HP's Snowjob: The company that brought you the $70 ink cartridge supports an end to flat rate Internet service to "save" you money.

HP’s Joe Weinman argues consumers are behind the drive to abandon flat rate, “all you can eat” broadband pricing.

Weinman, whose company sells products and services to some of America’s largest broadband providers, has taken up their position that flat-rate Internet service is bad for you, claiming many are paying too much for Internet service they use too little.

In an essay posted on GigaOM, Weinman brings back the all-y0u-can-eat buffet metaphor:

For the record, I like unlimited Internet access just as much as anyone else. However, such plans appear to be on their way out, and here’s why. As I’ve explored in ”The Market for Melons” (PDF), pay-per-use is not an evil plot by greedy robber barons, but a natural outcome of independent, rational consumer choice. Consider a town with an all-you-can-eat (flat rate) buffet and an a la carte (pay-per-use) restaurant. Smart shoppers on diets will save money by patronizing the a la carte restaurant, whereas heavy eaters will save money by visiting the buffet. As patrons switch, the average consumption of the buffet will increase, driving price increases for the luncheon special, causing even more users to switch to pay-per-use.

Bottom line: it is not the proprietors driving this dynamic, but the customers themselves acting out of pure, rational self-interest—light users, by deciding not to subsidize the heavy ones, foster the vitality of the pay-per-use model.

Unfortunately for Weinman, most American broadband customers don’t believe a word of this, and even he was forced to admit as much when he noted consumers “often prefer to overpay for flat-rate rather than save money but risk bill shock.”

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports wasn’t suckered for a moment either, noting:

[…]Cable industry lobbyists would like the public to believe that such a shift isn’t about making more money, it’s about helping the poor. Not only is the metered billing push absolutely about making money, it’s about artificially constricting the pipe to protect uncompetitive carriers and TV revenues from Internet video. But instead, there’s a very concerted effort afoot to portray this shift as necessary, inevitable, and even altruistic.

Most consumers prefer the simplicity of flat rate pricing, and understand that ISPs are perfectly profitable under the flat-rate pricing model. They also understand that this is a pipe dream forged by never-satisfied investors, and once implemented ends with ever soaring per gig fees and ever shrinking usage caps.

Weinman’s essay completely ignores the reality his preferred pricing model already delivers to those who live under it in Canada.  Canadian broadband rankings continue to decline as customers there pay higher prices for a lower level of service, with usage caps that actually decline when new competitive threats from online video emerge.

Just what the doctor ordered: HP's Rx for American Broadband

We had to take time out to respond directly to Weinman and his cheerleading friends (see the comments section), some who wrote comments below the piece and couldn’t be bothered to disclose they owe their day jobs to industry-backed dollar-a-holler groups that are committed to delivering on behalf of their provider benefactors:

When Big Telecom comes ringing with promises of savings from metered or capped broadband, hang up immediately.

These plans save almost nobody money and expose dramatic overlimit fees to consumers, creating the kind of bill shock wireless phone users endure.

The OPEC-like Internet price-fixing on offer from big players delivers broadband rationing and sky high prices, while retarding Internet innovations that providers don’t own or control.

Consumers are forced to double check their usage and think twice about everything they do online out of fear of being exposed to huge overlimit fees up to $10 a gigabyte for exceeding an arbitrary limit ranging from 5-250GB.

Americans already pay too much for Internet service and now the providers want more of your money. The rest of the world is moving AWAY from the pricing schemes Weinman would have us embrace. It’s such a serious issue in the South Pacific, the governments of Australia and New Zealand are working to address the problem themselves.

Providers are already earning BILLIONS in profits every quarter from their lucrative broadband businesses. Now the wallet biters are back for more, with the convenient side benefit that limiting consumption is a great way to prevent Internet-delivered TV from causing cord-cutting of cable TV packages.

As far as consumers are concerned, and Weinman admits as much, people are happy with today’s unlimited price models. When Big Telecom complains people are overpaying for broadband, wouldn’t their shareholders be telling them to shut up and take the money? There is more to this story.

Weinman defends the extortion proposition Big Telecom would visit on us: either give us limited use pricing or we’ll raise all of your prices.

But as consumers have already figured out, these providers never reduce prices for anyone. When was the last time your cable bill went down unless you dropped services?

Don’t be a sucker to Big Telecom’s “broadband shortage” or pricing myths. Broadband is not comparable to water, gas, or electric. The closest comparison (and the one they always leave out) is to telephone service, and as we’ve seen, that business is increasingly moving TOWARDS flat race, unlimited pricing.

