Shaw Cable, western Canada’s largest cable company, has quietly lowered usage caps on virtually all of their broadband plans, while “forgetting” to change the date on their Terms of Service:

• Lite was 13GB, now increased to 15GB ($2/GB overages)
• High Speed was 75GB, now decreased to 60GB ($2/GB overages)
• Xtreme was 125GB, now decreased to 100GB ($1/GB overages)
• Warp was 250GB, now decreased to 175GB ($1/GB overages)
• Nitro was 500GB, now decreased to 350GB ($1/GB overages)

Shaw’s terms of service page documents changes implemented by the cable company and includes the revision date, changed whenever the terms change.  Not this time.  Blogger “Thewunderbar” documented Shaw left the revision date on the document unchanged, suggesting the cable company hadn’t made any adjustments to their service since July, 2010.  After publishing his piece, Shaw quietly updated their website to reflect the correct date.

Cable and phone companies in Canada have established a unique, unchecked duopoly.  They are systematically increasing prices while decreasing the amount of service provided to Canadian consumers.  Shaw’s decrease in usage limits comes with no corresponding price cut for Internet service.

At a time when Netflix streaming is attempting to make inroads into Canadian homes, broadband providers who also have interests in pay television (cable, phone or satellite) are working overtime to make sure no consumer believes they can safely cancel their cable-TV service and watch everything online.

Over the past four years, Canadian ISPs have embarked on a wide range of Internet Overcharging schemes:

• The elimination of flat rate, unlimited broadband service;
• The introduction of low usage allowances designed to trip up an increasing number of consumers leading to,
• The introduction of stinging overlimit fees for customers exceeding usage limits, at prices marked up from 500-5000 percent above wholesale;
• The introduction of speed throttles which artificially slow your broadband experience to speeds sometimes just above dial-up;
• The ongoing limbo dance of usage caps that decrease in size over time, exposing more consumers to overlimit fees, making them think twice about everything they do online.

Nobody has successfully monetized the broadband experience like Canadian ISPs have.  Even as their costs to deliver the service continue to rocket downwards, companies keep on increasing prices, exposing Canadian consumers to unwarranted bill shock from unjustified overlimit fees.  What does it cost Shaw per gigabyte?  An estimated 1-3 cents.  What do they charge you?  Up to $2.

It’s nothing short of a rip-off, and Stop the Cap! urges Canadian consumers to contact their member of Parliament and demand immediate action to ban these innovation-killing, job-retarding, unjustified overcharging schemes.

The wedding of Comcast and NBC-Universal was given the blessings of two federal agencies today that all but seals the multi-billion dollar deal.

In a 4-1 decision, the Federal Communications Commission approved the merger.  It’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, claimed it would ultimately be good for consumers as the company promised to add at least 1,000 hours of news and information programming and a new ultra-budget “lifeline” broadband tier priced at $9.95 per month for low-income families.

The lone dissenter, Democratic commissioner Michael Copps, rejected notions that a combined company the size of Comcast, which controls more than a quarter of all cable subscribers, and NBC-Universal, a major media company, would deliver anything to consumers.

“It’s too big. It’s too powerful. It’s too lacking in benefits for American consumers,” Copps said after the FCC vote to approve the merger. “And it continues us down a road of consolidation we’ve been on for a couple of decades now.  And the most threatening part about it is that this is not just traditional media, but it’s new media, too. It touches just about every aspect of our media environment.”

National Public Radio’s ‘All Things Considered’ gave measured coverage to today’s Comcast-NBC merger developments, and how it will impact consumers. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Indeed the combined Comcast-NBC will own or control one of every seven television channels and networks seen by Americans.  Copps worries that kind of media concentration is sure to reduce diversity in programming and on-air voices.

Even worse, some analysts predict the merger could trigger a new wave of media consolidation as other players try to maintain their positions in the media marketplace.  Second-place Time Warner Cable could begin looking for merger opportunities with smaller cable companies, such as Cox, for example.

