Rogers Communications has slightly bumped the monthly usage allowance for its “Lite” Internet plan up by 5GB per month to 20GB. The company also doubled the speed of the entry-level package from 3Mbps to 6Mbps. Upload speed remains at 256kbps.

But the plan still carries a hefty price — $38.49 a month, and there is a stiff $4/GB overlimit fee for those who exceed their allowance. Just south of Lake Ontario, Time Warner Cable’s “special offer” provides cap-free 10/1Mbps broadband for $29.99 a month for a year.

Our regular reader Alex mocks the move as another example of Canadian competition at work for consumers. Rogers has made only small adjustments to their usage caps since last summer, and customers who want the most generous usage allowances (paltry when compared to western Canadian ISPs), have to spend money out of pocket to upgrade to DOCSIS 3 technology.

As of today, here is the current roundup of Internet plans from Rogers

Rogers always adds a lot of fine print. For these offers, here come the disclaimers and special conditions:

• Taxes and a $14.95 one-time activation fee apply. Internet modem purchase or monthly rental required.
• †Speeds may vary with Internet traffic, server or other factors. Also see the Acceptable Use Policy at rogers.com/terms. Modem set-up: the system is configured to maximum modem capabilities within Rogers own network.
• ††In some areas, Rogers manages upstream peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing applications speed to a maximum of 80 kbps per customer for Rogers Hi-Speed Internet (delivered over cable). This policy is maintained at all times. For information on Rogers Internet traffic management practices and Legal Disclosure click here.
• †††Usage allowances apply on a monthly basis and vary by tier of service. Charges apply for additional use beyond the monthly usage allowance associated with your tier of service. For details, visit rogers.com/keepingpace.
• *Note for Lite customers: If you signed up for Lite before July 21st, 2010, your usage allowance remains at 25 GB, and your additional usage charges remains at $2.50/GB.
• **Note for Extreme customers: If you signed up for Extreme before July 21st, 2010, your download speed remains at 10 Mbps and your usage allowance remains at 95 GB.

If you want to compare Rogers’ allowances to what they sold in July 2011, here is a reminder:

Comcast last week told Wall Street three important facts:

1. They have plenty of capacity to handle increasing broadband traffic and can deliver faster speeds;
2. They are reducing the amount of money they invest in broadband;
3. They are still moving forward on usage caps and usage billing experiments.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts told investors the company was well positioned to handle increasing broadband traffic and monetize its usage.

Wall Street liked what it heard. Valuentum Securities Inc., called themselves “big fans of Comcast’s cash flow generation.”

“We’re big fans of the firm’s Video and High-Speed Internet businesses because both are either monopolies or duopolies in their respective markets,” Valuentum concludes. “Further, we believe that both services have become so sticky and important to consumers that Comcast will be able to effectively raise prices year after year without seeing too much volume-related weakness.”

An other way to raise prices is to cap broadband usage and charge customers extra for exceeding their allowance, a plan Comcast has begun testing.

“As you know we announced two different flavors of plans,” Roberts said. “One was capacity linked with the tier that subs are buying and [the other] was just being able to buy blocks of capacity.”

Roberts is referring to Comcast’s pricing experiments now being rolled out in markets like Nashville. The tests will determine whether customers will pay higher prices for different tiers of broadband based on variable speed and usage allowances or whether a flat cap with an overlimit fee is the better way to go.

Roberts

“[Hard] caps are gone,” Roberts said. “We raised the amount people could consume to 300 gigabytes as a base limit. We have not announced the markets for the roll outs yet but I would expect something shortly.”

Comcast used to have a 250GB hard cap which, if exceeded, could result in termination of a customer’s account. Now the company is pondering whether a consistent 300GB cap with an overlimit fee is a better choice.

But Roberts also acknowledged Comcast has plenty of capacity and flexibility to adjust its broadband offerings to compete.

“[…] We have a great network that has tremendous flexibility and capacity to offer more speeds than we offer today and we’re constantly hoping that new applications and needs develop,” Roberts said in response to a question regarding potential competition with Google Fiber.

Comcast added 156,000 new high speed data customers, an 8% increase, over the last quarter. At the same time, the company lost 176,000 video subscribers.

The importance of Comcast’s broadband service was underlined by the fact broadband revenue was the largest contributor to cable revenue growth in the second quarter, with revenue increasing 9%. Comcast attributes that to rate increases, a growing number of new broadband customers, and the 27% of current subscribers upgrading to higher speed services.

Comcast does not and will not have to spend a growing amount of its capital on its broadband service. Comcast cut spending on its network by 5% in the second quarter to $1.1 billion. That represents 11.4 percent of cable revenue earned by Comcast. So far this year, capital expenditures have dropped 2.4% to $2.2 billion — 11.2% of its total revenue.