Want to know what metered pricing does to the wallets of consumers? Just ask Time Warner Cable customers in Rochester, Greensboro, San Antonio, and Austin what they thought about the cable company’s “innovative” pricing experiment that tripled the price for the same level of broadband customers used to get for $50 a month. After the torches and pitchforks were raised over $150 a month broadband service, Time Warner backed down.

Either with or without metered pricing, the cable company raised its prices three times last year alone.

The industry’s meme that “usage-based pricing” in inevitable is only true if consumers allow it to happen.  The parade of Internet Overcharging advocates all share one thing in common — they earn a living from the providers that dream about these pricing schemes.  Always follow the money.  As we’ve exposed repeatedly, the vast majority of defenders of these kinds of pricing schemes are not consumers.  They are:

• The providers themselves;
• Wall Street banks, investors, and the business media catering to them;
• Non-profit groups receiving substantial contributions from providers;
• Industry-funded “think tanks” and research that can carry the industry’s public policy agenda, hoping the media that quotes them are too lazy to follow the money;
• Equipment and service vendors, unions, and other groups who depend on the business or jobs they get from providers.

If you are a Frontier DSL customer, your unlimited Internet service is at risk of being arbitrarily limited by a company that wants to cut costs and increase revenue… at your expense.

Suburban Sacramento residents deemed to be “using too much” Frontier Internet service are being told they have to ration their Internet usage or pay more — a lot more — for the same speed service.  Even worse, many customers are paying extra for a “Price Protection Agreement” from Frontier that protects Frontier’s profits while your Internet bill doubles.  That’s a price protection racket only the Sopranos could love.

Frontier’s own representatives are literally at a loss for words when told it’s easy to exceed their “5GB” limit just by web browsing and checking e-mail.  But they are even quieter when customers report Frontier’s own video website – my fitv, a “free online video service” heavily promoted by Frontier, is ultimately responsible for their looming $99.99 monthly Internet bill.

Frontier wants to get tough with some of their best customers.  As a result, many are exploring disconnecting service for a cable competitor.  The best way to fight these Internet Overcharging schemes is to make it clear to Frontier you will not submit to them.  The first step is to bring wider media attention to the issue.

Sacramento-Elk Grove Customers

• Contact the Sacramento Bee, the Elk Grove Citizen and other local newspapers and ask them to write a story about this;
• Contact KOVR-TV’s consumer reporter and ask him to do a story;
• Contact other stations and local call-in shows and draw attention to Frontier’s abuse of its customers;
• If you are on a “price protection agreement” contact the California Public Utilities Commission and file a complaint.

Points to consider raising:

• Frontier’s usage caps are easily broken using the company’s own video website, my fitv;
• What the company suggests most people will not exceed today is not reasonable tomorrow.  Besides, how much customers actually use is considered proprietary and we have to take their word on it;
• Customers on price protection agreements are being asked to pay more than double for the exact same quality of service they used to receive for less.  Where is the price protection?;
• Frontier is generous with their shareholders, paying outrageously high dividends out of step with their earnings, but are notoriously stingy with the customers that deliver them that revenue;
• Where’s the fire?  This is the same company that said it had more than enough capacity to take on millions of ex-Verizon broadband customers, but now suddenly can’t deliver the same level of service to existing customers in Elk Grove without doubling the monthly price?;
• Customers are being asked to pay $1 a gigabyte for a service that costs Frontier far less to actually provide;
• At a time when Frontier continues to lose landline customers, can they afford to alienate more, who take all of their business elsewhere?

Frontier alienating its own customers who pay for their landline and broadband DSL service does not sound like a winning business strategy.  Let Frontier know you will not do business with a company that abuses its big-spending customers.  Let them know in clear terms you will cancel all of your services if the company maintains its Internet Overcharging practices and you will encourage your friends and family to take their business elsewhere as well.

Frontier Communications is trying to enforce an Internet Overcharging scheme it deleted from its Acceptable Use Policy months earlier, telling customers the company generously extended them an allowance “well above our usual 5GB monthly limit,” but using 100GB per month is “just too much.”

Customers in suburban Sacramento are the latest recipients of letters some are calling “extortion,” giving them seven days to call the company with a promise to cut back or move up to “the next price tier,” priced at $99.99 per month.

Ironically, some of Frontier’s customers receiving the letter say it’s the company’s own fault — they’ve been watching Frontier’s heavily promoted online video website, ‘my fitv.’

“You may not be aware that your specific usage has consistently exceeded 100GB over a 30-day period.  This is excessive for residential usage and more represents the amount of bandwidth usage of a typical business,” the letter says.  “If you wish to maintain your current pricing plan, you may work with us to reduce your Internet usage.  Another option is to move to the next price tier of $99.99 per month, which reflects your current average monthly usage.”

