Home » Usage » Recent Articles:

Charter Cable Increasing Broadband Speeds, But You’ll Hit Their Caps Faster

Phillip Dampier November 21, 2011 Broadband Speed, Charter Spectrum, Consumer News, Data Caps 5 Comments

Charter Cable is upgrading its broadband service to deliver free speed upgrades, but with the company’s Internet Overcharging-usage cap scheme in place, some customers are not impressed.

“We plan to streamline Charter Internet options to: Lite, Express, Plus, and Ultra,” Charter social media rep “Eric” wrote on the Broadband Reports‘ Charter customer forum. “Current Max customers will be able to move to a different level of Internet Service.”

The company’s boosted speeds (prices vary in different markets):

  • Charter Lite: 1Mbps/128kbps → Unknown ($19.99) 100GB limit
  • Charter Express: 12/1Mbps → 15/3Mbps ($44.99) 100GB limit
  • Charter Plus: 18/2Mbps → 30/4Mbps ($54.99) 250GB limit
  • Charter Max: 25/3Mbps → Discontinued ($69.99) 250GB limit
  • Charter Ultra: 60/5Mbps → 100/5Mbps ($99.99-109.99) 500GB limit

Charter has usage caps on all of its residential broadband service plans, but Stop the Cap! readers tell us they are not always enforced.  No overlimit fees are charged.  No announcements have been made about any changes to the existing usage limits.  Some Charter Max customers tell us they are using the speed upgrades an an excuse to downgrade to the cheaper Plus plan, which is faster and $15 less a month, with the same 250GB usage cap.  Customers who absolutely won’t tolerate a usage limit have to upgrade to commercial-grade service, which is considerably more expensive.  Lower speed plans run about $80 a month in many areas, but are unlimited.

“I’m glad to discover faster upload speeds, which I’ve waited for a long time, but I’d rather have no usage limits to worry about instead of faster speeds,” shares Stop the Cap! reader and Charter customer Paul McNeil.  “My problem with these faster speeds is that you can’t use them for too long.  Why buy a luxury race car you can only drive down the street?”

Light users who use the Internet primarily for e-mail or web page browsing rarely require more than the most budget-priced broadband package because high speeds do not deliver a significantly improved user experience.  But those who use the Internet for higher-bandwidth applications including video, downloading, certain online games, and file backup do benefit the most from high speed packages.  But when providers slap usage limits on them, the value erodes away.

“Why spend more for less?” asks McNeil. “Two years ago there were no limits and I honestly received more value from my Charter Internet service then over what I have to deal with now.”

CenturyLink Announces Usage Caps; Conveniently Exempts Their Own Video Content

CenturyLink announces their own Internet Overcharging scheme; customers call to cancel their service.

CenturyLink is quietly introducing usage caps for its broadband customers that will limit residential customers to between 150-250GB of usage per month.

The Internet Overcharging scheme was inserted into the company’s High Speed Internet Service Management disclosure page, and suggests heavy users are using an inappropriate amount of data, slowing down the network for other users:

The majority of CenturyLink High-Speed Internet customers make great use of their service and comply with the CenturyLink High-Speed Internet Subscriber Agreement. An extremely small percentage use their service excessively, or at such extreme high volumes, that they violate the terms of their CenturyLink High-Speed Internet Subscriber Agreement. While this high volume use is very rare, CenturyLink is committed to helping these customers find a high-speed Internet solution to better meet their needs.

CenturyLink is announcing the following Excessive Usage Policy (EUP), which will become effective in February 2012:

CenturyLink’s EUP applies to all residential high speed Internet customers and is only enforced in the downstream (from Internet to customer) direction. Video services provided by CenturyLink PRISM™ TV are not subject to the usage limits. The policy has the following usage limits per calendar month:

  • Customers purchasing service at speeds of 1.5Mbps and below, have a usage limit of 150 Gigabytes (GB) of download volume per month.
  • Customers purchasing service at speeds greater than 1.5Mbps, have a limit of 250GB in download volume per month.

There are no overage charges or metering fees for usage as part of the Policy.

The company exempts their own video service PRISM TV from the scheme.

“It’s another CenturyLink ripoff in action, and despite their claims that they treat all data the same, they certainly do not,” says CenturyLink customer Rob Cabella. “Their video programming is sent from local facilities, as data, down the same pipe as their broadband service, yet they conveniently leave their TV product out of the usage cap equation.”

Prism customers can watch unlimited TV, but face limited broadband usage over the exact same pipeline.

