Rogers Cable lets their customers purchase this cable box outright to avoid rental charges.

Stephen Simonin first came to our attention in January 2010 when he proposed charging cable operators room and board for their expensive cable set top boxes they require subscribers to rent.  Now, the chairman of the Litchfield (Conn.) Cable Advisory Council is back with another salvo — demanding an end to mandatory rental charges for cable TV equipment and access to competing providers:

The biggest industry in the US that has money for jobs is the entertainment industry. Federal law requires Cable to carry local broadcast and public channels in the clear for all. If we contact our Federal representatives and ask them to add: “Must carry adjacent competitors programming” We would add a million USA jobs immediately. Paid for by corporate cable and NOT tax dollars!

Cable has forced all of us to RENT cable boxes. We are not allowed to buy them because this is guaranteed free revenue forever for them. A box costs less than $100 and we pay nearly $10 a month for rental and power each month. Cablevision makes over $1,000,000,000 a year on set top box rentals alone. This is only one company! They have compressed TV to less than 20% of the transport. They use the other 80% for business and not covered under TV franchise (Wi-Fi, data, phone business). However, they use the TV franchise for this monopoly access to our front doors.

Adding this must carry clause will allow up to 5 different cable providers at our front doors for lower costs, higher quality and real competition. Cable will not want to give up that fat 80% business revenue they have today and will need to add a new fiber/co-ax transport across the country on their nickel! Think how many local jobs $1,000,000,000 can pay for. Now remember that we have several cable companies here in CT!

These are American jobs! Please help us get this passed! Call our Federal Congressman and Senators today. Remind them of the details I have sent them on behalf of the People.

Simonin’s proposal, sent to Stop the Cap!, enjoys some precedent… in Canada.

Sky Angel, a Christian television distributor, abandoned satellite in favor of IPTV several years ago. Their subscribers watch Sky Angel's channel lineup over a broadband connection.

Consumers there can purchase cable boxes in stores like Best Buy ranging from $80 for a refurbished unit that works with Shaw Cable to $500 for a cable box with DVR designed for Rogers Cable customers.  Buying your own box puts an end to rental fees, often $7+ per month, which never stop, even after the box is effectively paid for in full.  But for those seeking a built-in DVR, the initial price tag is on the steep side.  The practice of buying boxes has also generated some surprising competition between Rogers and itself.  When customers call to inquire about new service, Rogers often includes discounts including free box rentals, making it unnecessary to purchase the box at all (as long as you remember to re-negotiate an extension of the promotion when it ends).  That’s a savings of nearly $100 a year for some customers.  Buying DVR equipment guaranteed to work with your current provider also makes it easy to upgrade the device with larger capacity hard drives that can store more programming.  Since the failure point for most DVR’s is the hard drive, occasional replacements and upgrades can keep a box running for years.  Many pay providers in the United States charge higher rental prices for higher capacity equipment, with no option to buy.

Simonin’s proposal to open up cable networks to other providers is more novel, and probably a lawyer’s dream come true for the endless litigation it offers.  It’s highly unlikely the courts will side with the notion of forcing cable operators to open their infrastructure to competing providers, and considering the amount of informal collusion between companies today, it’s probably not going to deliver much savings.

A bigger hope on the horizon is the ongoing march to IPTV — television programming delivered using Internet technology.  With strong Net Neutrality policies in place (and a strong position against Internet Overcharging with usage caps or usage-based billing), dozens of new virtual “cable companies” could be launched, delivering their lineups over the Internet, direct to computer and television screens.  That could deliver consumers an endless choice of providers, assuming regulatory oversight is in place to make sure programming is available to all at fair and reasonable prices and that broadband providers are not allowed to block or impede access to the offerings that result.

It’s much easier to do an end run around Big Cable than trying to find a way to get them to change their business plans.

After nearly a half-million Canadians expressed outrage about Bell’s Internet Overcharging practices, the company is responding.  This week, Bell sent a letter to their wholesale customers announcing it plans to end the practice of speed throttling peer-to-peer file traffic (at least for them):

Effective November 2011, new links implemented by Bell to augment our DSL network may not be subject to Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMP).  ITMPs were introduced in March, 2008 to address congestion on the network due to the increased use of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications during peak periods. While congestion still exists, the impact of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications on congestion has reduced. Furthermore, as we continue to groom and build out our network, customers may be migrated to network facilities where Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMPs) will not be applied.

Peer-to-peer traffic, once all the rage for swapping music, movies, and software (legally or otherwise), has been declining as a percentage of Internet traffic and legal online entertainment services (Netflix, et al.) have become available.  Copyright crackdowns and usage caps manage to further restrict customers from leaving P2P software running continuously as it can rapidly eat into usage allowances.

With increased capacity of Bell’s networks and decreased interest in file swapping software among customers, the practice of throttling such traffic (along with the unintended collateral damage to online gaming), means such network management practices have outlived their usefulness.

Providers these days are far more likely to blame online video for congested networks.  But once providers attach a speed throttle to an application, it can be difficult to remove.  Even as Bell announced it would no longer throttle their wholesale clients, retail customers will still suffer with reduced speeds during “peak usage times” — 4:30pm-2am local time.

