and for enhancing access in schools and libraries), the Commission has failed to move forward with implementing core provisions of its monumental National Broadband Plan.

The union last week also submitted its latest round of comments requested by the Commission, this time to broaden its position on a proposed compromise.  We’ve delineated which of the proposals we believe are primarily pro-consumer (in green), pro-provider (red), and which fall straight down the middle (blue):

• First, wireline broadband Internet access providers (“broadband providers”) should not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices on the Internet.
• Second, wireline and wireless broadband providers should be transparent regarding price, performance (including reporting actual speed) and network management practices.
• Third wireline broadband providers should not engage in unjust or unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic.
• Fourth, broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks through appropriate and tailored mechanisms, recognizing the technical and operational characteristics of the broadband Internet access platform.
• Fifth, the Commission should take a case-by-case adjudication approach to protect an open Internet rather than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules.

The first and third principles are strongly pro-consumer, although as we’ve seen, providers have a tendency to want to define for themselves what is “harmful,” “unjust,” or “unreasonable” and impose it on their customers.  We’ve seen provider-backed front groups argue that the concept of Net Neutrality itself is all three of these things.  Any rules must be clearly defined by the Commission, not left to open interpretation by providers.

The second principle cuts right down the middle.  Consumers deserve an honest representation of broadband speeds marketed by providers (not the usual over-optimistic speeds promised in marketing materials), and transparency in price — especially with gotchas like term contracts, early cancellation penalties, overlimit fees, etc.  But providers can also go to town with abusive network management they’ll market as advantageous and fair, even when it is neither.  Just ask customers of Clear who recently found their “unlimited” wireless broadband service, marketed as having no speed throttles, reduced in speed to barely above dial-up when they used the service “too much.”  Clear says the speed throttles are good news and represent fairness.  Customers think otherwise, and disclosure has been lacking.

The fourth and fifth principles benefit providers enormously.  Network management itself is neither benevolent or malicious.  The people who set the parameters for that management are a different story.  A traffic-agnostic engineer might use such technology to improve the quality of services like streamed video and Voice Over IP by helping to keep the packets carrying such traffic running smoothly, without noticeably reducing speeds and quality of service for other users on that network.  There is nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. There is also nothing wrong with providing on-demand speed boosts on a pay-per-use basis, so long as the network is not oversubscribed.

But since providers are spending less to upgrade their networks, providers may seek to exploit these technologies in a more malicious way — too stall needed upgrades and save money by delivering a throttled broadband experience for some or all of their customers.  If customers can be effectively punished for using high bandwidth applications, they’ll reduce their usage of them as well.  That’s good for providers but not for customers who are paying increasing broadband bills for a declining level of service.

Some examples:

• Customers using high bandwidth peer-to-peer applications can have their speeds throttled, sometimes dramatically, when using those applications;
• Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and “fair access” policies can discourage consumers from using services like online video, file transfer services, and new multimedia-rich online gaming platforms like OnLive, which can consume considerable bandwidth;
• Preferred content can be “network managed” to arrive at the fastest possible speeds, at the cost of other traffic which consequently must be reduced in speed, meaning your non-preferred traffic travels on the slow lane;
• Providers can redefine levels of broadband service based on intended use, relegating existing packages to “web browsing and e-mail” while marketing new, extra-cost add-ons for services that take the speed controls off services like file transfer and online video, or changes usage limits.

The CWA runs the Speed Matters website, promoting broadband improvements.

It is remarkable the CWA seeks to allow today’s indecisive Commission to individually adjudicate specific disputes, instead of simply laying down some clear principles that would not leave a host of loopholes open for providers to exploit.

Big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have plenty of money at their disposal to attract and influence friends in high places.  If the Commission thought Big Telecom’s friends in Congress were breathing down its neck about telecom policy now, imagine the load it will be forced to carry when these companies seek to test the Commission’s resolve.

Opponents of Net Neutrality claim broadband reclassification will leave providers saddled with Ma Bell-era regulation.  But in truth, the FCC can make their rules plain and simple.  Here are a few of our own proposals:

1. Network management must be content-agnostic.  “Preferred partner” content must travel with the same priority as “non-preferred content;”
2. Providers can use network management to ensure best possible results for customers, but not at the expense of other users with speed throttles and other overcharging schemes;
3. Providers can market and develop new products that deliver enhanced speed services on-demand, but not if those products require a reduction in the level of service provided to other customers;
4. Customers should have the right to opt out of network management or at least participate in deciding what traffic they choose to prioritize;
5. Providers may not block or impede legal content of any kind;

In short, nobody objects to providers developing innovative new applications and services, but they must be willing to commit to necessary upgrades to broaden the pipeline on which they wish to deliver these services.  Otherwise, providers will simply make room for these enhanced revenue services at your expense, by forcing a reduction in your usage or reducing the speed and quality of service to make room for their premium offerings.

The industry itself illustrates this can be done using today’s technology.

The cable industry managed to accomplish benevolent network management with products like “Speed Boost” which delivers enhanced, short bursts of speed to broadband customers based on the current demand on the network.  Those speed enhancements depend entirely on network capacity and do not harm other users’ speeds.

Groups like the CWA need to remember that compromise only works if the terms and conditions are laid out as specifically as possible.  Otherwise, the player with the deepest pockets and closest relationships in Washington will be able to define the terms of the compromise as they see fit.

And that’s no compromise at all.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Larry Cohen on the Open Internet Jobs and the Digital Divide 9-14-10.flv[/flv]

Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen outlined the union’s position on Net Neutrality before the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on Sept. 14, 2010.  (2 minutes)