Broadband customers face dramatically higher prices for Internet service from a telecom company that wants to define for Alaskans an “appropriate” amount of “fair usage” of the Internet.

GCI, Alaska’s largest cable company, is currently embarked on a so-called “education” campaign over the summer telling residential customers it might be time for them to log off, or face the consequences of enormously higher broadband bills.

For one Anchorage coffee shop, that added up for several hundred dollars for just a single month of usage — all because they offer free Wi-Fi to their customers.

“People use it for their second space. Their home office,” Kaladi Brothers Coffee COO Dale Tran told KTVA news. “We’ve always offered an open network in our cafes, and after hours some people come by and park out front.”

Tran says the result was a bill from GCI several hundred dollars higher than expected.

GCI Communications Manager David Morris says at least two percent of their 110,000 customers are using “too much” service and violating the company’s “fair use” policies.  Morris also warned customers with wireless equipment that if they don’t take steps to lock down their routers with passwords and security, they could be exposed to a huge bill from GCI for providing free Internet service to the entire neighborhood.

Morris claims the company wants to specifically define what it considers “fair use,” claiming it will make things more equitable for everyone.

But GCI’s Internet Overcharging scheme will never save a single customer a penny.  Instead, customers will see only skyrocketing bills should they not fit within GCI’s arbitrary definition of “fair use”:

The company’s website states, “For a large majority of customers, normal usage activities are not expected to exceed the plan profiles defined below”:

GCI customers are not happy.  One reader of the AK Community forum provided additional insight:

To add a little dimension to this before I start ranting, here are the respective rates for the above service plans:

Now, those prices are misleading because they are only for the internet service portion of the “bundle.”  What they’re not telling you (anywhere on the web site that I can find, in fact) is that in order to receive that price, data transfer rate, and monthly bandwidth, you must also pay for GCI’s digital cable television service ($57.99 when part of a bundle), local phone service ($15.49 a month), and long distance service ($5.99 a month plus taxes and surcharges).

Without factoring in the various FCC fees and whatnot, the above information brings the total cost of GCI’s fastest, highest monthly bandwidth package to $179.46 per month!  That’s actually the cost they quoted me on the phone, too, so at least we know their “customer service” staff are at least intelligent enough to figure out an adding machine.

Oh, and did I mention that those speeds and transfer rates are not available for standalone cable modem [subscribers]?

[…] What happens when you do go over?  BAM!  $5.12 per gig tacked on to your bill!  I don’t know about you guys, but I’m sick of getting ripped off by GCI.  Those of you who live outside of Alaska can confirm this, but GCI is just about the only cable company that still meters their customers’ bandwidth.  I have friends who tell me that they’re paying $49.00 a month for 8Mb/s transfer rate and unlimited bandwidth!

What GCI is doing is highway robbery.  How are they getting away with it?  I’ll tell you: no competition.  For very high speed broadband internet, they’re the only show in town, so they can charge whatever they want to anybody who wants more than 3Mbps (standard speed DSL service from Alaska’s other big telecom provider, the phone company).

[flv width=”478″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVA Anchorage GCI Fair Internet Use Crackdown 6-2-10.flv[/flv]

KTVA-TV in Anchorage ran this report about GCI’s plans to force many of their broadband customers to pay more if they enjoy the Internet “too much.”  (3 minutes)

AT&T's HotZone in Charlotte only covers a tiny portion of the city, along S. Brevard Street between the NASCAR Hall of Fame and East Trade Street and for AT&T customers waiting to use the nearby Lynx light rail.

What do you do when your wireless 3G network capacity is hopelessly overloaded and you don’t want to spend the money to upgrade the network to meet the daily demands your customers place on it?  You offload as much of that traffic as possible on less costly, conventional Wi-Fi network technology.

AT&T has discovered that Wi-Fi can turn an ugly congestion problem into a marketing opportunity.  The company has announced free, unlimited access to its increasing number of “Hotzones” to AT&T wireless customers, promising stronger signals and faster speeds along the way.  The three cities chosen for the launch of the neighborhood-blanketing Wi-Fi service are New York, Charlotte, N.C.,  and Chicago.

That New York and Chicago are on the list come as little surprise, but why Charlotte?

