Broadband Reports has obtained a leaked memo stating AT&T plans on eliminating its flat rate broadband plans for DSL and U-verse customers effective May 2nd.

On that date, AT&T will limit its DSL customers to 150GB per month and its U-verse customers to 250GB per month in what will be the largest Internet Overcharging operation in the nation.  Customers who violate the usage limits will face a three-strikes-you’re-overcharged penalty system.  After three violations of the usage limit, customers will pay an additional $10 for each block of 50GB they consume.  Although that represents just $0.20 per gigabyte, less than some others have imposed, it is not pro-rated.  Whether a customer uses one or fifty “extra” gigabytes, they will face the same $10 fee on their bill.

Customers will begin receiving notification of the change in the company’s terms of service March 18.

AT&T claims only 2 percent of their DSL customers will be exposed to the Internet Overcharging scheme.

“Using a notification structure similar to our new wireless data plans, we’ll proactively notify customers when they exceed 65%, 90% and 100% of the monthly usage allowance,” AT&T’s Seth Bloom told Broadband Reports. The company also says they’ll provide users with a number of different usage tools, including a usage monitor that tracks historical usage over time, and a number of different usage tools aimed at identifying and managing high bandwidth consumption services.

“Using a notification structure similar to our new wireless data plans, we’ll proactively notify customers when they exceed 65%, 90% and 100% of the monthly usage allowance,” AT&T tells us. The company also says they’ll provide users with a number of different usage tools, including a usage monitor that tracks historical usage over time, and a number of different usage tools aimed at identifying and managing high bandwidth consumption services.

However, AT&T’s accuracy in measuring broadband usage is open for debate.  The company is facing a class action lawsuit over its wireless usage billing.  According to the suit, AT&T consistently inflates usage measured on customer bills.  No third party verification or oversight of usage meters is mandated — customers simply have to trust AT&T.

AT&T ran trials in Beaumont, Tex., and Reno, Nev., from 2008 with a range of usage limits.  Customer reaction to the trials was hostile, and the test ended in early 2010.  In December, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told providers the agency was not opposed to usage limits and consumption billing schemes, leading some to predict the green light was given to companies willing to test whether customers will tolerate Internet Overcharging.

AT&T claimed this weekend its new pricing was going to benefit customers.  So long as customers keep paying their bills, AT&T will not “reduce the speeds, terminate service or limit available data like some others in the industry,” Bloom said.

But the usage limits come at the same time Americans are increasing their consumption of online video and other high bandwidth services.  Usage limits which may appear to be reasonable at first glance become punishing when they do not change over time and customers increasingly risk exceeding them.  Once established, several companies have repeatedly lowered them to further monetize broadband service usage.  AT&T has delivered some of the lowest usage limits in the wireless industry, so it has faced customer criticism in the past.

Customers tied to existing term contracts may likely avoid the usage caps temporarily.  Others will not stick around long enough to find out.

“I will be canceling my U-verse service on Monday and go back to Time Warner Cable,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Jeffrey.  “I will never do business with a provider that imposes overlimit fees on usage that literally costs them next to nothing to provide.  It’s like charging extra for every deep breath.”

Some of our other readers are headed back to Comcast, which has a 250GB usage cap, or exploring DSL provided over AT&T lines by third party companies, which likely will not impose usage limits, at least for now.

“Charging 20 cents per gigabyte isn’t too bad, but you just know AT&T will lower the caps or jack those rates up,” our reader Ian writes. “It is very important to send AT&T a message right now we are prepared to quit doing business with them over this issue, or else we will be nickle and dimed to death by them tomorrow.”

Our reader Jared asks whether new legislation has been introduced to curb unjustified Internet Overcharging.  In 2009, then Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) introduced a bill to ban Internet Overcharging unless companies could prove it was justified.  At the moment, there is no new legislation, but when providers attempt to overreach and impose pricing the vast majority of broadband customers oppose, that could change.

At the moment, Stop the Cap! recommends AT&T customers begin to explore alternative providers and prepare to terminate their service with AT&T unless they scrap their Internet Overcharging scheme.  AT&T earns billions in profits from their broadband division and spends millions on lobbying.  With this amount of largesse, AT&T does not need this pricing scheme to remain profitable.

The Wall Street Journal attempted to attach its own conventional wisdom in an opinion piece about cloud-based streaming that suggests Canada “is just ahead of the U.S. in introducing usage-based pricing [and] has bloggers and politicians accusing Bell Canada of unconscionable ‘profiteering’ from usage caps. The company, they rage, is reaping huge fees for additional units of bandwidth that cost Bell Canada virtually nothing to provide.”