Cabella says PRISM operates much like AT&T’s U-verse.  Fiber provides service into individual neighborhoods and then standard copper phone lines deliver service the rest of the way to customer homes.

“It’s one pipe they divide up for video, phone, and Internet, but they are protecting their video service by limiting broadband use while leaving their television and phone service completely unlimited,” Cabella says.  “Video is the biggest bandwidth hog of all, and CenturyLink invites you to watch as much as you want, as long as it comes from them.”

Cabella thinks the very fact CenturyLink is offering unlimited video disproves their argument about ensuring appropriate levels of broadband usage.

“Their local facilities get overloaded to the point where they temporarily stop signing up customers, yet it’s a video free-for-all, as long as you get your video from ‘the right place’ and that sure isn’t Netflix or Hulu,” Cabella notes.

CenturyLink’s limits will apply to broadband customers signed up for PRISM or the company’s traditional DSL service.  Uploads will not count against the cap.

For the moment, overlimit fees will not be charged and the company will send warning letters to offenders that invite customers to migrate “to a higher speed if available or to a business grade data service that better fits their bandwidth usage.”

Customers who repeatedly exceed their usage limits after being notified may have their service discontinued.

Cabella isn’t waiting.

“I called my local cable company which still offers unlimited service and signed up this morning,” Cabella says. “CenturyLink didn’t even know what I was talking about when I called and said their website must have been hacked or in error.  Why would I want to do business with a company that doesn’t even have a clue what their own business is doing?  Goodbye CenturyLink.”

CRTC Splits the Difference on Usage Based Billing; Consumers Will Pay More

Phillip Dampier November 16, 2011 Bell (Canada), Broadband Speed, Canada, Competition, Data Caps, Public Policy & Gov't Comments Off on CRTC Splits the Difference on Usage Based Billing; Consumers Will Pay More

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission late Tuesday ruled against a revised proposal from Bell that could have effectively ended flat rate Internet service across the country, but also allows the phone company to raise wholesale prices for independent Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

The Commission ruled Bell and cable companies like Rogers must sell access to third party providers at a flat rate or priced on speed and the number of users sharing the connection.  The CRTC rejected a Bell-proposed usage-based pricing scheme that would have charged independent ISPs $0.178/GB.

Ultimately, the CRTC came down closest to adopting a proposal from Manitoba-based MTS Allstream, which suggested a variant on speed-based pricing, steering clear of charging based on usage.  Under the CRTC ruling, independent ISPs can purchase unlimited wholesale access based on different speed tiers.  The new pricing formula requires independent providers to carefully gauge their usage when choosing an appropriate amount of bandwidth.  If an independent ISP misjudges how much usage their collective customer base consumes during the month, they could overpay for unused capacity or underestimate usage, leaving customers with congested-related slowdowns.  ISPs will be able to purchase regular capacity upgrades in 100Mbps increments to keep up with demand.  They can also implement network management techniques which may discourage heavy use during peak usage.

The CRTC decision underscores that Internet pricing should be based on speed, not on the volume of data consumed by customers.  That’s a model Stop the Cap! strongly approves because it does not allow providers to monetize broadband usage.

Finkenstein

But that is where the good news ends.  Nothing in the CRTC ruling changes the Internet Overcharging regime already in place at the country’s leading service providers.  Companies like Bell and Rogers are free to continue setting arbitrary limits on usage and charging overlimit fees for those who exceed them.

Konrad von Finckenstein, chair of the CRTC, says the regulator made a mistake in deciding last year to allow Bell to raise its prices for independent service providers.

“Our original decision was clearly not the best one. It was wrong and it was pointed out by a lot of people, including Minister Clement. He was right. We have today fixed it, we have made this new decision,” von Finckenstein said. “The bottom line is that you as a consumer will not face a cap or limitation of use because of anything mandated by the CRTC. Any kind of cap or limit, payment per use, that you will have to pay is because your ISP decides to charge you, not because we mandate it.”

But many independent providers are unhappy with the CRTC ruling because it also allows wholesale providers like Bell to raise prices, sometimes substantially, on the bandwidth they sell.

One independent ISP — TekSavvy, said it faced increased connectivity costs in eastern Canada.

“The CRTC decision is a step back for consumers. The rates approved by the Commission today will make it much harder for independent ISPs to compete”, said TekSavvy CEO Marc Gaudrault. “This is an unfortunate development for telecommunications competition in Canada,” he added.

“Rates are going up,” added Bill Sandiford, president of Telnet Communications and of the Canadian Network Operators Consortium, an independent ISP association.

