Senator Amy Klobuchar

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) is expected to introduce legislation this week to protect consumers from excessive early termination fees for ending their cell phone contracts early.

The Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act comes a few weeks after Verizon Wireless doubled their cancellation fees November 15 from $175 to $350 for “advanced” mobile phones.

Klobuchar sent a letter to Verizon Wireless President and CEO Lowell C. McAdam, criticizing the company’s decision to increase its Early Termination Fees (ETFs) for new smart phone customers.  Klobuchar also sent a letter to Federal Communications Chairman (FCC) Julius Genachowski, urging a review of the Verizon Wireless decision to raise these fees.

“These fees are anti-consumer and anti-competitive and they bear little to no relationship to the cost of the handset device,” said Klobuchar, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Klobuchar’s bill is anticipated to specifically target Verizon Wireless over its decision to double fees for consumers.  Although the specific details of how the legislation will control fees is still being worked out, Klobuchar’s bill is expected to force providers to incrementally reduce fees for every month of service a customer completes and possibly set a ceiling on the fee charged depending on the retail price of the phone.

Klobuchar introduced a similar bill during the last session of Congress and many cell phone providers responded by pro-rating cancellation fees for departing customers, typically 1/24th of the fee waived for each month a customer stayed with the provider during a two-year contract.  But Verizon Wireless’ decision to double their fee, which could set a new trend in the industry, directly increases prices for consumers, according to Klobuchar.

“Under the company’s new plan, the penalty for leaving the contact halfway through a two-year contract would be $230 – still higher than the $175 ETF Verizon Wireless previously charged for these phones,” Klobuchar wrote to McAdam.

Verizon Wireless is the nation’s largest cell phone service provider.  Verizon customers purchasing an Advanced Device (smart phone) with a one or two year service agreement will be subject to an ETF of up to $350 if they disconnect service prior to the minimum term.  The $350 ETF will decrease $10 for each month of service completed.

The cell phone industry has defended cancellation fees as necessary because providers subsidize the cost of the cell phones sold to consumers.  Customers can purchase phones at the retail price and not be committed to any contract or termination fees.  Some advanced handsets can cost well over $500 if purchased without a contract.

Copies of correspondence to McAdam and Genachowski appear below.

… Continue Reading

Phillip "He Who Shall Not Be Named" Dampier

I’ve tangled with Todd Spangler, a columnist at cable industry trade magazine Multichannel News before.  This morning, I noticed Todd suddenly added me to the list of people he follows on Twitter.  Now I see why.

Todd is back with another one of his cheerleading sessions for Internet Overcharging schemes, promoting consumption-based billing schemes as inevitable, backed up by his industry friends who subscribe and help pay his salary and a guy from a company whose bread is buttered selling the equipment to “manage” the Money Party.

GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham and Broadband Reports’ Karl Bode don’t pay his salary, so it’s no surprise he disagrees them.  Oh, and I’m in the mix as well, but not by name.  Amusingly, I’m “the StoptheCap! guy, who’s making a career directing his bloggravation at The Man.”

Todd doesn’t consider himself “an edgy blogger type because, as everyone knows, I am The Man,” he writes.

Actually, Todd, you are Big Telecom’s Man, paid by an industry trade magazine to write industry-friendly cozy warm and fuzzies that don’t rock the boat too much and threaten those yearly subscription fees, as well as your paid position there.  I’ve yet to read a trade publication that succeeds by disagreeing with industry positions, and I still haven’t after today.

Unlike Todd, I am not paid one cent to write any of what appears here.  This site is entirely consumer-oriented and financed with no telecom industry involvement, no careers to make or break, and this fight is not about me.  I’m just a paying customer like most of our readers.

This site is about good players in the broadband industry who deserve to make good profits and enjoy success providing an important service to subscribers at a fair price, and about those bad players who increasingly seek to further monetize their broadband offerings by charging consumers more for the same service.  As one of the few telecom products nearly immune from the economic downturn, some providers are willing to leverage their barely-competitive marketplace position to cash in.