These days, much of Comcast’s capital expenses support the company’s expansion into business services. The company also expects considerable reductions in spending from completion of its transition to digital — freeing up capacity on existing cable systems instead of spending money to upgrade them. For the full year, including its business services expansion, Comcast expects spending on its own network to be flat.

Comcast’s new X1 platform (Image courtesy: BWOne)

In other Comcast developments of note:

• In June Comcast rolled out its new X1 cloud based set top platform in Boston and is currently launching X1 in Atlanta. Comcast is marketing the upgraded platform first to HD Triple Play customers, who can upgrade for a one-time installation fee. The company plans to roll out the new upgraded platform in five major markets by the end of this year, with a greater expansion in 2013;
• Comcast has increased broadband speeds, particularly in competitive markets, for no additional charge;
• Streampix now offers twice as many titles as the product offered at launch in February;
• Comcast has rolled out its marketing partnership with Verizon Wireless to 22 markets nationwide;
• The company’s ongoing rebranding under the Xfinity name now has a new catchphrase: Xfinity — The Future of Awesome;
• Nearly 75% of Comcast’s customers now take at least two products and almost 40% are signed up for the company’s triple play package;
• Comcast has saved more than $8 million by reducing the number of occasions the company will send technicians to customer homes. The cable company is heavily promoting self-install kits, which has brought a 65% increase  in the number of customers who install Comcast equipment and services themselves.

An Australian Internet Service Provider that caps customer usage and charges extra if you want to exceed your allowance has taken to the company’s blog to argue that usage caps are fair, even as their customers start departing for competitors offering unlimited service.

iiNet chief technology officer John Lindsay defends the company’s usage-based billing scheme, which charges more than $30 a month for DSL service with a 20GB usage cap.

“Service providers in favour of a two-speed Internet argue that there is limited capacity on the Internet and that those using the most bandwidth by delivering rich content or transferring large files should pay more,” wrote Lindsay. “In Australia, we have a different business model for the Internet. ISPs operate on a pay-as-you-go model, which also shapes the consumer market. Here, consumers can choose a plan with upload and download quotas to fit their usage and pay according to their needs – the more you use, the more you pay.”

Lindsay

Unfortunately for Lindsay, an increasing number of Australians don’t agree and are switching to providers like TPG and Dodo, which have become enormously popular selling flat rate, unlimited broadband service.

Lindsay warns that if Australia adopts the flat rate service model popular in the United States, a Net Neutrality debate will be sparked as customers discover ISPs are unable to handle the traffic and start prioritizing their own content.

“Operating a quota based business model ensures we’re not responsible for policing activity online – our customers pay a fair price for the services they receive and we can focus on more important issues than where their traffic is coming from,” Lindsay argues. “While US providers argue about a two-tier system, our priority is to provide awesome customer service and ensure our customers enjoy a seamless experience online, whatever it is their Internet connection means to them.”

Of course, Lindsay’s characterization of the American broadband landscape is fact-challenged, because most broadband providers have plenty of capacity to deliver content. Some simply want to earn a new revenue stream from content producers for managing that traffic, even though paying customers already compensate them for that service.

Australia’s data caps have traditionally been onerous because of the higher costs and limited capacity of underseas cables that handle traffic inside and out of the Pacific Basin. But Australians have complained about the low caps for years — so loudly that the Australian government has made construction of a super-capacity fiber to the home network a national priority for the country as international capacity also increases.

Customers were not fooled by Lindsay’s rhetoric.

“This is nonsense,” wrote Lachlan Hunt. “Australia’s model of capped usage limits with higher prices for higher caps, and of ISPs including yourself offering free zones where such data doesn’t count towards the monthly quota is exactly the problem that Net Neutrality advocates aim to deal with. It treats data from companies who choose to partner with you to get their content in the free zone as privileged compared with everyone else, and similarly with other ISPs.”

Hunt complains iiNet’s caps were “ridiculously low” and interfered with his career in the web development industry. Today he lives and works in Europe, where usage caps are increasingly a thing of the past.

“I’m really hoping that you will eventually wake up and realize that usage caps go together with Non-Neutral internet, and with the introduction of the [national fiber to the home network], which brings both higher speeds and capacities, you should be able to lower prices, abolish usage caps and offer a fair model with pricing tiers based on the chosen speeds.”

Stop the Cap! also addressed Lindsay:

[…] We have learned dealing with this issue for several years that ISPs are terrified of their own argument if carried to its fullest extension. If iiNet wants customers to fairly pay for only what they use, they should be billing them on exactly that basis. A flat charge per gigabyte — no allowances/quotas, no penalty overage fees or speed throttles, no wasted, unused quota at the end of the month.

