Comcast's usage meter is now available in 25 states

Comcast customers in at least 25 states have been notified that Comcast’s new usage measurement meter is now up and running.  Comcast introduced a 250 GB monthly usage limit in August 2008 after the Federal Communications Commission stopped the company from throttling usage-intensive file-trading applications.  Comcast has enforced the cap among those customers who regularly exceed it by wide margins, usually warning customers by phone or mail that they must reduce usage or face account suspension.  The usage meter application allows the company to direct customers to the self-measurement tool the company hopes will reduce the need for warnings.

Customers in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wisconsin should have already or will receive e-mail from the company officially notifying them about the launch of the usage meter.

Since the meter was introduced, broadband usage and pricing has increased for many customers, but the usage cap has not.  While generous by current standards, an inflexible usage limit will increasingly trap customers who use Comcast broadband service for high quality video streaming, file backups, or file trading activities which can consume considerable bandwidth.

Informally, Comcast has allowed some residential customers to purchase second accounts if they intend to blow past their usage allowance, because the company currently offers no official provisions for those who exceed the limit.

Strauss

This week Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski appointed Karen Peltz Strauss Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Deputy Chief.

Strauss is supposed to focus on disability issues, among other things, and will help the Commission to implement the components of the National Broadband Plan that address access for people with disabilities, including leading the effort to develop a proposed Accessibility and Innovation Forum.

“The FCC has a vital role to play in empowering and protecting all consumers and ensuring they have access to world-class communications networks and technologies” said Chairman Genachowski. “I look forward to drawing on Karen’s extensive experience with telecommunications access issues to realize those goals.”

A news release from the FCC includes a brief review of her 25 years’ experience working on telecommunications access for people with disabilities.

But the agency forgot to mention Strauss also serves on the board of directors of an industry front group — the Alliance for Public Technology.  APT claims it represents the best interests of consumers, but considering who is writing the checks, that’s highly doubtful.

APT’s website suggests the group “makes policy decisions based on the potential benefit to consumers. The Board members themselves as well as APT’s member organizations serve the education, health care, social service and economic development needs of senior citizens, people with disabilities, minorities, children, low income families, rural communities, and all consumers.”

That’s true, if you, as a consumer, are for big telecom mergers like AT&T and BellSouth, which APT supported, oppose Net Neutrality, which APT feels should not be imposed on providers, liked the idea of Cingular being absorbed into AT&T’s empire of wireless, which APT also supported, and so on.

In fact, this group even praised Verizon’s willingness to invest in West Virginia:

Verizon has demonstrated a commitment to increased investment in advanced telecommunications capabilities. According to the company, Verizon invested almost $560 million in its Maryland network and $150 million in West Virginia in 2001 (2002 figures not available). Verizon added more than 31,000 miles of fiber optic cable in Maryland and 20,500 miles of fiber optic cable in West Virginia. Over 2.5 million access lines in Maryland now have access to DSL. Authorization to provide in-region long distance service in Virginia will facilitate Verizon’s capacity to build on economies of scale and scope in order to provide a high standard of service and accelerated deployment of advanced technologies to the consumers of Maryland, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

The only thing Verizon wants to accelerate in West Virginia is their exit.

Laughably, one of the reasons APT supports AT&T so much (besides the big checks the company writes to fund their operation) is:

With BellSouth’s entry into the Florida and Tennessee long-distance markets, AT&T began to offer 30 minutes of free long distances to its customers and inserted “thank you” messages into the time between a customer dials a number and the connection occurs. These actions demonstrate tangible benefits for consumers because of an increased number of competitors in the long distance market.

I know that makes me feel warm all over.  Who should I call first?

Wading through APT’s public policy positions unearths absolutely no surprises.  They exist to advocate for the interests of the companies that fund their operations, and that includes all the bully boys:

• AT&T
• CTIA
• Embarq
• Qwest
• United States Telecom Association
• Verizon

Despite this, APT writes with a straight face, “These companies give donations based on a shared vision for the ubiquitous deployment of high-speed telecommunications technology, but have no say in the governance of the association.”

Sure they don’t.  But then again, those checks would stop coming if APT began actually representing the consumers they claim to care so much about.

It’s disappointing the FCC would want someone so closely aligned with the interests of large telecommunications companies working to implement a National Broadband Plan that is supposed to represent the public interest.