It’s about who has control over our broadband future – certain corporate entities and individuals who openly admit their desire to act as a controlling gatekeeper, or consumers who pay for the service.  It’s also about organizing consumers to push back when industry propaganda predominates in discussions about broadband issues, and we know where we can find plenty of that.  Finally it’s about evangelizing broadband, not in a religious sense, but promoting its availability even if it means finding alternatives to private providers who leave parts of urban and rural America unserved because it just doesn’t produce enough profit.

Let’s derail Todd’s latest choo-choo arguments.

“The idea of charging broadband customers based on what they use is still in play.” — That’s never been in play.  True consumption billing would mean consumers pay exactly for what they use.  If a consumer doesn’t turn on their computer that month, there would be no charge.  That’s not what is on offer.  Instead, providers want to overcharge consumers with speed –and– usage-based tiers that, in the case of Time Warner Cable, were priced enormously higher than current flat-rate plans.  Customers would be threatened with overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding a paltry tier proposed by the company last April.  The ‘Stop the Cap! guy’ didn’t generate thousands of calls and involvement by a congressman and United States senator writing blog entries.  Impacted consumers instinctively recognized a Money Party when they saw one, and drove the company back.  A certain someone at Multichannel News said Time Warner Cable was “taking one for the team.”  At least then you were open about whose side you were on.

“Verizon just wants to make more money by charging more for the same service. What an outrage! It’s not like the company spent billions and billions to build out their network and needs to recoup that investment.” — Recouping an investment is easily accomplished by providing customers with an attractive, competitively priced service that delivers better speed and more reliability than the competition.  Provide that in an era when fiber optic technology and bandwidth costs are declining, and not only does the phone company survive the coming copper-wire obsolescence, it also benefits from the positive press opinion leaders who clamor for your service will generate to attract even more business.  Stacey’s comments acknowledged the positive vibes consumers have towards Verizon’s fiber investment — positive vibes they are now willing to throw away.

Verizon FiOS already gets to recoup its investment from premium-priced speed tiers that are favored by those heavy broadband users.  Most will happily hand over the money and stay loyal, right up until you ask for too much.  Theoretically charging your best customers $140 a month for 50Mbps/20Mbps service and then limiting it to, say, 250GB of usage will be an example of asking for too much.  Verizon didn’t get into the fiber optics business believing their path to return on investment was through consumption billing for broadband.

“Today’s broadband networks — not even FiOS — are not constructed to deliver peak theoretical demand and adding more capacity to the home or farther upstream will require investment.” — Readers, today’s newest excuse for overcharging you for your broadband access is “peak theoretical demand.”  It used to be peer-to-peer, then online videos, and now this variation on the “exaflood” nonsense.  It sounds like Todd has been reading some vendor’s press release about network management.  Peak theoretical demand has never been the model by which residential broadband networks have been constructed.  The Bell System constructed a phone network that could withstand enormous call volumes during holidays or other occasional events.  Broadband networks were designed for “best effort” broadband.  If we’d been living under this the peak demand broadband model, cable modem service and middle mile DSL networks wouldn’t be constructed to force hundreds of households to share one fixed rate connection back to the provider.  It’s this design that causes those peak usage slowdowns on overloaded networks that work fine at other times.

No residential broadband provider is building or proposing constructing peak theoretical demand networks that are good enough to include a service and speed guarantee.  Instead, cable providers are moving to affordable DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which continue the “shared model” cable modems have always relied on, except the pipeline we all share can be exponentially larger and deliver faster speeds.  Will this model work for decades to come?  Perhaps not, but it’s generally the same principle Time Warner Cable is using to deliver HD channels quietly ‘on demand’ to video customers without completely upgrading their facilities.  You don’t hear them talk about consumption billing for viewing, yet similar network models are in place for both.

“Is it fairer to recover that necessary investment in additional capacity from the heaviest users, who are driving the most demand?” Apparently so, because providers already do that by charging premium pricing for faster service tiers attractive to the heaviest users.  But Todd, as usual, ignores the publicly-available financial reports which tell a very different tale – one where profits run in the billions of dollars for broadband service, where many providers Todd feels urgently need to upgrade their networks are, in reality, spending a lower percentage on their network infrastructure costs, all at the same time bandwidth costs are either dropping or fixed, making it largely irrelevant how much any particular user consumes. What matters is how much of a percentage of profits providers are willing to put back into their networks.