The letter adds if the customer does not make a decision, the company will terminate the account in 20 days.  No word if the customer is on the hook for an early termination fee amounting to more than $100 in most cases.

The customer who received the letter, who lives in Elk Grove and wishes to remain anonymous, was highly annoyed.  He sent Stop the Cap! a screenshot of Frontier’s new “Flexnet/Account Editor,” poorly documented on Frontier’s own website, which shows over the last three months, he only broke the invisible 100GB Frontier barrier once, by just 38GB.  For that, Frontier wants to more than double his monthly Internet rate for its DSL service.

The monthly usage limit was news to him… and us… and everyone else.

A well-placed source at Frontier tells Stop the Cap! the company is making the rules up as it goes.

“There is no set plan here — Frontier’s corporate office is testing the waters in different communities to see what kind of response they get,” our source says. “We have been quietly collecting usage statistics on our customers for a year now, and here and there we are chasing those outliers using far above the norm in order to keep our costs as low as possible.”

Our source adds the company wants to keep bad publicity to a minimum, so these kinds of Overcharging schemes are not publicized, and unless customers make a federal case out of it, most will simply reduce usage to avoid the overlimit rates.

“They absolutely do not want a big political stink over this, because it creates headaches and leaves customers with a negative impression about the company and that usually means a disconnect order will follow, usually taking all of their business somewhere else.  That’s why we usually are strictest in places where the customer has nowhere else to go.”

Our reader was perplexed by the letter, the policy, and his options, especially since Frontier does not disclose either a usage limit or a $99.99 plan on their website.

“The [representative] from Frontier told me that the monthly usage limit is 5GB. I told him this is not enough for checking e-mail and surfing the web and reading news.” our reader writes. “He did not answer [when I challenged him about this].”

But no worries, the representative told the Elk Grove customer. If he exceeded 100GB of usage again, he’d automatically be billed the $99.99 rate — no decision needed.

Our reader adds when he signed up, nobody told him about a monthly limit, and there is none disclosed on the website.  Stop the Cap! fought to remove Frontier’s 5GB usage limit from its Acceptable Use Policy for more than a year, finally succeeding earlier this year.  But now it appears Frontier wants to enforce limits anyway, with no disclosure and little recourse for customers who don’t have access to a competing provider.

Before our reader started watching online video, he used about 16GB per month just web browsing, checking e-mail, and downloading the usual software updates.

Didn’t that put him over Frontier’s invisible 5GB cap already?

“The representative told me if I kept it under 50GB a month, I’d be safe,” our reader writes.

So is the usage cap 50 or 100GB per month?

Our customer exceeded Frontier's arbitrary, unpublished usage cap just once in the last three months (click to enlarge)

Stop the Cap! called Frontier customer service three times this morning as a potential new customer.  The responses we received:

• “There is no usage cap I am aware of.”
• “We don’t limit your Internet service.”
• “I don’t understand what you mean when you say limit?  We don’t censor websites.”

Sandy, who also contacted Stop the Cap! also received a letter, and ironically blames Frontier for the usage.

Frontier's own video website was responsible for one customer using "too much" Frontier Internet service.

“I received a warning letter from Frontier for using too much Internet, but get this — all of the growth in my usage came after the company started promoting its new online video website, which my family has fallen in love with,” Sandy writes. “We hooked up a video box on our television, something Frontier helped us with, and we’ve been streaming my fitv a lot.”

“That is extortion plain and simple and is illegal under California state law, especially because the representative told us we’d be charged $99.99 the moment we went over the limit again, and we are on a two-year ‘price protection agreement’ Frontier says locks in our price, which is a lie,” Sandy says.

Her next call was to the California State Attorney General.  Sandy was told the office has already received more than a dozen complaints from Frontier customers in the Sacramento area alleging violations of California contract law.

Jeff, a Broadband Reports reader, also received a letter from Frontier and was told the company was getting plenty of pushback from angry customers.

“The tech guy said they just started metering and have been getting a ton of calls regarding the letters being sent out. He then asked if I got the 100GB or the 250GB letter, as apparently the 250GB warning letters were more severe stating to pay up or get cut off.  The 100GB letter stated they’d work with you to help ease usage or recommended a business plan. They said the “work with you to help with usage” was new and just added if you call within 7 days or else get cut off after 20 days.”

Jeff’s response to all this?

“Comcast is looking better every day now.”

So far, Frontier has not imposed its usage cap on its ex-Verizon FiOS customers.