It turns out Charlotte is among the top-10 cities companies use to test market new products and services to get a better feel of how customers will react.  Charlotte has served as a test market for years.  FedEx used the city to test drop boxes inside U.S. post offices back in 2001.  Time Warner Cable brought its “Start Over” and “Caller ID on TV” services to Charlotte to get customer reaction.  AT&T first test marketed its 3G Microcell service in the area, so the company has a track record of choosing the community to test its newest offerings.

Stop the Cap! has been measuring reaction on our own to learn what Charlotte residents think about AT&T’s Hotzone.

First, many AT&T customers are still unaware that this Wi-Fi service has even made it to Charlotte.  For those who have learned about it, anything that improves AT&T’s service in uptown Charlotte is good news for them.

“Although AT&T in Charlotte has never suffered from the kind of congestion faced in larger cities, when you concentrate a lot of data users in one area, such as the Time Warner Cable Arena on East Trade, AT&T’s network can slow to a crawl,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Eric, who lives in Charlotte.  “I have ventured around that area several times and, to be honest, you can quietly hop on one of many business Wi-Fi hotspots for free now, but you can’t go too far before losing the signal.”

Eric says AT&T would be better off extending their Wi-Fi network across the city of Charlotte if they really want to offload 3G traffic.

“Wi-Fi is faster than their 3G service and it’s unlimited,” he notes. “I’d actually have a much more favorable impression of AT&T if they created city-wide Wi-Fi networks for their customers because it would add tremendous value and be a great reason to stick with AT&T for cell service.”

But Liam, who works in downtown Charlotte but lives near Freedom Park writes it’s a Band-Aid for a much bigger problem — AT&T underestimating the demand on their network.

“I am not sure how excited I should be about a Hotzone that runs up a street for about four city blocks,” he says.  “This is not midtown Manhattan where a service like that could make a huge difference for residents of skyscraping-condos and apartment buildings.  What about the rest of Charlotte?”

Liam was an AT&T customer but left for Verizon Wireless nearly a year ago.  He thinks AT&T isn’t a bad provider in Charlotte — in fact he thinks AT&T does a much better job in rural western North Carolina than Verizon does, but inside metro Charlotte, Verizon’s signals are more consistent.

“If this service does reach into Time Warner Cable Arena, it could make a big difference though, especially when that stadium is nearly full,” Liam notes. “Somehow I think we’ll see Time Warner Cable’s own Wi-Fi service operating there, for free, in the not-too-distant future.”

The Charlotte Observer‘s @Charlotte blog asked readers what they thought about AT&T’s Charlotte Hotzone in two articles.  Amidst a rhetorical war over the merits of AT&T and Apple’s latest iPhone, most comments welcomed the improved service, even if some are not sure exactly where that improved service can be found.

Reporter Eric Frazier wrote, “I was trying to find out for certain whether this zone will cover the office towers along Tryon Street, but a spokesperson for AT&T told me they can’t say whether specific buildings, such as the Bank of America headquarters, will or won’t be covered by the Hotzone.

Reverend Mike wants to know when he can get a Hotzone installed in his backyard, noting he was “glad to hear they are setting this up downtown.”

AT&T completed upgrades to its HSPA 7.2 network earlier this year and offers about double the potential speed its older 3G network provided Charlotte customers.

Tim Conway's "Old Man" character from the Carol Burnett Show would be right at home using the Internet in these areas.

Nick Saint at the Business Insider has been sifting through some of the raw data released last week by the Federal Communications Commission regarding broadband service in the United States.  He’s managed to identify the 10 worst counties in America for broadband service based on statistics from 2008.  But two of those probably should have never been on the list.  More on that later.

Harrison County, Mississippi — A single pond in Harrison County is the only known habitat of the critically endangered dusky gopher frog.  It doesn’t have broadband, and neither do most of the residents of this beleaguered part of southern Mississippi.  The cities of Gulfport and Biloxi are in Harrison County, an area torn up by hurricanes from Camille to Katrina.  Now, the beaches are coated in BP oil.  Harrison County can’t get a break. Cable One and AT&T are the primary providers.  Cable One’s dreadful service only reaches well-populated areas and AT&T has taken its sweet time expanding DSL service in the area.

Imperial County, California — The nation’s lettuce basket, Imperial County communities live on a very low fiber-optic diet.  While the soil is rich for crops, the people who plant and harvest them are not.  El Centro, the biggest city, has some broadband available, but with the city having the nation’s highest unemployment rate (27.3 percent), many can’t afford it.  Once in farm country, cable doesn’t offer service and DSL is hard to come by.

