Visions of higher broadband bills for consumers... complete with usage limits.

In our continuing campaign to call out shallow analysis of Internet Overcharging, we present today’s latest example from Strategy Analytics.

This group, which claims to be “a leading expert on telecommunications tariffs research and analysis” for OECD and EU operators and regulators offered this gem: (underlining ours)

As and when these caps come into force, users will doubtless complain – much as they did with mobile broadband caps. Some will worry about overage charges, while others will bemoan the fact that the caps are set so high that they are paying for bandwidth they simply won’t use (which is kind of ironic, if they have come from a world where they were paying for unlimited usage). From a provider perspective, it is very much a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The ‘trick’ for them is to strike the right balance between fairness – if you use, you pay – and simplicity/transparency, by not creating too many layers around broadband pricing.

We can probably expect to see providers follow AT&T’s lead in fixed broadband pricing. But before the critics start on the inevitable tirade against them, it is worth remembering that genuine flat rate pricing across comms services is not as prevalent as we would all like to believe – a closer look at service terms and conditions will reveal that.

The “critics” Strategy Analytics wants to lecture are consumers.

In nearly three years of covering Internet Overcharging schemes as our main focus of interest, we have never… we repeat never, heard of anyone complaining their home broadband provider delivered ‘too much’ usage allowance.  In fact, consumers who complain about broadband pricing point to relentless rate increases, particularly when they come on top of usage limits and/or speed throttles.

The only “strategy” on offer from this group is an apparent interest in raising consumer broadband bills with price tricks.  The ultimate in simplicity and transparency is today’s enormously profitable unlimited use broadband service that has raked in billions in profits for cable and phone companies.  Consumers need not think twice about every website they visit, providers don’t have to deal with billing confusion, customers are given the opportunity to buy faster speed tiers at a premium price that actually delivers value without restricted use provisions.

The group also claims unlimited broadband is not as ubiquitous as we might believe, hinting use restrictions can be found in Acceptable Use Policies.  The truth is, those restrictions which allow a provider to control traffic that proves harmful to the network (bot attacks, hacking, and viruses) or other customers (spam bombs, commercial use of residential accounts, running a server) have always been a part of Acceptable Use Policies since phone and cable companies started selling service.  Most providers responsibly enforce these provisions not as a backdoor usage cap, but to prevent activities that clearly create demonstrable problems for the provider or other customers.  Few consumers object to them.

Their bull got you right in your wallet.

The next time you hear a provider telling you usage-capped broadband is the way the rest of the world does business, understand one thing:

They are lying to you.

Stop the Cap! conducted extensive research on just what kind of broadband plans are sold around the world. We researched every member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and included several developing and non-aligned countries for good measure.

Our findings are conclusive: Unlimited broadband packages are the global norm. Some providers sell a mix of “light use” plans with usage allowances, but almost always side-by-side affordable, unlimited use options for those who want them. The only exceptions we found:

• Australia: The most common reason for usage caps comes from lack of capacity.  Countries in the South Pacific continue to experience international capacity shortages that are gradually easing with the introduction of new underseas fiber cables.  Several providers have promised to ease or eliminate caps as new capacity comes online.
• Canada: For reasons of marketplace concentration, lack of competition, and regulatory malpractice, Canadian broadband has lost its former status as a world-leader in broadband and has now become an also-ran, with almost universally usage-capped and throttled broadband from large cable and phone companies delivering expensive, comparatively slow service.
• Iceland: International capacity problems limit international broadband traffic with usage caps, but some providers offer unlimited service for domestic traffic.
• New Zealand: Just like Australia, New Zealand suffers from international capacity problems not seen in Europe, North America, or continental Asia.  Both Australia and New Zealand are using public finances to overcome broadband shortages and reduce or eliminate usage caps.

Some providers in the United States are following Canada’s lead attempting to monetize broadband traffic to maximize profits.  Some Canadian providers claim usage-based billing is necessary to finance the construction of broadband networks across the broad expanse of rural Canada.  Yet Russia, a far larger country with fewer financial resources, succeeds in delivering unlimited service where Canada fails.  Their arguments just don’t add up, and combined with the reality we present here proves providers are telling tall tales about the need for their Internet Overcharging schemes.