The author, Holman Jenkins, is a regular on the ultra-business friendly editorial page of the Journal, and has been raging against Net Neutrality and for higher Internet pricing for several years now.

Jenkins’ latest argument, just like his earlier ones on this subject, falls apart almost immediately:

This critique, which is common, could not more comprehensively miss the point. Another car on the roadway poses no additional cost on the road builder; it imposes a cost on other road users. Likewise, network operators don’t use overage penalties to collect their marginal costs but to shape user behavior so a shared resource won’t be overtaxed.

Jenkins needs to spend less time supporting his friends at companies like AT&T and Bell and more time exploring road construction costs.  If you are going to try and make an analogy about traffic, at least get your premise straight.

Before debunking his usage-based billing meme, let’s talk about road construction for a moment.  In fact, the kind of traffic volume on a roadway has everything to do with what kind of road is constructed.  In the appropriately named “Idiots’ Guide to Highway Maintenance,” C.J.Summers explores different types of road surfaces for different kinds of traffic.  Light duty roads in rural areas can get results with oil and stone.  Medium duty side streets and avenues are frequently paved with asphalt, and heavy duty interstates routinely use concrete.  Traffic studies are performed routinely to assist engineers in choosing the right material to get the job done.

Digital information doesn’t wear down cables or airwaves.  If broadband traffic occupies 5 or 95 percent of a digital pipeline, it makes no difference to the pipeline.  Jenkins is right when he says Internet Overcharging schemes are all about shaping user behavior, but for the wrong reasons.

Jenkins thinks Netflix and other high bandwidth applications face usage-based pricing to allow providers to keep their broadband pipes from getting overcongested:

Netflix is one of the companies most threatened by usage-based pricing, and it has quickly geared up a lobbying team in Washington. In a recent letter to shareholders, CEO Reed Hastings downplayed the challenge to Netflix’s video-streaming business. In the long run, he’s probably right—the market will settle on flat-rate pricing once the video-intensive user has become the average user.

In the meantime, however, Netflix shareholders had better look out.

In fact, providers are reaping the rewards of their popular broadband services, but almost uniformly are less interested in investing in them to match capacity.  It is as if the AT&Ts of this world assumed broadband users would consume    T H I S    M U C H   and that’s it — time to collect profits.  When upgrade investments don’t even keep up as a percentage of revenue earned over past years, the inevitable result will be a custom-made excuse to impose usage limits and consumption billing to manage the “data tsunami.”

Canadian providers did not slap usage caps on broadband users because Netflix arrived — they lowered them. Telling users they cannot consume the same amount of bandwidth they used a month earlier has nothing to do with managing traffic, it’s about protecting their video businesses by discouraging consumers from even contemplating using the competition.  Jenkins works for a company that understands that perfectly well.  News Corp., has a major interest in Hulu as well as satellite television services in Europe and Oceania.

The rest of Jenkins’ piece is as smug as it is wrong.  In attacking Net Neutrality supporters as “crazies” trying to defend their “hobby horse,” Jenkins claims public interest groups are pouting about usage-based billing, too:

All along, what the net neut crazies have lacked in intellectual consistency they’ve made up in fealty to the business interests of companies that fear their services would become unattractive if users had one eye on a bandwidth meter. That’s why opposition to “Internet censorship” morphed into opposition to anything that might price or allocate broadband capacity rationally. But such a stance is rapidly becoming untenable, whether the beneficiary is Google, with its advertising-based business model, or Netflix, Apple, Amazon and others who hope to capitalize on the entertainment-streaming opportunity.

All are betting heavily on the cloud. All need to start dealing realistically with the question of how the necessary bandwidth will be paid for.

Part of Jenkins’ theory calls back on his usual Google bashing — he perceives the company as a parasite stealing the resources bandwidth providers paid for, while forgetting the success of their businesses ultimately depends on content producers (who indeed pay billions for their own bandwidth) making the service interesting enough for consumers to buy.

But there is nothing rational about Jenkins’ support for Internet Overcharging.  North Americans already pay some of the highest prices in the world for the slowest service.  While providers attempt to lick the last drop of profits out of increasingly outdated networks (hello DSL!), their future strategy is less about expanding those networks and more about constraining the use of them.