Do people like Todd really believe consumers aren’t capable of reading financial reports and watching executives speak with investors about the fact their networks are well-able to handle traffic growth (Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable CEO), that consumption based billing represents potential increased revenue for companies that deny they even have a traffic management problem (Verizon), or that broadband is like a drug that company officials want to encourage consumers to keep using without unfriendly usage caps, limits, or consumption billing (Cablevision.)

“From 7 to 10 p.m., we’re all consumption kings,” Sandvine CEO David Caputo told Todd. “Bandwidth caps don’t do anything for you.” The implication of this finding is that “the Internet is really becoming like the electrical grid in the sense that it’s only peak that matters,” he added. — I would have been asking Todd to pick me up off the floor had Caputo said anything different.  His bread and butter, just like Todd’s, is based on pushing his business agenda.  Sandvine happens to be selling “network management” equipment that can throttle traffic, perhaps an endangered business should Net Neutrality become law in the United States.  His business depends on selling providers on the idea that sloppy usage caps don’t solve the problem — his equipment will.  Todd has no problem swallowing that argument because it helps him make his.  The rest of us who don’t work for a trade publication or a net throttler know otherwise.

What would actually be fair to consumers is to take some of those enormous profits and plow them back into the business to maintain, expand, and enhance services that deliver the gravy train of healthy revenue.  In fact, by providing even higher levels of service, they can rake in even larger profits.  You have to spend money to earn money, though.

Technology doesn’t sit still, which is why provider arguments about increased traffic leading to increased costs don’t quite ring true when financial reports to shareholders say exactly the opposite.  That’s because network engineers get access to new, faster, better networking technology, often at dramatically lower prices than what they paid for less-able technology just a few years earlier.  With new customers on the way, particularly for the cable industry picking up those dropping ADSL service from the phone company, there’s even more revenue to be had.

Or, do you think spreading the cost across all subscribers, thereby raising the flat-rate pricing for everyone, is the better option? Note that Comcast did this to an extent when it raised the monthly lease fee for cable modems by $2 (to $5), citing costs associated with its DOCSIS 3.0 buildout.

The industry already thinks so.  As we’ve documented, cable broadband providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast (and Charter next year), are already raising prices across the board for broadband customers in many areas.  Does that mean the talk about Internet Overcharging schemes can be laid to rest?  Of course not.  They want their rate increases -and- consumption based billing for even fatter profits.

If, on the other hand, you want to pretend that all-you-can-eat plans are sustainable at today’s price tiers, you’d be kind of clueless.

Every ISP maintains an Acceptable Use Policy that provides appropriate sanctions for those users who are so far out of the consumption mainstream, they cannot even see the rest of us.  Slapping consumption based billing on consumers with steep overlimit fees and penalties punishes everyone, and the provider keeps the proceeds, and not necessarily for network upgrades.

If Todd believes consumers will sit still for profiteering by changing a model that has handsomely rewarded providers at today’s prices, with plenty of room to spare for appropriate upgrades, he’ll be the clueless one.  The cable industry’s ability to overreach never ceases to amaze me.  Every 15 years or so, legislative relief has to put them back in their place.  It’s what happens when just a handful of providers decide it is easier to hop on board the Internet Overcharging Express and cash those subscriber checks than actually engage in all-out competitive warfare with one another – keeping prices in check and onerous overcharges out of the picture.

Nobody needs to know my name to understand this.  But some of his provider friends already know the names of our readers, because PR disasters do not happen in a vacuum.  They are also acquainted with two other names: Rep. Eric Massa and Sen. Charles Schumer.  If they want to go hog wild with Internet Overcharging schemes, that list of names will get much, much longer.

A federal judge Wednesday ruled that Verizon Wireless can continue to run its 3G network ads, suggesting they might be “sneaky,” but are not misleading.  U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten Sr. told AT&T’s attorneys that their request for a temporary restraining order was denied, but the judge indicated he will hear new arguments in a second hearing on December 16.

AT&T claimed that Verizon’s “There’s a Map for That” ad campaign mislead consumers into believing AT&T provided no service in vast areas of the country because Verizon’s ads depicted non 3G service areas in white, a color that traditionally represents “no service” on many cell phone coverage maps.