If Albania can deliver unlimited Internet access, why can’t your provider?

Lynch

Verizon’s ambitions to provide 285 million people with the option of ditching their cable or DSL broadband account for its new LTE/4G wireless network is a dream that will never come true with the company’s wireless Internet Overcharging schemes.  With a usage cap of 5-10GB per month and a premium price, only the most casual user is going to give up their landline cable or DSL service for Verizon’s wireless alternative.

Dick Lynch, executive vice president and chief technology officer at Verizon spoke highly of Verizon’s new next generation wireless network as a perfect platform to deliver broadband service to landline customers, including many of those the company sold off to Hawaiian Telcom, FairPoint Communications, or Frontier.

“[LTE] provides a real opportunity for the first time to give a fixed customer in a home, broadband service — wireless — but broadband service,” Lynch said. “In wireless, I see a great opportunity within the LTE plans we have to begin to service the customers who don’t have broadband today … They will be able to have mobile LTE and also to be able to have fixed broadband.”

Unfortunately, Verizon’s LTE network comes with usage limits and a premium price — $50 a month for 5GB or $80 a month for 10GB.  At those prices, rural America will have two bad choices — super slow 1-3Mbps DSL ($30-60) with allowances ranging from 100GB-unlimited or LTE’s 5-12Mbps (assuming the local cell tower is not overloaded with users) with a usage cap that guarantees online video will come at a per-view cost rivaling a matinee movie ticket.

Still, Verizon is likely to test market the service as a home broadband replacement, particularly in territories they no longer serve.  Verizon has done much the same thing pitching a home phone replacement product that works with their wireless network to residents of Rochester, N.Y., and the state of Connecticut, neither currently served with landlines from Verizon.

Despite the pricing and cap challenges, Deutsche Bank — one of the Wall Street players that follows Verizon — thinks the company’s DSL-replacement has merit, if:

1. If you are a regular traveler that needs a wireless broadband service anyway;
2. You use broadband exclusively for web browsing, e-mail, and very occasional multimedia access;
3. You are wealthy enough not to care about the overlimit penalty.

For everyone else, sticking with traditional DSL service will continue to be the most affordable option, assuming usage caps are kept at bay.  Where available, cable broadband service from companies that serve smaller communities, including Comcast Cable, Time Warner Cable, and Cablevision, among others, will probably continue to deliver the most bang for the buck in rural America.

Imagine if your electric utility billed you for service based on a meter that was developed by the company, had no third party verification, no oversight by a Bureau of Weights and Measures, and wrote provisions into the company’s terms and conditions that allowed the company to terminate your service if you complained too much about the resulting bills.

Rethink possible.  AT&T.

When America’s largest phone company implements its arbitrary and unjustified Internet Overcharging scheme this May, it will bring its controversial usage meter to bear on every one of its broadband customers — a meter implicated in wild over-measurements of customers’ broadband usage — usage that will put customers perilously close to, or over the limits AT&T wants to establish.  The result?  Fat additional profits in the form of $10 overlimit penalties for every 50GB AT&T says you consumed for broadband traffic that costs them pennies to deliver.

The broadband usage meter is no stranger to controversy and lawsuits over accuracy issues.  Despite reflexive denials that a particular provider’s usage meter couldn’t be wrong, far too many have had to backpeddle and confess that the meter that should have measured $40 in usage and resulted in $4,000 bills instead “was in error.”

Whether providers are developing meters that are just flat inaccurate or are quietly putting a virtual finger on the scale to increase the opportunity of overlimit profits is unknown, but past history shows the meters typically overmeasure usage, not undercount it.

Without independent verification and ongoing oversight, some customers wonder if AT&T is sticking a virtual finger on AT&T's usage scale.