“Putting a 5, 100, or even 250GB cap on a fiber optic connection would just be plain greed,” says our reader Ajai. “But of course, Frontier needs as much cash as possible to pay out those high dividends to shareholders that often exceed the company’s earnings.  There is nothing to like about this company, period.”

Frontier’s letters sound suspiciously similar to the enforcement letters sent to some of their customers in Mound, Minn. Those letters stopped after Stop the Cap! distributed copies to a wider national audience.  Our source at Frontier says the company doesn’t appreciate our help one bit.

“The higher ups on the corporate level despise your website, but they also pretend to dismiss you as an angry blogger that nobody reads,” our source says.  “I get a laugh out of that whenever I get another memo from the executive office basically delivering talking points to counter your arguments, so they very much do care what you and your readers say and apparently read Stop the Cap! regularly.”

For our source, it’s all “so stupid.”

“Trust me, a lot of guys who deal with customers every day want nothing to do with their usage caps which do nothing but infuriate customers,” he says. “They wonder why people are disconnecting Frontier landlines and taking their Internet business elsewhere — it’s policies exactly like these combined with pretty low speed DSL service which makes our customers easy pickings for our competitors.”

But not every customer has a choice.

“Where we own the broadband market, it’s too bad for customers — either ration your use, pay us double, or go without.  It is as simple as that.”

While some American broadband providers continue to dream of Internet Overcharging schemes for American customers, one of the world’s most usage-capped countries continues its march forward to abolish them.  Australia’s Optus, a major broadband provider, today announced it was dramatically increasing usage allowances on customers, effective immediately.

The Fusion 99 plan, which bundles telephone and broadband service, sees its data allowance increased from just 15GB of usage per month to 500GB (twice that of American cable giant Comcast).  Ditto for the Fusion 109 plan, which originally doubled the 15GB limit to 30.  Now it offers a 500GB allowance of usage.

If 500GB isn’t enough, Optus has announced its Fusion 129 plan includes 1000GB — a terabyte — of usage per month, which includes unlimited long distance calling and calls to Australia’s mobile phone customers (most countries outside of North America require the calling party to pay mobile rates when calling a mobile customer).  Even customers on Optus’ budget-minded standard and “naked” (standalone) broadband plans will benefit from new 500GB allowances.  Those who manage to exceed their allowance will find broadband speeds reduced to 250kbps until the end of the billing cycle.

Some Australian ISP’s take all limits off during off-peak usage hours.  The country has traditionally suffered from usage caps because of international undersea cable capacity problems which restrict how much traffic can be sent and received between the South Pacific and North America and Europe.  Increased undersea fiber capacity is tempering those traffic restrictions, and momentum towards unlimited use plans (or those with ridiculously high allowances) is the result.

Lifehacker produced a broadband plan breakdown showing the dramatically increasing usage allowances for Australian broadband customers. Traffic shaping continues to be an issue, however. Such speed control measures traditionally target peer-to-peer traffic. Total cost is the total price of the service over the length of the term contract. This chart represents high end plans, typically offering the highest speed tiers. All dollar amounts are in Australian dollars.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC The Gruen Transfer Telco Ads 11-2010.flv[/flv]

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s ‘The Gruen Transfer’ takes a humorous look at how phone companies Down Under advertise their services, including a reference about how “capped” services represent revenue gold to service providers.  (15 minutes)

Phillip "Of course you know this means war" Dampier

Sizing up the big winners from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s latest Net Neutrality proposals is as simple as putting those praising Genachowski in column “A” and those outraged by downsized consumer protections into column “B.”  It comes as no surprise Big Telecom, the employees whose jobs depend on those companies, their trade associations and lobbyists are all living it up on the “A” side while consumers and public interest groups sit in the dark in column “B.”

Among the high-five club is Kyle McSlarrow, the outgoing head of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the cable industry’s top lobbying enterprise.

On the NCTA’s blog, an indication of your broadband future has been placed front and center — a meter.  Perhaps putting a coin slot on your cable modem or a credit card reader on the side of your monitor would be a bit too brazen, even for this industry.

McSlarrow, among others, heaped bountiful praise on the FCC chairman for his ‘enlightened’ views on Net Neutrality.  That hardly a surprise considering Genachowski has opened his phone line, and apparently his heart, to industry propaganda and arguments.

Genachowski’s remarks about usage-based pricing, in particular, were a breath of fresh air to Wall Street and providers clamoring to dispense with unlimited broadband service for consumers to increase profits:

Our work has also demonstrated the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use of networks, including measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing.