Judge Batten said people casually viewing the ads might misunderstand the commercials, but a viewer’s misinterpretation “doesn’t mean they’re misleading.”

“Most people who are watching TV are semi-catatonic,” he said, prompting laughter from the courtroom. “They’re not fully alive.”

AT&T’s apparent backup plan is a new ad of its own, attacking Verizon Wireless with… Luke Wilson.

[flv width=”640″ height=”450″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Ad Luke Wilson.flv[/flv]

Actor Luke Wilson helps AT&T Mobility fire back at Verizon Wireless as the holiday season approaches. (30 seconds)

The effectiveness of Wilson’s spirited defense of AT&T is debatable, judging from early ad reviews.  We spotted one continuity error straight away.  At the 0:15 second mark, notice the “Access to over 100,000 apps” box is already filled with an “x” before Wilson turns to the board to fill it.  The “x” is there before it’s gone and back again.  Perhaps it’s an unintentional homage to the frustration experienced by AT&T-exclusive iPhone application developers not getting approval for applications previously approved.

One of the promised benefits of permitting the Verizon-Frontier spinoff is that Frontier will bring more and better broadband service to areas Verizon has ignored for years.  The company has been running television ads in West Virginia promoting Frontier’s promised “next generation” of broadband.  But what does that mean?

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Frontier Verizon Deal Advertisement West Virginia.flv[/flv]

Frontier Communications is running this advertisement in West Virginia.

The West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division of the Public Service Commission brought in Trevor R. Roycroft, PhD., former Associate Professor at the J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management, Ohio University, to examine the details behind the marketing and public relations push to promote the deal.

He was not impressed.

After an extensive review of confidential and public documents from Frontier, his conclusion was that Frontier’s DSL service is just plain bad, and for plenty of West Virginians who may only have one choice for broadband in the foreseeable future, being stuck with Frontier’s idea of broadband is particularly bad.

Indeed, Frontier’s idea of what defines “next generation broadband” would be true, if this was the year 1992.

“Frontier has made no commitment regarding improved broadband deployment in West Virginia. Frontier, while achieving higher levels of DSL availability in West Virginia, generally offers its broadband services at higher prices and provides lower quality than those associated with Verizon’s DSL. Frontier’s ability to increase broadband deployment in West Virginia will depend on the condition of the outside plant that it has acquired, which may negatively impact Frontier’s costs of deployment. Furthermore, Frontier must upgrade substantial numbers of customer locations outside of West Virginia, and West Virginia will be competing with this larger priority,” Roycroft writes in his testimony to the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

The infrastructure Frontier utilizes to deliver its broadband service is revealing even to those Frontier customers not directly impacted by this transaction.  Some of the documents Roycroft reviewed laid bare the nonsense the company has used to defend its Acceptable Use Policy language defining an “acceptable amount” of monthly broadband usage at just five gigabytes.  Company officials have said for more than a year that they were concerned about the growth of usage on their network, and its potential to slow service for other customers.  But company documents, included within the scope of Roycroft’s testimony, tell a very different story:

Frontier plans to increase its core backbone from its current level of 10 Gbps to a capacity of 20 Gbps (should the spinoff be approved). With regard to the capacity of its existing backbone, Frontier states:

Frontier expanded the backbone from OC 48 to 10 Gigabit Ethernet during the first half of 2009. Because of this network expansion we do not have peak usage for the past 12 months. No backbone link has peaked above 2.8 Gigabit/second or 28% of the capacity of a link since the augment was completed in 2009.

Thus, Frontier’s current backbone configuration appears to have excess capacity. With the expansion of its backbone network to 20 Gbps, the company’s current data traffic load results in about 14% of capacity being utilized at peak.

Potentially limiting customers to just five gigabytes of usage is so unjustified, in Roycroft’s analysis, its potential imposition on West Virginian customers should be a deal-breaker.

Roycroft ponders whether Frontier will invest enough resources to make sure capacity is not an issue. The only way Frontier’s network will show signs of strain is if the company makes a conscious decision not to sufficiently upgrade their network as they take on millions of new Verizon customers, or they dramatically underestimate the average Verizon customer’s usage.

Roycroft was also asked to evaluate whether Frontier’s claims of 90% broadband availability in its overall service area and 92% in its West Virginia territory rang true.