Some recent past history:

• Telstra is Australia was implicated in December for a wireless usage meter that occasionally reported more than three times the usage measured by wireless phone owners’ built-in usage measurement tools.  Company representatives ended up crediting some customers as much as $3500AUD in inappropriate overlimit fees that should never have been charged.  Complaints continue to arrive as late as February about overbilling;
• Telecom New Zealand’s usage meter overmeasured usage this month resulting in overcharges and throttled speeds under the ISP’s “fair use policy.”  One customer was billed for 27GB of usage during one overnight period, despite the fact the computer was switched off;
• BT in the United Kingdom confirmed it overbilled some of their broadband customers in February when their usage meter measured usage for customers who had switched their computers off or took them away on holiday.  As far as BT was concerned, those computers were still at home and still racking up web usage.  Only last week, the company finally confessed their meter was inaccurate — overmeasuring usage that never happened;
• AT&T’s counterpart in Canada — Bell, cannot manage to measure customer usage correctly either, so it suspended its usage tracker tool temporarily.  In February, one customer tired of overbilling proved a point when he took his computer to the United States just to guarantee it could not go near Bell’s network.  The result?  Bell said he used 500MB anyway;
• In February, a class action lawsuit was filed against AT&T for “overmeasuring” wireless usage in some instances by up to 300 percent;
• Last fall, Verizon was forced to refund $25 million dollars for phantom data usage charges for service many customers claimed they never used.

In virtually all of the prior incidents, a common pattern emerges, usually ending when providers fall on their swords, admit error and issue refunds:

• Phase 1: Initial denials from providers there is a problem with the meter, usually blaming the customer, the customer’s measurement tool, or the process used instead;
• Phase 2: Once proven to be an issue, an effort to downplay its significance and impact with claims that only a “tiny” percentage of customers were affected;
• Phase 3: Refusal to submit usage meters, wholesale costs, and other components of Internet Overcharging to third-party verification;
• Phase 4: Refusal to allow an independent audit of customer accounts to verify overbilled customers were properly refunded every penny of excess charges;
• Phase 5: Class action lawsuit or government investigation commences;
• Phase 6: Settlement reached with refunds or low value coupons to customers who take the time to request one;
• Phase 7: Report excess profits from unclaimed refunds on balance sheet.

In too many cases, multi-billion dollar telecom companies that rely on those meters to measure and bill customers for their usage were implicated not for undermeasuring usage, but overmeasuring it — often substantially.

Some AT&T customers are already disturbed with what could be history repeating itself.  A reader of Broadband Reports in Skokie, Ill., compiled his own detailed analysis and found AT&T’s measurement tool grossly overmeasured his usage, and even worse, couldn’t do simple math and overmeasured him again when adding up his daily usage totals:

AT&T said that I had used 361GB in a single month! Surely this couldn’t be right. I’m a heavy user, but every time I even so much as glanced at my usage stats they’ve always been in the 200GB range. Surely something was amiss, so I decided to dig deeper.

It’s an old habit, but the first thing I do when I suspect something is wrong with any bill is enter all the line items into a spreadsheet and add them up myself. It sounds like busywork, but sometimes you’ll catch unlisted charges that have been phantomly added to your bill, or occasionally an outright math error. I couldn’t believe what I found. AT&T’s usage meter results insist I had used 341.39GB down, and 20.18GB up. But when I added all the daily detail entries (the DSL equivalent of a call log), only 332.8GB down and 0.72GB up are accounted for.

AT&T is claiming that I used 361.57GB of data, but according to their own daily data I only used 333.52GB, an 8.5% overcharge.

This AT&T customer discovered AT&T overmeasured his usage far more than it undercounted it. (Lines above the baseline show downstream traffic AT&T overmeasurement; lines below show undercounted usage. Click to enlarge.)

In total, this particular customer reports his usage was overmeasured by a whopping 33 percent. He is not alone.  A robust thread of similar results is active on Broadband Reports.

AT&T’s response to the early criticism follows the same path taken by other providers, starting with denials.