Just about an hour after the FCC gave approval, the Justice Department and five states’ Attorney General announced a tentative settlement that could resolve concerns that the transaction was anti-competitive.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNYW New York Comcast FCC Approval 1-18-11.flv[/flv]

WNYW-TV in New York reported on today’s merger decision and explained how Comcast customers, and online video fans, could be impacted.  (3 minutes)

The Terms & Conditions

Two different federal agencies insisted on Comcast’s agreement to several terms and conditions before agreeing to the deal.  Many of them presented no problem for Comcast, who had voluntarily agreed to several of them early on in negotiations.  But the Justice Department delivered one of the strongest conditions, and a first for online video protection — it insisted the new combined entity of Comcast-NBC bow out of its voting rights in Hulu, the online video service.

√ No Playing Favorites: Comcast has to agree that if it carries its own news and business channels, it has to include competitors on the same tier.

Since Comcast-NBC has ownership interests in so many news, sports, and weather channels, making space for the competition was considered crucial by federal regulators.  The cable company can’t bury its competitors in Channel Siberia, or stick them on “digital tiers” that are priced higher than standard cable service.  Who wins?  Bloomberg News, rarely found even by cable viewers who go looking, and the very low-rated Fox Business Channel, which can’t attract 30,000 viewers on a good day.  Both will find prominent positions on Comcast Cable going forward, even if nobody watches.

√ Cheap Internet Access for Qualified Families: Comcast has agreed to provide a “lifeline” broadband service, but only for families pre-qualified by federal eligibility for free school lunches.

No word on what speeds these customers will receive, and Comcast estimates the program will barely make a dent in its bottom line.  It is expected to reach only around 400,000 homes nationwide, and only as long as those subscribers remain eligible under federal guidelines.  No free lunch for broadband.

√ Standalone Internet Service Must Be Provided: Comcast must sell at least a 6Mbps broadband plan without cable or telephone service for $49.99 a month for three years.

Since Comcast already routinely sells standalone broadband service to customers at around this price, this was hardly a concession.  Comcast can still pile on extra fees, such as their overpriced cable modem rental, and any other charges that could be mandated by federal, state, or local government in the future.  They can also keep their usage caps.

√ Comcast must agree to the FCC’s Homeopathic Net Neutrality Rules:  Comcast has to agree to the FCC’s heavily-watered down definition of Net Neutrality… the ones Comcast itself suggested.

Since the FCC largely caved-in to Big Telecom’s lobbying against Net Neutrality, Comcast’s agreement to adhere to what the FCC calls Net Neutrality won’t present any problems, because those terms were similar to what Comcast had asked for all along.  Their “digital phone” service is exempted, which means Comcast can “manage” competing Voice Over IP services at its pleasure.

√ Evidence That PBS Has A Lobbyist, Too — Special Favors for Public Broadcasting: Public television stations win carriage protection from Comcast “for several years.”

In an effort to free spectrum, PBS stations could be pressured to give back some channels or reduce their transmitter power to free up UHF frequencies for more wireless broadband.  Should this happen, Comcast has agreed to keep those stations on their cable systems as if nothing changed at all.  It assures stations that even if their broadcast coverage areas are reduced, their cable carriage will stay the same.

√ Binding Arbitration Comes to Buyers of Comcast-owned Networks:  If a cable system or other provider runs into trouble getting an agreement with Comcast, the FCC offers help.

To protect other cable systems, telco-TV, and satellite companies from uncompetitive pricing or access blockades to Comcast-controlled networks, the cable company agrees to come to the table and submit to binding arbitration over carriage disputes.  Unfortunately for Comcast subscribers, the cable giant can’t force broadcasters or other cable networks to the same table to settle their own carriage wars.

√ Online Access to Programming Comes to Existing Players, Unless Something Big Changes: Everyone loves the status-quo, and this agreement assures it.

The Department of Justice provisions protecting access to online video programming were carefully crafted by lawyers with one eye on Washington and the other on Wall Street.  It effectively provides “stability” in the marketplace and avoids the kinds of competitive surprises Wall Street hates.  Effectively, the agreement grants access to Comcast-owned programming to ventures that existed prior to the agreement reached today.  Existing players have the government’s assurance carriage contracts are secure.  Those with a pre-existing relationship to Comcast can also purchase the entire bouquet of Comcast-controlled programming (no a-la-carte) at prices similar to those charged to other cable and satellite customers.