Roycroft writes that Frontier’s numbers don’t tell the whole story.  In five states, Frontier admits the percentages are notably lower, so no guarantee can be inferred for West Virginia based on Frontier’s talking points.

Frontier’s “Advanced” Broadband Network Is Hardly Advanced and Barely Qualifies As Broadband

Heavy criticism was leveled at Frontier for its “advanced” broadband service.  Roycroft compared Frontier DSL with several other providers and was unimpressed with the company’s broadband speeds.

Roycroft's table illustrates what's on offer from the competition

“Frontier’s advertised DSL speeds are generally much lower than those available from Verizon and other carriers. Based on a location-based search of Frontier DSL service offerings, it appears that Frontier’s most prevalent DSL speeds are 3 Mbps and 768 kbps (for download),” Roycroft said.

Frontier's DSL Speeds in Selected Cities

Although the expressed upload speed for Rochester should be listed at a higher rate (I managed around 512kbps myself), Roycroft is correct when he says, “it can be seen that outside of Rochester, NY, the DSL speeds associated with Frontier offerings cannot be considered ‘cutting edge.'”

Even while noting Rochester’s potential DSL speeds, real-world speeds are another matter entirely.

[flv width=”640″ height=”405″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Real World Frontier vs Road Runner Speeds.flv[/flv]

One New York customer provided real world evidence of the significant differences in speed offered by Road Runner from Time Warner Cable and Frontier’s DSL (courtesy: 1ComputerSavvyGuy) (1 minute)

Frontier’s DSL offerings in West Virginia are of even lower quality. Frontier indicates that it offers three grades of DSL service in West Virginia:

Up to 256 kbps download/128 kbps upload;
Up to 1 Mbps download/200 kbps upload;
Up to 3 Mbps download/200 kbps upload.

These data transmission speeds, especially upload speeds, are at the very low end of commercial offerings that I have observed.

Comparing Verizon DSL vs. Frontier DSL Pricing & Gotchas, Contracts, and Internet Overcharging Schemes

Roycroft’s study found Frontier’s pricing significantly higher than Verizon for DSL service.

Frontier’s DSL prices, either with telephone service, or on a stand-alone basis, are significantly higher than are Verizon’s. For example, the entry-level Frontier plan has a nominal price that is 100% higher than Verizon’s.

However, when considering the per Mbps price, Frontier’s price is 160% higher. It is also notable that Frontier’s upload speeds are also low when compared to Verizon’s.  Consumers are increasingly relying on upload capabilities to share large files, such as videos. Overall, Frontier’s DSL products are low quality.

Comparing Prices

Roycroft also gave special attention to Frontier’s infamous 5GB Acceptable Use Policy, which he suggested was a major negative for West Virginia’s online experience.

Frontier indicates that it monitors network usage if “it receives a complaint of slow service or if it discovers that network bandwidth utilization is unusually high in a particular area.

Frontier was asked to identify any action taken against a customer associated with its acceptable use policy and, in response, the company stated that it has not “terminated a customer’s service based on exceeding the 5 GB threshold identified in the AUP.” However, the restriction on usage further raises the relative cost of Frontier’s service. Frontier indicates that consumers may face action by the company if they exceed the usage cap, thus indicating that the prices reflect both speed and volume. Verizon’s DSL service does not include a similar limit.

Frontier’s DSL pricing policies and usage restrictions will represent a significant negative impact on West Virginia consumers, should these policies be implemented in Verizon’s service area in West Virginia.

Even more importantly, Roycroft considered the argument for imposing such Internet Overcharging schemes as unwarranted.

“While DSL provides dedicated bandwidth to the customer in the last mile, DSL subscribers will share network capacity in the ‘middle mile.’ For example, shared data networks will carry consumer traffic from the telephone company central office to an Internet gateway. I believe that Frontier’s policy is more likely to reflect an unwillingness on Frontier’s part to invest in ‘middle mile’ Internet access facilities that would require capacity additions as customer demand increases, and choose to restrict customer usage instead of investing in the capacity needed to meet customer demand,” Roycroft writes.