In addition to whatever rate increases eventually make their way to consumers, some independent providers may end up adopting network management and usage cap policies that attempt to slow down the rate at which they are forced to commit to bandwidth upgrades.  That’s because providers purchase capacity based on what they believe their peak usage rate is likely to be.  Providers will be free to upgrade service in 100Mbps increments.  But with the new, higher prices, providers could overspend on capacity that goes unused or find themselves underestimating usage, creating congestion-related slowdowns for all of their customers.

Angus

Some network management techniques that could reduce peak usage — and the need for upgrades — include speed throttles for heavy users during peak usage times or usage caps that fall away during off-peak hours when network traffic is lower.

Yesterday’s decision will provide some small relief to wholesale buyers of bandwidth in Quebec, where’s Videotron’s sky-high wholesale prices are set to be reduced.  But the unusual divide in Internet pricing between eastern and western Canada will remain.  Western Canadians will continue to enjoy much larger usage allowances, and lower wholesale pricing, than their eastern neighbors in Ontario and Quebec.

The CRTC’s ruling did not go far enough for NDP Digital Issues critic Charlie Angus. Angus notes only 6 percent of Canadians purchase Internet service from independent providers.  The rest will still be stuck with what he calls “unfair billing practices and bandwidth caps.”

Angus is convinced the CRTC just gave the green light to force rate hikes for the minority of consumers who found a way around companies like Bell, Shaw, Videotron, and Rogers.

“Allowing big telecom companies to reach into the pockets of struggling families and ask for even more money is just plain wrong,” Angus said.

Bell’s senior vice-president for regulatory and government affairs, Mirko Bibic, still believes the company’s proposal to charge just under 20c per gigabyte to wholesale users was appropriate, but the CRTC’s permission to allow Bell to increase wholesale rates was a nice consolation prize.  Bibic tried to frame the decision as forcing ‘independent ISPs to pay their fair share.’

Independent ISPs “are going to have to lease more traffic lanes,” he told CTV News. “I think the philosophy is [to] put the independent ISP in a position of responsibility. If usage goes up, you’re going to have to buy more lanes – it’s the same decision that we have to make.”

Florida Woman Gets $201,000 T-Mobile Bill: Data Roaming Bill Shock Nightmare

A Miami woman fell to pieces when T-Mobile sent her a cell phone bill that was higher than the purchase price of many nice suburban homes, after a two-week trip to Canada turned into a data roaming disaster.

Celina Aarons is the latest victim of bill shock — when phone and cable companies send surprise bills that throw families into turmoil, begging for help from the provider that could either aggressively collect or save your sanity by reducing the bill.

Aarons appealed to WSVN Miami’s consumer reporter Patrick Fraser for help after the bill arrived.

“I was freaking out. I was shaking, crying, I couldn’t even talk that much on the phone,” Aarons said. “I was like my life is over!”

It turns out her deaf brother uses a phone on her account to communicate… a lot.  He routinely sends thousands of text messages a month, in addition to relying heavily on the mobile smartphone’s Internet access.  He had no idea a two-week trip to Canada would invoke an insanely high data roaming rate — $10 per megabyte.  Text messages sent while roaming in Canada run $0.20 each, with or without a texting plan.  Just running an online video at those rates will easily rack up charges well over $1,000.  And they did.

Unfortunately for Celina, T-Mobile claims to have sent a handful of warning messages — to her brother’s phone, never to hers.  He claims he never saw them.  She’s ultimately responsible for the bill, and she’s upset T-Mobile didn’t notify the primary account holder — her — of the rapidly accumulating roaming charges.  T-Mobile told her they don’t send such notifications for “privacy reasons.”

[flv width=”630″ height=”374″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSVN Miami Help Me Howard – High phone bill 10-17-11.mp4[/flv]

WSVN in Miami explains what happened when Celina Aarons received her 40+ page T-Mobile bill… for $201,000.  (4 minutes)

Life's for sharing a $201,000 cell phone bill.

That’s how parents end up receiving bill shock of their own, when children handed phones run up enormous charges mom and dad never learn about until the bill arrives in the mailbox.  By then, it’s too late.

The Federal Communications Commission was supposed to take direct action to put an end to bill shock by demanding carriers send clear warnings when usage allowances are used up or when roaming charges begin to accrue.  It was a priority for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, until wireless industry lobbyists convinced him to abandon the effort, choosing an industry-sponsored voluntary plan instead.

Genachowski quietly put the FCC’s own proposed bill shock regulations on hold, which also likely means an abdication of the agency’s responsibility to closely monitor the wireless industry’s adherence to its own voluntary guidelines.