But brand new players that threaten to turn existing business models on their heads?  Forget it.  The agreement says nothing that would require access to Comcast programming for upstart services like ivi, or even Google TV for that matter.  The only potential, real-world competitive scenario comes if an existing player (say Time Warner Cable, Verizon FiOS, or AT&T U-verse) decided to start a national virtual online cable company open to any American, anywhere.  What are the chances of that happening?  How many of you can choose Time Warner -or- Comcast? Verizon FiOS -or- AT&T U-verse?  Would AT&T risk its U-verse revenue selling Time Warner Cable customers the same channel lineup, knowing it can’t also easily bundle broadband and phone packages with it?

√ No Voting Rights for Hulu: Comcast agrees to limit its role in one of the biggest potential reasons some consumers are prepared to cut cable’s cord.

The Justice Department’s requirement that Comcast effectively butt-out of the day to day decisions affecting Hulu may protect consumers, but Hulu’s partners don’t want to devalue their programming by giving it away for free forever, either.  Nothing prohibits the birds-of-a-feather-partners in Hulu to put the service under a full ad load or behind a pay wall, reducing its value and interest to consumers.  Or, the whole project could be terminated at the behest of News Corp. and Disney.

Whatever consumer protections the FCC and Justice have included, they won’t last forever.  Virtually all expire within three to seven years, at which point Comcast might be humbled by the culmination of a bad business decision the likes of AOL-Time Warner, or become Comzilla, ready to trample its competition (and consumers) into the dirt.

Was This a Commission Cave-In or a Foregone Conclusion?

Although Commissioner Copps calls today’s decision a “dangerous” deal, some ex-regulators suggest the package presented to federal regulators was effectively a foregone conclusion.

Bruce Gottlieb was formerly Chief Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, and offered his take on today’s developments for The Atlantic:

How mergers at the FCC will play out is notoriously hard to predict, but the ultimate result is not. The historical truth is that, in virtually every instance, the commission will approve any major proposed transaction. The only time in recent memory that the commission declined to do so was the proposed merger of the two leading satellite-TV providers (Echostar and DirecTV) — and that marriage was running into problems with other agencies long before the FCC put the final nail in the coffin.

(Yes, then-Chairman Reed Hundt also famously ended rumors of an AT&T and Southwestern Bell merger in 1997 by preemptively declaring it “unthinkable.” But those companies simply had to wait until 2005, when a different FCC chairman let it go through.)

The real action at the FCC involves what “conditions” the agency will put on a merger. These are supposed to be narrowly tailored to address specific harms raised by the merger at issue. But, regardless of who is in charge at the agency, it’s all relative.

Often, the conditions applied to a particular merger have more to do with what the chairman and commissioners at the time want to achieve on an industrywide basis. It’s just easier to get these things done when you have the extraordinary leverage of controlling the timing of a multibillion-dollar transaction that the parties are desperate to consummate.

[…]  The FCC’s rules, as described in the press release announcing the merger, appear to be aimed at ensuring that “over the top” providers have fair access to programming (which the NBCU part of Comcast-NBCU will provide), as well as to consumers (which the Comcast part of Comcast-NBCU will provide).

This is, by far, the strongest statement yet from the commission about the importance of over the top video competition. But the business and regulatory stakes in this fight are only going to increase over time. Indeed, the two Republican commissioners (Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker) issued separate statements saying they have concerns over whether the FCC should be writing rules to encourage over the top video. So this is likely to be the first skirmish in what will surely be a long and bloody war.

In the weeks ahead, the lawyers will be able to parse the specific provisions to see where the loopholes are and how it will all play out in practice. The details surely matter. But years from now, the specifics of what was decided in this merger may mean a lot less than the fact that the FCC is now deeply involved in the multifront war to decide who will win online video.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Newshour Comcast Merger Announced 12-3-09.mp4[/flv]

More than a year ago, PBS’ ‘The Newshour’ explored the reasons why Comcast and NBC-Universal would want to join forces.  Now, after millions of dollars of Comcast subscribers’ money has been spent lobbying for approval, will consumers ultimately pay an even higher price later on?  (12/3/2009 — 11 minutes)

Stop the Cap! and our allies Free Press teamed up to expose Frontier’s usage limits for what they are — a broadband ripoff.