It’s just another example of the Inside the Beltway Tickle Party, where lobbyists and “dollar a holler” experts flow between government jobs, privately-funded think tanks, and the private sector.  Consumers are only too aware that their best interests are not represented by employees whose loyalties change depending on what hat they wear to the office.

Verizon Communications has made its intentions clear — would-be broadband customers in its service area who are off the FiOS footprint can pound salt.  The Federal Communications Commission issues regular reports on broadband services and their adoption by consumers across the United States.  In the latest report, published this month, customers in Verizon’s current or former service areas who are not being served by Verizon FiOS are behind the broadband 8-ball, waiting for the arrival of DSL service from a company that has diverted most of its time, money, and attention on deploying its fiber-to-the-home service for the big city folks.

One might think the worst DSL availability in the country would be in rural states like Alaska, or territories like Guam, or income-challenged Mississippi.  No, the bottom of the barrel can be found in northern New England and the mid-Atlantic states — largely the current or former domain of Verizon:

Percentage of Residential End-User Premises with Access to High-Speed Services by State
(Connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction)

Source: FCC High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Table 19

Some might argue that DSL penetration ignores Verizon’s fiber upgrades, but does it?

Providers of High-Speed Connections by Fiber by State as of December 31, 2008
(Connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction)

Source: FCC High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Table 20

A survey of the rest of the country calls out Verizon’s inattentiveness to DSL expansion in its remaining service areas not covered by FiOS.

For example: Alabama, Idaho, Montana, and Oklahoma all enjoy 80 percent DSL availability.  Utah and Nevada achieved 90 percent coverage.  Even mountainous Wyoming, the least populous state in the country, provides 78 percent of its state’s customers with the choice of getting DSL service.  Yet New York manages only one point higher among its telephone companies, largely because of enormous service gaps upstate.

What happened?  By 2002 Verizon began to realize their future depended on moving beyond providing landline service.  The company began to divert most of its resources to a grand plan to deliver fiber connections to residences in larger markets in its service areas.  While great news for those who live there, those that don’t discovered they’ve been left behind by Verizon.  Northern New England got flushed by Verizon altogether — sold to the revenue-challenged FairPoint Communications who assumed control of Verizon’s problems and managed to make them worse.

The argument that rural broadband is “too expensive” doesn’t fly when looking at DSL availability in the expansive mountain west or rural desert regions.  Compact states like Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland are far easier to wire than North Dakota, New Mexico or even Texas with its large rural areas (87, 87, and 81 percent coverage, respectively).  Verizon simply doesn’t realize the kind of Return on Investment it seeks from FiOS customers — a dollar amount investors want to see.

Of course, that’s the argument Frontier Communications, and FairPoint behind it, made to regulators in sweeping promises to deliver better broadband service.  FairPoint missed its targets and declared bankruptcy.  Frontier is still in the “promises, promises” stage of its deal to take over millions of rural customers currently served by Verizon.

Frontier's broadband stimulus requests were also shot down when West Virginian cable operators objected

Even companies whose raison d’être these days is to provide better phone and broadband service to rural Americans are being turned down. Frontier Communications, who wants to take control of 617,000 phone lines in West Virginia from Verizon was, in part, promoting rural broadband stimulus funding as a benefit of the deal. After all, a phone company specializing in serving the underserved would stand a better chance of securing broadband stimulus money than a telephone behemoth like Verizon.

Apparently not. The feds turned down their $55 million dollar broadband stimulus application, too.

Frontier applied for two stimulus grants, one to provide fiber optic connections to schools, libraries and health care facilities, the other to fund broadband expansion in West Virginia.

West Virginia’s incumbent cable companies teamed up and just said no.

Opposition piled on from Armstrong Cable Services, Comcast, JetBroadband and Suddenlink urging federal officials to deny Frontier’s applications. They claimed the phone company was trying to secure taxpayer money to provide broadband service in their territories, making the application redundant.

“They had said this was a reason to grant approval, that this would really boost broadband deployment,” Patrick Pearlman, deputy director of the state PSC’s Consumer Advocate Division, which is opposing the Frontier-Verizon sale told the Charleston Gazette. “They went on about how they’re going to get all this money and bring all this, but apparently they couldn’t count on the feds.”

Frontier didn’t blame themselves for the failure, of course. They blamed state officials for holding up their deal with Verizon.