“We’re addressing ways we can make the labels and information on the online metering tool more clear for customers between now and May (when the new policy goes into effect),” said AT&T spokesperson Seth Bloom.  “I can also assure you our team is performing checks everyday to ensure accuracy.  That said, we believe we have an accurate tool.”

“Other tools may measure at different 24-hour periods than we do, and most likely do not take into account the standard network protocols (e.g. Ethernet, IP) that are used to provide applications and content to our customers via the Internet.  As you know, this is fairly standard to incorporate when measuring broadband traffic and is applied by other ISPs who measure usage.”

Customers and columnists alike are worried about AT&T's new data limits. This Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel columnist is not thrilled, and neither are customers who overwhelmingly want unlimited broadband access.

“In the end, AT&T expects the caps to impact only the aforementioned 2% [that comprise its heaviest users].”

With the right level of over-measurement, virtually anyone can be a member of the “2% Club.”  One customer told Connected Planet AT&T was already overmeasuring her DSL account by as much as 4,700%.

How can you measure your usage to compare against AT&T?

“It’s not hard to maintain independent usage statistics to double-check AT&T’s numbers,” says the Broadband Reports reader in Skokie. “If you have a DD-WRT compatible router, it will keep your upload and download history automatically. If you don’t have a compatible router, you can still run WallWatcher or MRTG to get the total bandwidth used by your router. Finally, if your computer is connected directly to your DSL modem without a router, you can run software like Net Meter to track your internet usage.”

Customers inconvenienced by unnecessary usage meters which threaten to expose them to unjustified overlimit fees is just one more reason why we call out these Internet Overcharging schemes.  Call AT&T and let customer service know you intend to switch providers if AT&T implements their usage cap scheme in early May.  Tell them regardless of what kind of usage you incur each month, you cannot afford the chance AT&T’s apparently inaccurate usage meter could expose you to a higher bill.  Tell them you don’t want the hassle, and the only way you will remain as a customer is if they do away with the entire scheme.

Netflix continues to get a lesson on broadband economics from the Internet Service Providers out to scare their customers away from spending too much time watching the company’s online streaming service.  As some Canadian ISPs lowered usage caps in response to Netflix’s imminent arrival, the video streaming service just announced it was letting customers turn down the bit rate of online videos to conserve their monthly usage allowance.

Neil Hunt, Netflix Chief Product Officer, told customers about the bit rate reduction in a company blog post:

Starting today, watching movies and TV shows streaming from Netflix will use 2/3 less data on average, with minimal impact to video quality.

Now Canadians can watch 30 hours of streaming from Netflix in a month that will consume only 9 GBytes of data, well below most data caps.

We made these changes because many Canadian Internet service providers unfortunately enforce monthly caps on the total amount of data consumed.

In the past, viewing 30 hours of Netflix could consume as much as 70 GBytes, if it was all in HD, and typically about 30 GBytes. While there is some lessening of picture quality with these new settings, the experience continues to be great.

Video compression reduces data consumption, but also sacrifices video quality and enjoyment. An example of high video compression on the left can be more than noticeable.

Unfortunately for Hunt, providers can continue to lower data caps to the point where Netflix would have to present their video library as a slideshow to keep customers under their limits.

Stop the Cap! responded directly to Hunt imploring Netflix to get involved in the battle that consumers have thus far fought alone:

While some customers appreciate Netflix for turning down the video bitrates, I am here to tell you it’s not nearly enough.

For nearly three years, our consumer group — Stop the Cap! has fought Internet Overcharging schemes in both Canada and the United States.

Whether it’s Bell’s proposal to eliminate flat rate broadband across all of Canada, Time Warner’s 2009 pricing experiment to limit broadband users to just 40GB of usage per month, or AT&T’s 150-250GB cap taking effect this spring, your competitors are on a mission to scare customers away from using your online video streaming service.

[…] The fact is, Netflix MUST engage in this fight. Consumers cannot do it alone, especially when up against billion dollar companies spending millions on lobbyists trying to convince lawmakers usage caps are about “fairness” when they are really about monetizing broadband traffic and scaring off cord-cutting.