“This approach reflects a responsible and considered view of a fast-moving and highly dynamic marketplace but it doesn’t assume that there is any one ‘correct’ answer,” McSlarrow wrote.

It’s also a view consumers strongly disagree with, but those opinions are off the FCC’s radar.  Consumers don’t have the chairman’s direct phone number.  If they did, they could argue the fact “matching price to cost” would mean a dramatic reduction in pricing for today’s unlimited broadband account.  Instead, we have a lobbying effort to end “unlimited” entirely, backed by manufactured studies funded by providers expecting pre-determined conclusions.  Too bad the FCC doesn’t read provider financial reports.

Writes McSlarrow:

Some consumers don’t see the need to go online.  Others are constrained by cost.  Still others want to use the service they have in cutting-edge ways.  And the ability to pigeonhole companies and their business plans as being one thing or another is breaking down, particularly in an environment where Internet applications, content, and services change the way we behave as consumers, provide new opportunities for providers and consumers and alter how we all interact with both traditional and new devices and features.

The key point is that that we need to focus on what best serves consumers.  With all this change, it is necessary to have the flexibility to test new business models – and perhaps new pricing plans – in order to see if they make sense.

A usage-based pricing model, for instance, might help spur adoption by price-sensitive consumers at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder.  As Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett noted in a report issued yesterday, “{u}sage-based pricing for broadband would have profound implications.  At the low end, it would allow cable operators to introduce lower priced tiers that could boost penetration and help in efforts to serve lower income consumers.”

McSlarrow

Evidently, to chase the small percentage of Americans who either don’t have an interest in going online, or think it costs too much, the NCTA wants those already online to face Internet Overcharging schemes ranging from usage caps to metered billing.  Is it flexible for consumers who face the end of broadband pricing as they’ve lived with for more than a decade or is it flexible for providers who can run to the bank with the higher profits rationed broadband delivers?

McSlarrow quotes Moffett’s quest for higher profits for his clients — Wall Street investment banks, but ignores the implications Moffett himself admits — consumer rebellions, self-rationing of usage, a stifling of online innovation from independent companies not connected with providers, and higher prices.

American providers look north for an example of Big Telecom’s pot ‘o gold — Canadian ISPs that have managed to wreak havoc on the country’s broadband rankings, forcing consumers to live with higher prices and, in some cases, declining usage allowances.  Canada’s broadband innovation graveyard is an object lesson for Americans: usage-based pricing doesn’t deliver savings to anyone except the most casual users living under constrained speeds and paltry allowances as low a 1GB per month.  For everyone else, broadband prices are higher, speeds are slower, and usage allowances deliver stinging penalties for those who dare to exceed them.  What do Canadian providers do with all of the money they earn?  A good sum of it goes towards acquiring their competitors, further reducing an already-poor competitive marketplace.

As one Ontario reader of Broadband Reports noted, “our largest cable company has the money to buy three professional sports teams but not enough to roll out DOCSIS 3 [to all of its customers.]  Our largest phone company, Bell, has the money to buy half the news stations in Canada, but cannot seem to get users off of 3Mbps DSL service.  The whole system is a scam.”

While the rest of the world is decidedly moving away from limited-use broadband, American providers have sold Genachowski that rationing the Internet is “innovation.”

Of course, you and I know real innovation means investing some of the enormous profits providers earn back into their networks to keep up with growing demand.  Providers can innovate all they like to attract price sensitive customers, so long as current unlimited plans remain available and affordable.  But as AT&T illustrated earlier this year, the first thing off the menu is “unlimited,” replaced with overpriced and inadequate wireless data plans that only further alienate their customers.

AT&T should take a lesson… from AT&T.  While it gouges its customers on the wireless side, the company has managed to solve the affordability question all by itself, without resorting to wallet-biting.  It dramatically reduced prices on its DSL services — now just $14.95 a month for its customers, which includes a free gateway and modem.  That sure sounds like a solution for budget-conscious customers and delivered all without antagonizing those who want to keep their current unlimited service plans.

AT&T seems to have managed to solve the affordability question without overcharging their customers.

Cable companies deliver their own budget broadband plans, but it comes as no surprise they barely market them, fearing their premium-paying customers could downgrade their service.

In short, Internet Overcharging is a solution chasing a problem that simply does not exist in a responsible broadband marketplace.

McSlarrow says he’s not arguing for or against any particular model.  All he is really confident about is that the marketplace is changing and that “companies will have to adapt to that change.”

But as is too often the case, McSlarrow, his industry friends and colleagues, and Chairman Genachowski have forgotten it’s ultimately consumers who have to adapt to change, and we promise it means all-out war if providers tamper with unlimited broadband service.