“This is one of the reasons why we have asked this and other commissions to act expeditiously in their review of the proposed transaction,” Daniel McCarthy, Frontier’s chief operating officer told the Gazette.

State regulators should take the rejection as a lesson learned if they believed Frontier’s claims that approving the deal would result in an improved position for broadband stimulus funding. It was not to be. Even small cable companies will pounce on applications that suggest competition might be on the way.

More and more, it appears likely the grand plan for vastly improved broadband will be reduced to funding a handful of showcase rural broadband projects that solve some of the nation’s broadband deficiency woes, but after telecommunications industry and their lobbyist friends are done chewing up the project, plans of expanded broadband providing Americans with better choices at reasonable prices will remain a broadband pipe dream.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TDS Telecom CEO Announces Broadband Grants for Michigan 12-2009.flv[/flv]

TDS Telecom’s grant for broadband expansion is an example of showcasing hit or miss rural broadband projects.  The company secured $8.6 million to expand broadband Internet services to TDS customers in one Chatham Telephone Company exchange in northern Michigan.  Considering TDS serves largely rural customers in 30 states, winning expansive broadband improvement for all Americans is about as likely as winning the Powerball jackpot. TDS CEO Dave Wittwer explains the stimulus funding to customers in this video. (1 minute)

Suddenlink broadband customers in Lubbock and Midland, Texas will soon have a new option to boost their broadband speed to 36Mbps.  Dubbed MAX36, the new tier leaps over the cable company’s former top broadband speed of 20Mbps.  Upload speeds get a boost as well — to 2Mbps.

Multichannel News reports pricing for the new tier depends on how many other Suddenlink services you have.  Standalone pricing is $75 per month.  Bundle it with television or telephone service and the price drops to $65.  Take all three services and MAX36 costs $60 a month.

Suddenlink serves portions of these Texas communities

If that is too rich for your blood, Suddenlink next week will be providing existing broadband customers in Lubbock and Midland free speed upgrades:

• 1Mbps service increases to 1.5Mbps
• 8Mbps upgrades to 10Mbps service
• 10Mbps service becomes 15Mbps

The new speeds are possible because of DOCSIS 3 upgrades underway at the nation’s ninth largest cable operator.  Suddenlink has focused on DOCSIS 3 upgrades for many of its Texas systems, including Abilene, Bryan/College Station, Georgetown, Lubbock, Midland, San Angelo and Terrell.  The operator also deployed the technology in Beckley, Charleston and Parkersburg, West Virginia, as well as Jonesboro, Arkansas, Humboldt County, California, and Nixa, Missouri.  The company hopes to upgrade 90 percent of its cable systems within the next two years.  Nationwide, Suddenlink reaches 1.3 million subscribers.

Last summer Suddenlink introduced a usage meter for subscribers in Clovis, New Mexico and included a chart of what constituted average usage for its customers.

Suddenlink's national service area

The company openly admits it limits customer use of its broadband service is several communities where bandwidth upgrades have yet to occur, but at least drops communities from the usage limit list after expansion is complete.  As of February 4th, communities impacted by usage limits include:

• Arkansas: Charleston, Hazen, Mt. Ida, Nashville
• Kansas: Anthony, Fort Scott
• Louisiana: Ville Platte
• Missouri: Jefferson City, Maryville
• Oklahoma: Fort Sill, Healdton, Heavener, Hughes, Idabel
• Texas: Albany, Anson, Brenham, Burkburnett, Caldwell, Canadian, Center, Claredon, Crane, Dimmitt, Eastland, Electra, Hamlin, Henrietta, Junction, Kermit, Monahans, Nocona, Olney, Paducah, Rotan, San Saba, Seymour, Sonora, Trinity, Vernon, Wellington

Suddenlink also admits it engages in “network management” techniques which may spark controversy with the ongoing Net Neutrality debate, despite its declaration it “allows customers to access and use any legal Web content they prefer, thus honoring the principles of network neutrality.”

In addition to “mitigating network congestion, which can interfere with customers’ preferred online activities,” Suddenlink also discloses it “prioritizes certain latency-sensitive traffic such as voice traffic.”

Still, performing system upgrades to put a stop to usage limits and allowances is a move in the right direction, one that other providers seeking to monetize broadband traffic with Internet Overcharging schemes are loathe to take.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Suddenlink Ads.flv[/flv]

Watch some of Suddenlink’s more creative and amusing advertising. (2 minutes)