KOVR-TV in Sacramento ran an excellent piece on Frontier’s latest embarrassing screw-up: driving their declining landline broadband customers away with unjustified and arbitrary usage caps.

One new piece of the story: Frontier could bring its usage rationing sideshow to a community near you.  As Stop the Cap! informed readers from the beginning, the company has quietly been tracking customers’ usage, looking for outliers they can suggest are using too much.  Now the company says it is ready to drop the hammer on heavy users.

Stephanie Beasly, Communications Manager — Frontier Communications:

“The company letters were sent to customers that are using an excessive amount of the network. Well beyond any reasonable amount for an average user and significant enough to negatively affect other customers’ user experience.

The letters are meant to communicate to these customers that their usage is in excess and we would like to work with them to adjust their plan or their usage. In most cases our customers were not aware of their usage patterns and are willing to work with us to adjust their plans to fit their lifestyles. We do not have a customer capacity on our network. We are looking to work with these customers to help prevent degradation on our network to ensure the customer experience.

The pricing structure was put in place to help us maintain the network experience for all customers. If you choose to use a significant amount of bandwidth we believe you should pay for the service accordingly.

The letters were sent to four markets across the company. We routinely review network usage patterns and these users jumped out as consuming an inordinate amount of bandwidth, enough to negatively affect other customers’ user experience.

All of Frontier markets are reviewed for usage patterns as the markets receiving the letters were reviewed. These specific markets were not targeted.

The customers using an excessive amount of data negatively impact the network for other users. Preventing us from providing adequate bandwidth to all of our users during peak and non-peak times.”

There is less and less to like about Frontier Communications, despite the fact they plan to deliver broadband service to rural Americans unlikely to see it from anyone else.  We’re glad someone is willing to provide the service, but 1-3Mbps broadband with arbitrary usage limits and potentially confiscatory pricing ($250 a month for residential customers), is a trade the devil might make.

Stop the Cap! will continue to organize opposition to Frontier’s foolish pricing schemes wherever they appear.  We will help customers find an alternate provider wherever possible, preferably one that remembers a customer should be treated like gold, not mined for it.

In suburban Sacramento, we highly recommend SureWest — a fiber-to-the-home service provider that not only has no Internet Overcharging scheme, but provides service at speeds that frankly embarrass Frontier’s last-century DSL.  They will even cover up to $200 of any early cancellation fee Frontier charges (and if Frontier tries, we want to know about it).

Our reader, Mr. Brown, was pleasantly surprised to find that SureWest’s speeds just blow Frontier out of the water.  He’s saying goodbye to his 6/0.5Mbps DSL line from Frontier and hello to 25/25Mbps service from SureWest that will also save him $10 a month!  He is also happy to see the back of Frontier’s Overcharging Nanny telling him to get off the Internet.

“[These caps] are a slippery slope and Internet providers need to know that action such as these will result in lost profits,” Mr. Brown wrote on KOVR’s website.  Departing customers typically drop -all- of their Frontier services, costing the company landline revenue as well.

Indeed, Frontier continues to lose more landline customers than its adds, and bungling policies like overcharging for Internet service will only accelerate the departure of angry customers.

Unfortunately, Frontier’s failures extend way beyond their broadband service.

Frontier’s way of doing business has:

• given customers one more reason to cancel their landline service;
• ruined a fiber-to-the-home service that a child should be able to market successfully;
• irritated subscribers with “price protection agreements” that are little more than tricks and traps — delivering all of the protection to Frontier’s bottom line and making you pay the price;
• destroyed what few reasons remain for customers to waste their time with DSL broadband wherever cable or municipal providers exist;
• delivered big dividends and results only to shareholders, siphoning away important financial resources needed to upgrade their facilities.

In Everett, Washington Frontier cannot even manage the steady flow of customers canceling FiOS video service after news of a shocking $30 a month rate increase.  After telling customers they should “upgrade” their Frontier service to DirecTV satellite, those customers that tried encountered news that DirecTV never heard of the promotion Frontier was offering:

Two hours on the phone, six customer service people and a disconnected call — it wasn’t the introduction to DirecTV that one local man had hoped.