Jenkins is ignorant of the fact several of Net Neutrality’s strongest proponents, Public Knowledge being a classic example, have not historically opposed usage-based pricing, much to my personal consternation.  As we’ve argued (and I submit proved), Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging go hand in hand for revenue hungry providers.  If they cannot discriminate, throttle, or block traffic they consider to be costly to their networks, they can simply cap demand on the customer side with usage limits or confiscatory pricing designed to discourage use.  That is precisely what Canadians are fighting against.

It’s all made possible by a broken free market.  Instead of hearty competition, most North Americans endure a duopoly — a phone company and a cable company.  Both, particularly in Canada, have vested interests in video entertainment, television and cable networks, and other entertainment properties.  As long as these interests exist, companies will always resist challenges to their core business models, such as cable TV cord cutting.  It’s as simple as that.

The “realistic” way bandwidth will be paid for escapes Jenkins because his quest for condescension takes precedence over actual facts.  Content producers already pay enormous sums to bandwidth providers like Akamai, Amazon, and other cloud-based distribution centers.  Consumers pay handsomely for their broadband connections, part of which covers the costs of delivering that content to their homes and businesses.  AT&T and other providers don’t deserve to get paid twice for the same content.  Indeed, they should be investing some of their enormous profits in building a new generation of fiber-based broadband pipelines to keep their customers happy.  Because no matter how much data you cram down a glass fiber, the ‘data friction’ will never cause those cables to go down in flames, unlike Jenkins’ lapsed-from-reality arguments.

 

 

Suddenlink, one of America’s smaller cable operators, has been undergoing a transformation as it tries to meet expectations of today’s cable subscribers and match whatever phone company competition comes their way.  While some of the upgrades are customer-friendly, others pose ominous signs for the future — particularly with respect to Internet Overcharging broadband customers.

Let’s explore:

The Good — New Broadband Speeds, New DVR, New Investments

In parts of Suddenlink’s service area, particularly in Texas, the company is moving most of its cable service to a digital platform.  This transition is designed to open up additional space for more HD channels, keep up with broadband demands, and open the door for additional on-demand programming.

In Nacogdoches, Suddenlink announced it was adopting an all-digital TV lineup.  Starting this week, the company is offering subscribers free digital adapters — also known as “DigitaLinks,” to enable continued viewing on analog television sets that do not have a set top box or digital tuning capability.  Every subscriber purchasing more than the broadcast basic package (that only includes local stations and a handful of cable networks) will either need a digital tuner-ready television, a set top box, or a DigitaLink device to continue watching.

What is good about this transition is that Suddenlink is not charging customers a monthly fee for the adapters, either now or in the future.  That contrasts with other cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable that have handed customers a set top box or a digital adapter they will begin charging for after a year or two.

Suddenlink expects to invest nearly $120 million this year in Texas, and by the end of the year will have invested nearly a half-billion dollars in the state since 2006.

Texas is extremely important to Suddenlink.  The third largest cable company in Texas serves about 450,000 households and approximately 27,000 business customers in Amarillo, Lubbock, Abilene, Bryan-College Station, Midland, San Angelo, Georgetown, Tyler, Victoria, Conroe, Kingwood and Nacogdoches.

The company has also lit new fiber connections to handle data communications, primarily for business customers, and is upgrading its broadband service to fully support DOCSIS 3, which will deliver faster speeds and less congested service.

Customers in the state are also among the first to get access to a new and improved DVR box built on a TiVo software platform.  Suddenlink’s “Premiere DVR” service ($17/mo) is now available in Midland, Floydada, Plainview, Amarillo, Canyon, and Tulia.

The Bad — “Suddenlink Residential Internet Service is for Entertainment” Purposes Only

Do you take your broadband service seriously, or is it simply another entertainment option in your home?  If you answered the latter, this story may not be so surprising.

In Humboldt County, Calif., broadband users started noticing their favorite web pages stopped updating on a regular basis.  At one point, a blogger in McKinleyville noticed he couldn’t manage to post comments on his own website.  But things got much worse when several web pages started reaching customers with other users’ names (and occasionally e-mail addresses) already filled in on login screens and comment forms.

It seems Suddenlink started to cache web content in the far northern coastal county of California, meaning the first customer to visit a particular website triggered Suddenlink’s local servers to store a copy of the page, so that future customers headed to the same website received the locally-stored copy, not the actual live page.

But the caching software went haywire.

Web visitors began to receive mobile versions of web sites even though they were using home computers at the time.  Some were asked if they wanted to download a copy of a web page instead of viewing it.  And many others discovered websites were customized for earlier visitors.

While the caching problem was irritating, the privacy breaches Suddenlink enabled were disturbing, as was the initial total lack of response from Suddenlink officials when the problem first started in late January.