The CTIA Wireless Association, the industry’s largest trade and lobbying group, will be coordinating the “early warning” program, but will take their time implementing it.  The industry wants until October 2012 to implement the first phase of its program, which will send text messages for usage allowance depletion and excessive usage charges.  It also wants even more time — April 2013 — before the industry is expected to adopt additional service alerts.

Genachowski: Abdicated his responsibility to protect consumers in favor of the interests of the wireless industry.

The wireless industry’s plan is based entirely on early warning text messages.  It does not provide any of the top-requested protections consumers want to end the wallet-biting:

  1. The ability to shut off services once usage allowances are depleted until the next billing cycle;
  2. An opt-in provision which requires customers to authorize additional charges before they begin;
  3. The ability to shut off services and features on individual handsets on their account;
  4. The ability to easily opt-out of all roaming services, so sky high excess charges can never be charged to their accounts;
  5. Provisions to require providers to eat the bill if it is demonstrated that warning messages never arrived;
  6. Fines and other punishments for carriers who fail to meet the provisions of either a regulated or voluntary plan.

The CTIA’s plan won’t stop some of the horror stories Genachowski spoke about earlier this year, when he was still advocating immediate action by the Commission.  Among them:

  • Nilofer Merchant: Racked up $10,000 in international roaming and overlimit fees while visiting Toronto.  AT&T waited until after she returned to the United States before notifying her of the charges.  They “generously” agreed to reduce the bill to $2,000, which they ultimately pocketed.
  • A woman who rushed to attend to her sister in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake found more tragedy when her provider billed her $34,000 in roaming charges;
  • A man whose limited data plan ran out faced $18,000 in overlimit fees before the provider notified him his bill was going to be higher than normal that month.

The wireless industry’s chief lobbyist, CTIA president Steve Largent, declared total victory.

“Today’s initiative is a perfect example of how government agencies and industries they regulate can work together under President Obama’s recent executive order directing federal agencies to consider whether new rules are necessary or would unnecessarily burden businesses and the economy,” Largent said.

Consumer groups are less excited.

Text message warnings or not, the wireless industry still wants to be paid.

Joel Kelsey, a policy analyst at public interest group Free Press, said he was skeptical providers would be making their customers their first priority under the voluntary program.

“Asking the uncompetitive wireless industry to self-police itself is like asking an addict to self-medicate,” said Kelsey. “The FCC is charged by Congress to protect consumers, and they should use their authority to write a rule that puts an end to $16,000 monthly cellphone bills.”

“Wireless carriers are not charities — they will make the most revenue they can from their user base,” Kelsey said. “And since competition is weak in this industry, there aren’t natural incentives for companies to be on their best behavior.”

T-Mobile, which is in the process of trying to merge with AT&T, has agreed to discount Aarons’ bill to $2,500 and give her six months to pay.  Stop the Cap! reader Earl, who shared the story with us, suspects that kind of charity won’t last long.

“This won’t happen again if AT&T merges with T-Mobile,” Earl suspects.

While $2,500 is a considerable discount over the original bill, customers who have suffered from bill shock would prefer an even better deal — no surprise charges at all.

That kind of deal is unlikely if the FCC continues to defer to the wireless industry, who have few incentives to provide it.

Consumers can reduce the chances of wireless bill shock by checking with their wireless provider to see if roaming services can be left turned off unless or until you activate them.  Many companies also offer smartphone applications to track usage and billing, useful if you have a family plan and want to verify who is doing what with their phone.  Avoid taking your cellphone on international trips, and that includes Canada.  If you need a cell phone abroad, we recommend purchasing a throwaway prepaid phone when you arrive and rely on that while abroad.  Such phones can be had for as little as $10, and per-minute rates are usually substantially lower than the roaming charges imposed by providers back home.

If you must travel with your phone, carefully consider roaming rates before you go.  Some carriers may offer international usage plans that discount usage fees.  You can use Wi-Fi to manage data sessions, but it’s best to avoid high bandwidth applications while abroad altogether.  One movie can cost a thousand dollars or more in international roaming charges.

While T-Mobile could have provided warnings to Aarons’ own phone as her bill began to skyrocket, T-Mobile’s bill was ultimately correct.  Wireless phone users must take personal responsibility for the use of phones on their account.  Aarons’ brother ignored the handful of warnings T-Mobile claims to have provided, and the agony of the resulting bill no doubt created tension inside that family.  Don’t let a wireless phone bill tear your family apart.  Take steps to protect yourself, because it’s apparent the FCC won’t anytime soon.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS NewsHour New Alerts to Stop Bill Shock 10-17-11.flv[/flv]

PBS NewsHour interviews FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski about the pervasive problem of “bill shock,” and why the Commission elected to defer to the wireless industry to voluntarily alert consumers when their bills explode.  (7 minutes)

Canada’s Fiber Future: A Pipe Dream for Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and B.C.