A FiOS television customer, Rick Wright sought to take advantage of an offer made last week by Frontier Communications and its partner, DirecTV.

[…]When Wright called initially, the Frontier customer service person was familiar with Frontier’s offer and transferred Wright to DirecTV to get an installation date before cancelling his FiOS TV service. At DirecTV, Wright spoke to six people over a two-hour span before being disconnected. Wright called back to DirecTV the following day only to be told that he was misinformed about the offer. Frontier spokeswoman Stephanie Beasly said Thursday that she was taking care of Wright’s problem.

On Friday, more than a week after Frontier first announced its new offer, Wright said his television service still remained up in the air. Several other FiOS television customers in Snohomish County reported difficulty in getting the free DirecTV offer.

Late last week, Frontier acknowledged some miscommunication between the company and its partner, DirecTV. On Thursday, Beasly said she believed those issues had been resolved. She did not return a request for further information Friday.

DirecTV spokeswoman Jade Ekstedt suggested in an e-mail that FiOS customers should contact Frontier directly for assistance.

“The offer … is a valid Frontier Communications promotion that includes DirecTV service, and DirecTV always works with its partners on valid offers that they introduce into market,” Ekstedt wrote, when asked whether DirecTV is honoring Frontier’s offer.

Complaints are arriving at a steady pace, reports the Washington State Attorney General’s office.

This is a story that never ends well.  But don’t worry — the executives responsible for the notorious bungling have their spots on the compensation lifeboats already reserved.  Too bad customers will likely go down with the ship.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOVR Sacramento Call Kurtis Bill May Triple For Excessive Internet Usage 1-13-11.mp4[/flv]

KOVR-TV in Sacramento worked with Stop the Cap! and Free Press to develop this story about Frontier’s unjustified Internet Overcharging schemes.  (4 minutes)

After an outpouring of complaints from UK mobile data customers, T-Mobile’s UK division has announced it is backing off implementing ‘new and improved’ usage caps of 500MB per month, down from the 1-3GB customers used to enjoy.  But the change of heart will only apply to existing customers.  New customers will find themselves second class citizens of the T-Mobile family — stuck with a 500MB allowance other customers won’t have to cope with.

The company claims it changed its mind after hearing from customers, but we suspect the real reason for the sudden change was word the British regulator OFCOM was considering an investigation, suggesting T-Mobile could have violated its own contract with customers by not providing 30 days of advance notice.

There were also reports angered customers seeking an early end to their contract were meeting resistance from T-Mobile’s customer relations department.  Customers who quit early face steep early cancellation penalties, despite the fact they should be waived if a mobile provider materially changes the service consumers thought they were getting when they signed up.

Another object lesson learned: Internet Overcharging schemes often start with “generous” allowances that some providers will lower if it means reducing demand on their networks, without ever bothering to lower prices for customers.

Thanks to quick work from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canadian broadband providers have wasted no time announcing new usage limits and penalties for those who exceed them.

The principal culprit for the Internet Overcharging: Bell (Canada), the nation’s largest telecommunications company.

Bell’s newly won right to charge wholesale customers usage-based billing rates has caused a collective groan from independent providers from Vancouver to Charlottetown. Primus, the second-largest alternative communications company in Canada, threw up its hands and announced it was going to pass Bell’s costs along to their customers.  Some other providers have already raised rates, shocking customers who received December bills with $100 in overlimit penalties.

“It’s an economic disincentive for Internet use,” said Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus. “It’s not meant to recover costs. In fact these charges that Bell has levied are many, many, many times what it costs to actually deliver it.”

That is a hallmark example of what happens under Internet Overcharging schemes like “usage-based pricing,” usage caps, or other limited use plans.  Customers don’t pay for their actual broadband use — they overpay, especially when stiff penalties are imposed when they exceed their usage allowance.

“Canada’s broadband market is a racket, period,” says our reader Andy, who lives near Petawawa, in northern Ontario.  “If you are in a major city in the south, you can choose Bell or one of their lackeys or the cable company, which almost always means Shaw or Rogers in English-speaking Canada.”