The Journal finally reached a representative who provided this explanation:

Suddenlink Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications Pete Abel knew that a cache system had recently been installed in Humboldt County, but was unaware of the particular problems reported by users. After speaking with the Journal and other Suddenlink employees, though, he released a statement explaining what appeared to have happened.

According to the release, the cache system was installed in Humboldt County on Thursday, Jan. 27 — the very day that users began experiencing problems — and was intended as an interim solution to relatively low Internet speeds in Humboldt County. The system, it said, was able to cache only unsecure websites — those which, unlike almost all reputable banking or commerce systems — do not encrypt communications. But the company eventually discovered the problems that its customers had been reporting and, having fruitlessly worked with its vendor to find a solution, turned the system off on Monday.

“The good news is that secure Web site pages will not have been cached,” Abel said in a follow-up call to the Journal. “And I have been assured 100 ways from Sunday that never would have happened.”

Andrew Jones, who runs a blog with his Suddenlink broadband account, tried to opt out of the web caching and received an interesting response, in writing, from a Suddenlink representative.  He was told he could not opt out of cached web pages with a residential account because, “the residential service is for entertainment only.”

Jones was told he would have to upgrade to a business account to escape the cache.

“If a small local radio station intermittently went off air for multiple days, the radio host would be apologizing and explaining the situation,” Jones wrote the Journal. “If a large utility company experienced sporadic power outages, people could hear a recording on a toll-free number to learn the cause and about ongoing repairs. What does an Internet provider do when web access becomes spotty and begins serving customers old copies of web pages? The company gets back to you in a couple days and suggests you pay more if you don’t like its recently degraded services.”

The Ugly — Suddenlink’s New Usage Meter Suggests 43GB is An Appropriate Amount of Usage for Standard Internet, 87GB is Plenty for Their $60 Premium Package

Although Suddenlink has not formally adopted an Internet Overcharging scheme of usage caps or metered billing, the company is sending automated e-mail messages to customers who exceed what they call “typical monthly usage for customers in your package.”  The e-mail tells customers they may be infected with a virus or someone else could be using your connection without your permission.  Boo!  For the uninitiated, this kind of message can bring fear that their computer has been invaded, either with malicious malware or the neighbor next door.

Customers have also received letters in the mail from the company telling them to check out their new “usage meter.”  Several have been sharing how much they’ve racked up in usage during the month on Broadband Reports.  One customer managed 243GB while another looking at the company’s super premium 107/5Mbps package managed a whopping 786GB.

Although the wording of the message has strenuously avoided telling customers they are wrong for this amount of usage, the implication is clear to many: they are counting your gigabytes and identifying the outliers.  One customer called it Suddenlink’s “You’re actually using your connection, and we really wish you wouldn’t”-message.

“No one with an ounce of sense would pay for a 20/3Mbps connection and only use 78 GB in a month. Let’s hope they’re just making cute suggestions, not easing us into a cap, because that just won’t fly,” wrote one West Virginia customer.

Another in Georgetown, Texas did the math and made it clear 43GB better not turn out to be a cap because it means customers can barely use the service they are paying for.

“It’s way too low. I got 10Mbps [service] because of price/value and not because I use less than 43GB,” he writes. “[Even] if I downloaded at 1.25MB/s for 30 days straight (1.25 * 2592000 seconds) I could [still] grab 3.164TB.”

Meanwhile, some controversy over the quality of Suddenlink’s service during the upgrade process had some residents in Cushing, Okla., up in arms at a recent city meeting.  Lorene Clyde complained Suddenlink’s “new and improved” service is worse than ever.

“I’m tired of paying for a service I’m not getting,” Clyde said.  “And the Suddenlink commercials – they are like rubbing salt in a wound.”

KUSH-AM reporters were on hand to cover the event, noting Clyde was not the only one complaining.  The radio station noted that “the buzz around town echoes her sentiments – from the ‘mildly irritated’ to the ‘downright mad’ – citizens have been complaining.  Not only have they been complaining to Suddenlink – as difficult as that may be (the call center is in Tyler, Texas) – but to city leaders.”

What Clyde and others may not have realized is that Suddenlink officials were in attendance and were able to apologize for the problems, but a growing consensus among consumers and city leaders is that a broad-based refund for the poor service was warranted.

Commissioner Joe Manning said while he appreciated the promise to figure out the problem, it wasn’t good enough to just apologize and promise – that subscribers’ bills should be adjusted to reflect the poor service.