“Furthermore, Comcast’s download-cap policy includes limits that are dramatically higher than Frontier’s. Comcast’s acceptable use policy identifies 250 gigabytes as the threshold at which Comcast may take action against a customer, which is fifty times the usage associated with Frontier’s policy,” he added.

Roycroft was also concerned about the many ‘gotchas’ that are part of Frontier’s marketing efforts which bring even higher prices to consumers choosing to have DSL service installed.

“To receive the services of Frontier’s technician, the consumer will incur a $134 fee unless the consumer signs up for a term service contract. Even with the term service contract, the customer must pay a $34 fee for the on-site set-up. Furthermore, the technicians that Frontier dispatches to new broadband customers’ homes are also sales agents. Thus, while it may be that these individuals can help with system set-up and the like, they also are part of Frontier’s overall up-selling strategy,” said Roycroft.

Frontier markets a variety of services to customers as part of their promotions and service offerings.  For instance, recent Dell Netbook promotions required customers to sign multi-year contracts for service, with an early termination fee up to $400 if the consumer chooses to cancel service.  Such promotions do not come out of the goodness of Frontier’s heart.  Indeed, such promotions provide even more revenue potential by pitching customers on its “Peace of Mind” services, which include computer technical support, backups, and inside wire maintenance for an additional monthly fee.

Customers don’t even qualify for many Frontier promotions unless they accept a bundled service package combining broadband with traditional phone service and a multi-year service contract.

Roycroft says West Virginia should demand modifications to Frontier’s proposal before it should even consider accepting it.  Among the changes:

• Frontier should be required to make broadband services available in 100% of its wire centers, and to 90% of its West Virginia customers by the end of 2013. Frontier should expand broadband availability to 100% of its customers by 2015.
• Frontier should be required to deploy and promote broadband services in West Virginia so that, by the end of 2013, at least 90% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 3 Mbps; 75% of its customers can achieve download speeds of 6 Mbps; and 50% of customers can achieve download speeds of 10 Mbps.
• To achieve these broadband objectives, Frontier should be required to exceed Verizon’s baseline level of capital investment by at least $117 million during the period ending December 31, 2013, or by an amount sufficient to meet the broadband objectives.
• Frontier should be required to offer broadband services at prices that do not exceed those currently offered by Verizon for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps services, i.e., Frontier should offer services at Verizon’s advertised prices for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps service (respectively, $19.99 per month and $29.99 per month) for a period of 24 months following the merger.
• Frontier should be prohibited from imposing its broadband “download cap” in West Virginia.
• Frontier should be required to provide individual written notice to its customers regarding the merger, and should notify customers of any change in services that result from the merger. Changes in billing format should also be clearly explained to customers, both in writing, and through a web-based tutorial.
• Frontier should be prohibited from migrating any Verizon customer to a Frontier plan that either increases the customer’s rates, diminishes the level of service, or has a materially adverse impact on any of the terms and conditions of the customer’s service. West Virginia customers should experience a rate freeze for a period of 24 months.
• Frontier should be required to allow former Verizon customers to take a “fresh look” at their purchases, including those customers who have term contracts with Verizon. All early termination charges should be waived for a period of 90 days following the merger, and the long distance PIC charge should also be waived for Verizon long-distance customers who select a long-distance provider other than Frontier.

Brian Whitton, Verizon's Executive Director of Access Technologies

At least Verizon is honest about it.  As providers contemplate slapping customers with usage limits, overlimit fees, and other tiered pricing systems, they’ve typically said they’re justified because of the strain they claim heavy users place on their broadband networks.  One network that doesn’t face that problem is Verizon’s robust fiber optic FiOS network, which is on the way to upgrading from the ridiculously fast current speeds to the “next generation” of FiOS speed: delivering 10 Gbps downlink and 2.5 Gbps uplink, shared among 32 locations.  That makes the cable modem competition, which shares slower speeds among many more customers wilt at the prospect.  DSL instantly becomes the dial-up service of the decade in comparison.

Make no mistake, Verizon tells all who ask: Fiber to the Home is near-infinitely upgradeable for decades to come, simply by swapping out some hardware at each end of the pipe.

Yet Verizon began making noises about ending its all-you-can-eat broadband buffet this past September, when Verizon Chief Technology Officer Dick Lynch said Verizon was in favor of consumption-based billing, too.