Andy doesn’t have access to cable, so his broadband comes courtesy of DSL from the phone company.  He counts himself lucky he has that, even though it only delivers around 512kbps and is down at least once a week, especially when the weather is bad.  Other communities have no broadband at all, and some areas are so desperate for access, they have provided financial incentives to attract a provider to town.  It rarely succeeds.  Zeropaid reports a handful on unscrupulous would-be providers have taken the incentives and left town with no broadband service to show for it.

“These guys only want the easy customers and they’ve got them in Toronto or Ottawa,” Andy says. “The rest of us can live with dial-up.”

The Canadian government occasionally launches highly publicized demonstration projects to deliver rural broadband in northern Canada, often over wireless, something Andy scoffs at.

“When the TV cameras are shut off and [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper’s political bandwagon goes home, the networks last for about a month until something goes wrong and the whole thing shuts down, sometimes for weeks before someone repairs it,” Andy says.

There oughta be a law.

In fact Canada, a country with a reputation for keeping a regulatory eye on essential services, has an agency that is supposed to protect consumers and monitor telecommunications services. Unfortunately for Canadians, it was that agency that gave Bell the go-ahead to kill unlimited, flat rate broadband — the service that has kept most independent service providers in business.

Critics charge the Commission has been acting more like a Big Telecom industry trade group than an independent oversight body, and many independent providers openly wonder how long they’ll survive with Bell’s predatory pricing.

Reviewing who serves on the Commission may provide some answers about why they seem to be closely aligned with Canada’s largest telecom companies.  Many of the commissioners used to work for the very companies they are now asked to regulate, and some are likely to return to them after their stint at the CRTC.  The agency’s supposedly independent commissioners know if they want future employment in the telecommunications industry, it’s best not to antagonize your next boss.

Take Commissioner Leonard Katz.  He joined the CRTC in 2005 and was appointed vice chairman of telecommunications in 2007.  For 30 years before joining the Commission, Katz was employed by Canada’s largest telecom firm, moving up through Bell’s management ranks from 1974-1985.  His last big job at Bell was as the assistant director of Bell’s regulatory lobbying department, where he spent his energy and time dealing with federal politicians and the CRTC.  Katz also loves Canada’s wireless industry, dominated by Rogers Communications.  He was founder and chairman of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Clearinghouse for wireless carriers.

Or there was Michel Arpin, a consummate former insider at some of Canada’s largest corporately-owned broadcast station groups like Astral Broadcasting, Mutual Broadcasting, and Radiomutuel.  He also had a side relationship with Telus, a western Canadian telecom company that also belongs to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB).  Arpin served CAB as vice-chair and chair. Arpin, the corporate media man, also served as the vice-chairman of the CRTC’s broadcast division until late last year.

Other examples:

• Rita Cugini — A regional commissioner for the province of Ontario, her professional background has been working for some of the province’s biggest media interests, including Alliance Atlantis, Telelatino, and CFMT/OMNI.  She also is integrally involved with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which bends the ears of regulators regularly on a variety of matters;
• Tim Denton — About as close to the broadband industry as you can get, Denton’s role as a commissioner began in 2008, but his money was made working for the broadband industry, including the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, which lobbies for big broadband provider interests.
• Candice Molnar — Serves today as regional commissioner for Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but she knows most of the prairie provinces’ movers and shakers by name, having spent more than 20 years at SaskTel, Saskatchewan’s biggest phone company.  She helped guide SaskTel from provincial to federal regulation when she worked there and her voting record shows her heart is still with her former employer.

With a Commission stacked against ordinary Canadian consumers, it’s no wonder Internet Overcharging schemes and stifled broadband competition rule the day in Canada.

“Rural Canada always pays the biggest price,” says Andy.  “If it didn’t happen in Toronto or Ottawa, it didn’t happen at all.”

Andy complains Canadian broadband will never improve with Internet Overcharging schemes in place.

“They complain about your usage and say if they can restrict it, they can improve service to more people; well, where is my better service?” Andy asks.

“At least I don’t have to worry about their usage allowances… yet,” Andy says. “Even if I left my connection running continuously, at these speeds I doubt I could do much damage.”