Fiber optic cable spool

For the most populated provinces in Canada, questions about when fiber-to-the-home service will become a reality are easy to answer:  Never, indefinitely.

Some of Canada’s largest telecommunications providers have their minds made up — fiber isn’t for consumers, it’s for their backbone and business networks.  For citizens of Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver coping with bandwidth shortages, providers have a much better answer: pay more, use less Internet.

Fiber broadband projects in Canada are hard to find, because providers refuse to invest in broadband upgrades to deliver the kinds of speeds and capacity Canadians increasingly demand.  Instead, companies like Bell, Shaw, and Rogers continue to hand out pithy upload speeds, throttled downloads, and often stingy usage caps.  Much of the country still relies on basic DSL service from Bell or Telus, and the most-promoted broadband expansion project in the country — Bell’s Fibe, is phoney baloney because it relies on existing copper telephone wires to deliver the last mile of service to customers.

Much like in the United States, the move to replace outdated copper phone lines and coaxial cable in favor of near-limitless capacity fiber remains stalled in most areas.  The reasons are simple: lack of competition to drive providers to invest in upgrades and the unwillingness to spend $1000 per home to install fiber when a 100GB usage cap and slower speeds will suffice.

The Toronto Globe & Mail reports that while 30-50 percent of homes in South Korea and Japan have fiber broadband, only 18 percent of Americans and less than 2 percent of Canadians have access to the networks that routinely deliver 100Mbps affordable broadband without rationed broadband usage plans.

In fact, the biggest fiber projects underway in Canada are being built in unexpected places that run contrary to the conventional wisdom that suggest fiber installs only make sense in large, population-dense, urban areas.

Manitoba’s MTS plans to spend $125-million over the next five years to launch its fiber to the home service, FiON.  By the end of 2015, MTS expects to deploy fiber to about 120,000 homes in close to 20 Manitoba communities.  In Saskatchewan, SaskTel is investing $199 million in its network in 2011 and approximately $670 million in a seven-year Next Generation Broadband Access Program (2011 – 2017). This program will deploy Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) and upgrade the broadband network in the nine largest urban centers in the province – Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, Estevan, Swift Current, Yorkton, North Battleford and Prince Albert.

“Saskatchewan continues to be a growing and dynamic place,” Minister responsible for SaskTel Bill Boyd said. “The deployment of FTTP will create the bandwidth capacity to allow SaskTel to deploy exciting new next generation technologies to better serve the people of Saskatchewan.”

But the largest fiber project of all will serve the unlikely provinces of Atlantic Canada, among the most economically challenged in the country.  Bell Aliant is targeting its FibreOP fiber to the home network to over 600,000 homes by the end of next year.  On that network, Bell Aliant plans to sell speeds up to 170/30Mbps to start.

In comparison, residents in larger provinces are making due with 3-10Mbps DSL service from Bell or Telus, or expensive usage-limited, speed-throttled cable broadband service from companies like Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron.

Bell Canada is trying to convince its customers it has the fiber optic network they want.  Its Fibe Internet service sure sounds like fiber, but the product fails truth-in-advertising because it isn’t an all-fiber-network at all. It’s similar to AT&T’s U-verse — relying on fiber to the neighborhood, using existing copper phone wires to finish the job.  Technically, that isn’t much different from today’s cable systems, which also use fiber to reach into individual neighborhoods.  Traditional coaxial cable handles the signal for the rest of the journey into subscriber homes.

A half-fiber network can do better than none at all.  In Ontario, Bell sells Fibe Internet packages at speeds up to 25Mbps, but even those speeds cannot compare to what true fiber networks can deliver.

Globe & Mail readers seemed to understand today’s broadband realities in the barely competitive broadband market. One reader’s take:

“The problem in Canada (and elsewhere) preventing wide scale deployment of FTTH isn’t the technology, nor the cost. It’s a lack of political vision and will, coupled with incumbent service providers doing whatever they can to hold on to a dysfunctional model that serves their interests at the expense of consumers.”

Another:

“The problem with incumbents is they only think in 2-3 year terms. If they can’t make their money back in that period of time, they’re not interested. Thinking 20, heck even 10 years ahead is not in their vocabulary.”

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!