But why should Verizon FiOS, often priced higher than the cable competition, opt for Internet Overcharging schemes when it has a network that is nowhere near capacity and will increase its speeds even further next year?

As GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham found out, the answer is – because they can:

Brian Whitton, executive director of access technologies at Verizon did acknowledge how valuable broadband has become—precious enough that people will pay for premium access to it, especially those using up a disproportionate amount of network assets. “Ultimately this is the fairest cost-recovery model, and with a tiering plan or a meter everyone is paying their fair shares to finance the network,” Whitton said. Unlike other ISPs, Verizon doesn’t view heavy bandwidth users as hogs, but it does view them as potentially high-end customers.

Yet Verizon already does charge users a fair share to finance their network, based on the speed tier that customer chooses.  Those high-end customers are already paying Verizon premium prices for the fastest available speeds on Verizon’s fiber optic system.  Verizon’s ability to recoup their investment becomes easier and easier as costs decline to construct the fiber optic systems that will protect Verizon’s viability for decades to come, unlike those traditional phone companies sticking with copper wire lines until the last customer out the door turns the lights out for good.  Verizon’s average revenue per subscriber has never been higher with its ability to market video programming, speeds that make most cable operators blush, and an infinitely more reliable telephone network, all on one bill.  That helps achieve subscriber loyalty, particularly when offering service that keeps customers happy.

Creating Internet Overcharging schemes for your broadband service simply to monetize consumption does not keep customers happy.  Verizon sees the cream rising to the top — charging broadband enthusiasts more while promising nothing for customers who use the service less.  With average consumption per broadband user rising, there’s going to be a lot more cream to skim, charging an increasing number of customers more money for the exact same level of service.

No consumption billing scheme to date has ever provided customers with a “fair share” system, because none of them result in no charge for no consumption or charge a flat fee per gigabyte.  Instead, customers are allocated a pre-determined allowance for usage, charged whether they use it or not.  If they exceed it, punishing overlimit fees are always the result, unless a provider takes another step towards monetizing broadband by inventing overpriced “insurance plans” to protect consumers from overage fees.  The cost of delivering that data is already built-in to the price of today’s broadband plans, and those costs continue to decline.

Higginbotham adds another factor in the equation: with insufficient competition, those “fair share” schemes can inflate prices and lower allowances at a whim, as most customers lack a wide variety of competitors to choose from, which could help keep the greed factor in check.

Most places have two providers that offer slightly different sets of services and plans, making it hard to compare prices. I don’t mind paying more for a better network (I do so for my cell phone), but most consumers lack that option when it comes to wired access. Comcast—which competes against Verizon in about 12% of its footprint—is rolling out faster broadband to ensure that customers don’t leave the cable provider for Verizon’s fiber. But in other areas of the country, such as here in Austin, Tex., folks must choose between DSL (with some U-verse) and cable that hasn’t been upgraded to the faster DOCSIS 3.0 speeds.

Austin was one of the test markets for Time Warner Cable’s reviled “consumption billing experiment” this past April.  In other test cities, it’s more of the same.  In Rochester, New York broadband service is realistically available from two major players — Time Warner Cable and Frontier Communications.  The former has apparently passed over Rochester for DOCSIS 3 upgrades because the cable operator sees little need to upgrade service in an area whose only primary competitor believes DSL service is good enough, one that has stubbornly kept an Acceptable Use Policy defining an appropriate amount of usage at a piddly five gigabytes per month, and thinks fiber is for breakfast cereals, not for Flower City residents.

Verizon’s words help call out the fiction that some providers have used to peddle Internet Overcharging schemes on their customers.  It’s not about “fairness,” it’s not about “exafloods and Internet brownouts,” nor is it about “expanding networks.”  It’s about profit, pure and simple.  When you have a duopoly in place for broadband and almost no regulation governing that service, the sky is the limit for price increases and limits on usage.

[flv width=”480″ height=”284″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Whitton On Telecom Delivery 2-25-09.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s Executive Director of Access Technologies Brian Whitton speaks about the future of telecommunication delivery technologies with Kimberlie Dykeman of Web2point0.tv at The Future of Television East conference in New York (February 25, 2009 – 11 minutes)