But they don’t dare. If you charged $1/GB (still a crime-gouge compared to the wholesale price), those customers currently paying $30 for up to 20GB service might suddenly be paying $5-15 instead.

[…] If you asked your customers whether they prefer unlimited service or your current cap system, most will clamor for unlimited, even if it costs them a bit more, just for the peace of mind of never facing overage charges or speed throttles.

This argument has never been about capacity. It’s about what it always is about: money.

Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) are incensed about efforts by CenturyLink to win waivers from the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America rural broadband funding program that could leave WISPs facing new competition from CenturyLink made possible by surcharges paid by phone customers nationwide.

At issue is a filing from CenturyLink before the FCC that would allow the phone company to “change the rules,” according to critics. One of CenturyLink’s most prominent arguments is that WISPs have data caps that inconvenience customers. But CenturyLink buries the fact it has usage caps of its own in a footnote.

“The waiver application we filed … would allow CenturyLink to spend tens of millions of dollars to bring more broadband services to more rural and high-cost customers who do not have reasonable access to broadband service today,” CenturyLink said in a media release. “These funds would be provided by the FCC’s Connect America Fund, as well as additional investment dollars would be provided by CenturyLink. If the waiver application is approved, CenturyLink will build needed broadband services to thousands of homes in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon and several other states.”

CenturyLink claims WISPs charge considerably more for service, suffer from line-of-sight restrictions which could leave many rural customers without service, have limited spectrum which keeps broadband speeds to a bare minimum and often forces customers to endure stringent data usage caps.

The waiver request would allow CenturyLink to receive and use federal Connect America funds to deploy its DSL service to rural customers already served by WISPs if two conditions are met:

• The state where CenturyLink would spend the money has not independently verified the coverage area of the wireless ISP and objective data opens the door to an argument that a WISP cannot adequately service areas where they claim coverage;
• The WISP imposes unusually high prices ($720/yr or more) or severe usage caps (25GB per month or less).

Chuck Siefert, CEO of the Montana Internet Corporation (MIC), a WISP, argues CenturyLink has no case, and is attempting to modify the rules to accomplish its own objectives rather than adhering to the original goals of the program — to deliver broadband to the rural unserved:

CenturyLink is simply raising an old protest in a new venue. Having been designated as eligible for almost ninety million dollars of the Connect America Program (CAP), it wishes to have the opportunity to use more than a third of that as it chooses, rather than as the Commission designated after input and analysis from all parties. The Rubicon has been crossed with respect to this issue: unserved areas are those that are not served by fixed wireless providers.  Regardless of CenturyLink’s opinion of the quality of service provided, these areas have been deemed served by the Commission and CAP incremental support may not be used to build out broadband in these areas. CenturyLink is certainly capable of using other funding to build out in these areas; the Commission has not precluded that.

CenturyLink’s complaints that WISPs often come with data usage caps is ironic because CenturyLink is now imposing usage caps on its own broadband service. CenturyLink argues data caps expose the limitations inherent in wireless broadband in their filing with the FCC:

Satellite broadband also often comes encumbered with restrictive data caps. The same is true of many of the WISPs subject to this waiver request. They impose on their users highly restrictive data caps of less than 25 GB per month. Indeed, two of the WISPs impose a cap of just 5 GB per month.

It is no surprise that these WISPs would impose such unusually low caps; like satellite providers, they must ration out their highly constrained capacity among the various end users who compete for it. WISP broadband capacity—unlike the customer-specific links in DSL-based broadband—is shared by all customers within a given wireless cell or sector.

This means that the more customers a WISP persuades to sign up, the worse the average service quality gets for all customers unless the WISP sharply limits how much customers may consume.

That imperative may be an unavoidable consequence of the WISPs’ technology, but it further underscores the need to give the affected consumers a robust broadband alternative.

Siefert claims CenturyLink’s assertions about the quality of its DSL service, pricing, and performance simply fall short of the truth, and MIC does better by its customers.

Pricing

CenturyLink charges a $134.89 non-recurring charge plus $29.99/mo for “up to 1.5Mbps” DSL service, plus “up to” $99.95 for professional installation. CenturyLink’s DSL modem costs $99 and has a one-year warranty.

Siefert claims MIC charges $30/mo for “bursting speeds up to 10Mbps” and $250 for technician installation, but the company offers regular installation promotions that cost $99. MIC warrants its equipment for the life of the service and charges no fee for service calls as long as the customer is current on their bill.