Commissioners Carey Seigle and Tommy Johnson agreed with Manning.  Seigle pointed out it would be “good P.R.” to give some sort of rebate across the board to subscribers while Johnson complained that the original “upgrade” was only going to take a few weeks and now 8 months later – things are not better, but worse, noted the radio station.

Suddenlink officials on hand said they did not have that kind of authority, but continued to promise things are going to get better.  “I pledge to you,” one said, “We will find it [the problem] and fix it.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJTV Lubbock Borrowing Wi-Fi 2-7-11.flv[/flv]

KJTV-TV in Lubbock, Texas talked with Suddenlink about the growing trend of neighbors “borrowing” neighbors’ unsecured Wi-Fi networks.  Other than the accidental recommendation that consumers should “invest in Internet spyware” to keep your computer safe, the report does a fair job of shining a light on a practice that could have financial consequences if the provider implements an Internet Overcharging scheme.  (2 minutes)

Shaw Communications held the first in a series of nearly three dozen upcoming “town hall meetings” on the issue of usage-based billing, starting with a gathering in Vancouver last evening.

Readers of Broadband Reports are reflecting on Shaw’s management of the meeting, particularly the lack of adversarial tone they anticipated going in. Several in attendance report company executives strenuously avoided arguments with customers and steered well clear of pro-UBB propaganda, which makes considerable sense when gauging the audience, which was likely almost entirely opposed to Internet Overcharging.

“They said they made a lot of mistakes concerning UBB,” one Broadband Reports reader shared. “It was almost a mea culpa.”

Company officials also admitted their usage caps will expose an increasing number of customer to overlimit fees if they go unadjusted — they respect the fact everyone will be defined as a “heavy user” under today’s usage limits in a few years.

“It was probably a bit of PR damage-control, and in that regard they did a good job,” the reader shared.

Another reader in attendance suspect the company misjudged the resulting backlash over UBB.

“It really felt like Shaw got blindsided by the righteous anger over UBB, and they’re truly surprised at how poorly they’ve judged the zeitgeist of their customers,” a reader wrote.

The cozy business relationship of Canadian telecommunications companies, who have maintained comfortable, barely-competitive markets for years might also be an issue of concern, writes one reader.

“They seem to be scared of the idea the cozy business-as-usual approach they’ve been taking [could go] away with the possibility of foreign ownership rules being relaxed or various other game-changing rulings being made. They sure sounded like they’re interested in making concessions [for] customer satisfaction, if only to stave off increased competition from outside Canada.”

Our Take

Stop the Cap! views such public meetings with some suspicion, if only because we have attended a few like these in the past and seen them used as intelligence-gathering operations for a marketing department charged with implementing the pricing schemes on customers.

While Shaw still seems to be holding onto the notion it can bring back a more palatable UBB scheme at the end of its “listening tour,” you can be certain other Canadian Internet providers are engaged in research and focus group testing with a less engaged audience, trying to find “fairness scenarios” that work in the court of public opinion.

As Shaw opens its next meeting in Calgary (and beyond), the best response people can give in these meetings is a clear, unified, and absolute message:

NO UBB.

NOT NOW.

NOT EVER.

UPGRADE YOUR NETWORKS!

As soon as you enter into discussions about what represents a “fair amount” of usage, you have lost the argument.  Debating the numbers is their game, not yours.  Is 100GB enough, 250GB? 500? 1000?

What about tomorrow?

What is “reasonable” mean anyway?

“Reasonable” should not be how much Internet you are able to consume at Shaw’s everyday high prices.

Instead, Shaw’s absolutely massive profits demand that upgrades be maintained to accommodate users of their product. Shaw has plenty on hand to manage growth with upgraded facilities from Vancouver to the prairies and still have plenty of money left over.  Their revenue from broadband is soaring.  The costs to deliver it are dropping.

When you go to these meetings, explain politely, persuasively, and persistently that you are not prepared to accept the return of any UBB system, period. That inconvenient truth may be difficult for them to accept, but tell them you have every confidence a company as innovative as Shaw can find a way to keep customers and shareholders happy, and you’ll work with them to that end if they deliver the flat rate broadband experience that your neighbors to the south get.

If the USA and other countries around the world can manage it, so can Canada.

The Openmedia.ca folks have created several “parking tickets” designed to call attention to the issue of Internet Overcharging among ordinary Canadians.

Appearing under a windshield near you, these clever notices educate consumers about unjustified usage caps and so-called “metered billing” which only exists to drive up provider profits.

Even Bell trucks are not immune, as an enterprising protester found time to share the news with the company that seeks to eliminate flat rate Internet access in the country.