Michael Geist, who covers Canadian broadband issues, wonders if Bell’s throttles are actually in violation of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s traffic management guidelines:

While Bell says its congestion has been reduced, its retail throttling practices have remained unchanged, throttling P2P applications from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am.  Given the decline in congestion, a CRTC complaint might ask whether the current throttling policy “results in discrimination or preference as little as reasonably possible” and ask for explanation why its data cap policies “would not reasonably address the need and effectively achieve the same purpose as the ITMP.”  In fact, the same can now be said for many other ISPs who deploy broad based throttling practices (Rogers, Cogeco), which may not be reasonable under the CRTC policy.

Cogeco customers in the Niagara Region watching their neighbors further north in Hamilton and Toronto enjoy faster broadband service can finally obtain faster Internet access from incumbent cable provider Cogeco, who this week unveiled three new faster speed packages in Niagara Falls and St. Catherines.

Cogeco’s Turbo 20, Ultimate 30 and Ultimate 50 High Speed Internet packages are all powered by DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which allow cable operators to bond multiple “channels” together to deliver faster Internet speeds.

Unfortunately, while download speeds of up to 50Mbps can be enticing, Cogeco’s upload speeds, even on their DOCSIS 3 network, are downright stingy.  Thanks to Cogeco’s relentless Internet Overcharging schemes, so are the usage caps.  The Turbo 20 package tops out at 20/1.5Mbps and offers only 80GB of included traffic.  After that, pony up $1.50/GB, up to a maximum of $50 in overlimit penalties.

The Ultimate 30 package includes 30/2Mbps with 175GB of data transfer capacity.  The Ultimate 50 pack delivers 50/2Mbps service with a 250GB cap.  But customers entranced with the extra speed should watch their wallets.  Cogeco’s overlimit fee is $1/GB on these packages with no maximum limit on those charges.

At least Cogeco is satisfied with their newest offer.

“We always strive to offer our customers more flexibility, speed and choices. Today, the whole family can use the Internet at the same time for online banking, video gaming, shopping or for downloading videos or films, and all with the same service. Cogeco’s HSI packages Turbo 20, Ultimate 30 and Ultimate 50 meet those needs perfectly,” said Ron Perrotta, vice president, Marketing and Strategic Planning.

The new Turbo 20 package is currently on promotion and offered for $44.95 per month for 12 months for customers who also subscribe to Cogeco’s Television and/or Home phone services, and for $54.95 per month for 12 months for those who only want to subscribe to the High Speed Internet service. Turbo 20’s regular price is $49.95 if bundled with other Cogeco services and $59.95 on a standalone basis.

For customers who subscribe to more than one Cogeco service, Ultimate 30 is offered for $59.95 per month and Ultimate 50, for $99.95 per month. Ultimate 30 and Ultimate 50 are also available on a standalone basis for $69.95 and $109.95 respectively.

Bell’s Fibe customers in Ontario noticed something unusual in the company’s latest newspaper ads luring potential new signups for the company’s fiber-to-the-neighborhood service.

Subscribe to Bell Fibe™ Internet and get way more than the cable company for a lot less.

Get super-fast download speeds of up to 25 Mbps – more than double the 12 Mbps on cable.
Watch way more stuff online with 125 GB of usage – more than double the 60 GB on cable.
Plus, share pics and videos more than 12x faster than cable, with upload speeds of up to 7 Mbps.
All this for less than the regular rate you’re paying with cable’s 12 Mbps service.¹

See full offer details.¹²

Offer ends October 31, 2011. Available to residential customers in select areas of Rogers’ footprint in Ontario where technology permits. Modem rental required; one-time modem rental fee waived for new customers. Usage 125 GB/month; $1.00/additional GB. Subject to change without notice and not combinable with any other offers. Taxes extra. Other conditions apply.

¹Current as of Sept 29, 2011. Based on customer’s subscription to Rogers’ Express Internet package at the regular rate of $46.99/mo., prior to August 4, 2011.

²Available to new customers who subscribe to Fibe 25 Internet and at least one other select service in the Bundle; see bell.ca/bellbundle. Promotional $33.48 monthly price: $76.95 monthly price, less the $5 Bundle discount, less the monthly credit of $38.47 applicable for months 1-12. Total monthly price after 12 months is $71.95 in the Bundle.

75GB for existing customers, 125GB for new ones.

Setting aside the fact Bell’s package costs $71.95 a month after the first year, compared with Rogers’ regular everyday price of $46.99, existing customers were surprised to learn Bell’s usage cap for new customers (located in select areas of Rogers’ competing footprint in Ontario) was 125GB per month.  That stood out, because existing customers currently live with a monthly cap of just 75GB per month.

That means new Bell customers, who happen to also have the choice of being served by Rogers Cable, evidently have a considerably less “congested” network that allows a more generous 125GB usage cap over nearby neighborhoods not served by Rogers, where things must be “much worse” to justify the current usage limit of 75GB per month.

Customers call it another example of providers subjectively setting usage limits not according to technical need, but competitive reality.

“If having separate rates by province wasn’t enough, now we have different rates based on the neighborhood,” shared one Toronto Bell customer. “I will need to call them to adjust this.”