But Stop the Cap! found speeds and pricing less advantageous than Siefert might have the FCC believe. For instance, MIC’s $30 tier only guarantees 384kbps with speed “bursts” up to 10Mbps. Getting committed 2Mbps service runs $55 a month with the same “bursting” speed of 10Mbps. We also found CenturyLink willing to negotiate installation charges, and the company frequently discounts or even waives them if a customer signs up for a multi-service package.

Data Caps

CenturyLink now imposes a 150GB usage cap on customers with 1.5Mbps service or slower, 250GB for customers at higher speeds.

MIC claims it does not even monitor individual customer usage. Siefert says data use limitations are found in the terms and conditions of its service and are imposed only when a customer creates a problem for other users on the network.

“Rather than strictly applying data caps, MIC’s policy is to contact its customers and explain the impact their usage has on other customers,” Siefert explains. “As a small provider in a local community, MIC is able to do this in a way that a carrier like CenturyLink cannot. CenturyLink’s representations regarding transfer caps imply that WISPs arbitrarily and automatically shut a customer down once the cap is reached. This assertion is not based on evidence and is not an accurate statement of MIC’s approach to the caps. CenturyLink’s argument that WISPs operate like satellite and therefore WISPs service areas should be categorized as unserved areas based on how transfer caps are used fails.”

Stop the Cap! found different information on MIC’s website, however, including a 20GB monthly data cap and a $15/GB overage charge. Siefert’s submission to the FCC may suggest the published cap is a guideline more than a rule.

Performance

CenturyLink still uses T1-level circuits (1.5Mbps) to connect at least some of their remote D-SLAMs, according to Siefert, which helps the phone company extend DSL service to homes and businesses far away from the company’s central office. The net result is that customers fight for the bandwidth on an insufficient backhaul, which dramatically reduces speeds during peak usage times. In Helena, Montana CenturyLink “daisy-chains” D-SLAMs to support customers over a single T3 line, creating latency problems, packet loss, and further reductions in speed and performance.

MIC is capable of providing a total of 252Mbps per distribution site. The incoming next generation of wireless technology will increase that to 1.4Gbps. Additional distribution sites can divide the traffic load similar to how new cell towers can reduce demand on other nearby towers.

Speeds

CenturyLink sells speeds “up to” a certain level without guaranteeing customers will actually get the speed they are paying to receive. Siefert says CenturyLink customers in Montana currently can manage up to 7Mbps in some areas.

MIC says it can commit to its customers they can receive 10-40Mbps (and 80Mbps by the end of 2012) over its wireless network.

Independent Netindex.com suggests MIC does offers faster service on average than CenturyLink provides in Montana:

• Montana (statewide average): MIC 5.04Mbps vs. CenturyLink 3.8Mbps
• Helena: MIC 5.08Mbps vs. CenturyLink 2.73Mbps

The Wireless Internet Service Provider Association says their members are not eligible for federal Connect America subsidies, and most wireless providers are privately financed operations built with the support of their rural customers.

Said Richard Harnish, WISPA’s executive director, “We find it hard to believe that a company like CenturyLink that gets millions of dollars in federal support now wants more free money to overbuild unsubsidized rural broadband networks that WISPs already successfully operate. To do this, CenturyLink has attempted to discredit the taxpayer-funded National Broadband Map and invent its own standards in an effort to show that they should receive more than $30 million in additional subsidies.  Our strong opposition reflects WISPA’s view that CenturyLink’s arguments are factually and technically flawed.  We thank the other associations, state agencies and WISPs that support our views.”

Public Knowledge, a public interest, pro-consumer group, has filed a petition calling on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce conditions imposed on the Comcast/NBC-Universal merger dealing with Comcast’s usage caps policy.

The group wants the FCC to investigate the legality of Comcast’s decision to exempt its own online video service from the usage caps Comcast is reintroducing on its broadband customers:

In evaluating the merger, both the FCC and the Department of Justice recognized that a combined Comcast/NBC-Universal would have an enhanced motive to discriminate against unaffiliated online video services that might compete with Comcast’s pay-TV cable service.  Because Comcast controls their subscribers’ connection to the internet, and subscribers could use that very connection to access video services  not controlled by Comcast, Comcast has the ability to manipulate those internet connections in a way that would disadvantage video competitors.

Specifically, Public Knowledge accuses Comcast of violating FCC condition G.1.a.:

“Neither Comcast nor C-NBCU shall engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or prevent any MVPD or OVD from providing Video Programming online to subscribers or customers.”

The group argues that unfairly applied usage caps impact Comcast’s online video competitors. Customers will choose the service that does not eat away at their monthly broadband usage allowance, making competitors operate on an unfair playing ground.

The group has raised questions about the industry’s movement towards Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles and has repeatedly requested the FCC question how data allowance levels are developed, evaluated, and evolve over time.