Bell’s website provides conflicting information to existing customers over exactly what their usage cap is.  Despite the advertised 125GB cap promoted online, many existing customers are still finding 75GB to be their monthly limit.  Customers are getting some satisfaction calling Bell and threatening to cancel service over the discrepancy.  Don’t bother with the regular customer service representatives — readers report they can do nothing for you.  Instead, tell Bell you are canceling service, get transferred to the Customer Retentions Department, and then tell them you will stay if you get the new customer promotion that comes with the 125GB usage cap.  If you ask, Bell will often configure your account with the promotion noted above, which comes with the automatically more generous usage cap.

Stop the Cap! has always believed usage caps have nothing to do with the network congestion and “fair use” excuses providers like Bell have repeatedly argued.  They exist because market forces allow them to, and when competitors arrive with more generous allowances (or none at all), incumbent providers suddenly find enough capacity to be more generous with their customers.  At least some of them.

Fiber optic cable spool

For the most populated provinces in Canada, questions about when fiber-to-the-home service will become a reality are easy to answer:  Never, indefinitely.

Some of Canada’s largest telecommunications providers have their minds made up — fiber isn’t for consumers, it’s for their backbone and business networks.  For citizens of Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver coping with bandwidth shortages, providers have a much better answer: pay more, use less Internet.

Fiber broadband projects in Canada are hard to find, because providers refuse to invest in broadband upgrades to deliver the kinds of speeds and capacity Canadians increasingly demand.  Instead, companies like Bell, Shaw, and Rogers continue to hand out pithy upload speeds, throttled downloads, and often stingy usage caps.  Much of the country still relies on basic DSL service from Bell or Telus, and the most-promoted broadband expansion project in the country — Bell’s Fibe, is phoney baloney because it relies on existing copper telephone wires to deliver the last mile of service to customers.

Much like in the United States, the move to replace outdated copper phone lines and coaxial cable in favor of near-limitless capacity fiber remains stalled in most areas.  The reasons are simple: lack of competition to drive providers to invest in upgrades and the unwillingness to spend $1000 per home to install fiber when a 100GB usage cap and slower speeds will suffice.

The Toronto Globe & Mail reports that while 30-50 percent of homes in South Korea and Japan have fiber broadband, only 18 percent of Americans and less than 2 percent of Canadians have access to the networks that routinely deliver 100Mbps affordable broadband without rationed broadband usage plans.

In fact, the biggest fiber projects underway in Canada are being built in unexpected places that run contrary to the conventional wisdom that suggest fiber installs only make sense in large, population-dense, urban areas.

Manitoba’s MTS plans to spend $125-million over the next five years to launch its fiber to the home service, FiON.  By the end of 2015, MTS expects to deploy fiber to about 120,000 homes in close to 20 Manitoba communities.  In Saskatchewan, SaskTel is investing $199 million in its network in 2011 and approximately $670 million in a seven-year Next Generation Broadband Access Program (2011 – 2017). This program will deploy Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) and upgrade the broadband network in the nine largest urban centers in the province – Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, Estevan, Swift Current, Yorkton, North Battleford and Prince Albert.

“Saskatchewan continues to be a growing and dynamic place,” Minister responsible for SaskTel Bill Boyd said. “The deployment of FTTP will create the bandwidth capacity to allow SaskTel to deploy exciting new next generation technologies to better serve the people of Saskatchewan.”

But the largest fiber project of all will serve the unlikely provinces of Atlantic Canada, among the most economically challenged in the country.  Bell Aliant is targeting its FibreOP fiber to the home network to over 600,000 homes by the end of next year.  On that network, Bell Aliant plans to sell speeds up to 170/30Mbps to start.

In comparison, residents in larger provinces are making due with 3-10Mbps DSL service from Bell or Telus, or expensive usage-limited, speed-throttled cable broadband service from companies like Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron.

Bell Canada is trying to convince its customers it has the fiber optic network they want.  Its Fibe Internet service sure sounds like fiber, but the product fails truth-in-advertising because it isn’t an all-fiber-network at all. It’s similar to AT&T’s U-verse — relying on fiber to the neighborhood, using existing copper phone wires to finish the job.  Technically, that isn’t much different from today’s cable systems, which also use fiber to reach into individual neighborhoods.  Traditional coaxial cable handles the signal for the rest of the journey into subscriber homes.

A half-fiber network can do better than none at all.  In Ontario, Bell sells Fibe Internet packages at speeds up to 25Mbps, but even those speeds cannot compare to what true fiber networks can deliver.

Globe & Mail readers seemed to understand today’s broadband realities in the barely competitive broadband market. One reader’s take:

“The problem in Canada (and elsewhere) preventing wide scale deployment of FTTH isn’t the technology, nor the cost. It’s a lack of political vision and will, coupled with incumbent service providers doing whatever they can to hold on to a dysfunctional model that serves their interests at the expense of consumers.”

Another:

“The problem with incumbents is they only think in 2-3 year terms. If they can’t make their money back in that period of time, they’re not interested. Thinking 20, heck even 10 years ahead is not in their vocabulary.”