Corson County, South Dakota — Representative of the pervasive problem of broadband unavailability on Native American lands, a large part of Corson County includes the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.  Saint notes the FCC found just 12.5 percent of Native Americans subscribe to broadband service, compared to 56 percent of the rest of us.

Ector County, Texas — Odessa’s hometown America-charm was put on display for all to see on NBC’s Friday Night Lights, which celebrated small town high school football.  The reality is less exciting.  Like Harrison County, Ector residents are stuck with Cable One, which loves Internet Overcharging schemes and spied on its Alabama broadband customers.  Good ole AT&T grudgingly provided DSL, if you could get it, until mid-2009 when U-verse finally started to show up.  Now large parts of the county outside of Odessa can’t get that either.

San Juan, Puerto Rico — Usually considered an afterthought by American telecommunications companies, Puerto Rico has long suffered with low quality service.  Caribbean Net News: “Puerto Rico’s broadband penetration rate is unacceptable, with less than 40% of households subscribing to broadband services”, said Carlo Marazzi, President of Critical Hub Networks. “While there are many factors at play, broadband in Puerto Rico is simply too expensive and too slow, when compared to the rest of the nation.  Broadband Internet service in Puerto Rico is 60% more expensive and 78% slower than the United States national median. In a report published this year by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) which ranked broadband speeds in the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico was ranked in last place (52nd place).

Jasper County, Missouri — Saint noted 18 percent of Jasper County lives below the poverty line, which is not exactly attractive to broadband investment.  Jasper County’s broadband needs are barely met by a cable provider, AT&T, and for some, an electric utility operating a Wireless ISP, providing service where cable and DSL don’t go.  For Jasper County residents, the challenge can be cost as much as access.

Appomattox County, Virginia — Every student known Appomattox was the last stand of Confederate leader Robert E. Lee during the Civil War.  Today, residents there are worked to their last nerve because they can’t easily obtain high speed Internet.  There is no DSL service from the phone company and only limited cable service.  But at least the county is trying.  Let’s let John Spencer, assistant county administrator, tell you in his own words what Appomattox County is doing to deliver broadband for its 14,000 residents:

Bristol Bay Borough, Alaska — The epitome of rural America, large swaths of Alaska are dependent on subsidies paid from the Universal Service Fund for basic telephone service.  Outside of large cities, cable television is a theory.  Telephone company DSL service and wireless are the predominate broadband technologies in rural, expansive Alaska.  For many areas, both are awful.  Bristol Bay Borough is known as the “Red Salmon Capital of the World,” if only because there are far more salmon than there are fishermen to catch them.  Internet access for many of the area’s 953 residents means a trip to the Martin Monsen Library, which offers free Wi-Fi for limited access. If you want Internet at home, it will cost you plenty:

The License Fee pays for the BBC's television, radio, and online operations, but now the British government wants a portion of it to be directed towards broadband as well.

Britain’s new coalition government announced Wednesday it was scrapping a proposed £6 a year phone tax to help expand rural broadband in the country.

“We need investment in our digital infrastructure,” said George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. “But the previous government’s landline duty is an archaic way of achieving this, hitting 30 million households who happen to have a fixed telephone line. I am happy to be able to abolish this new duty before it is even introduced.”

“Instead, we will support private broadband investment, including to rural areas, in part with funding from the digital switchover under-spend within the TV licence fee.”

Osborne is referring to the average £11.63 monthly fee British citizens pay to help fund the operations of the BBC’s radio, television and online operations.  A surplus of up to up to £300 million is anticipated to remain after the UK completes its transition to digital television in the next two years.  That money would be diverted to expanding rural broadband under the government plan.

But campaigners for better rural broadband service complain that will not raise nearly enough to provide broadband across the countryside.  The 50p monthly telephone tax proposed by the former Labour government would have raised nearly £1 billion per year.

Charles Trotman, of the Country Land and Business Association, told The Telegraph it will not be enough money to connect all rural areas. He said remote communities risk being left behind in ‘broadband deserts’ unless more is done to help villages set up connections themselves.

Other critics contend the surplus from the digital TV transition may not exist two years from now.  Thus far, mostly rural regions in England have made the transition to digital, costing the government publicity campaign less than expected.

Rather than the tax, Osborne claims the government can spur investment from the private sector by “making regulatory changes to reduce the cost of roll-out.”  He did not specify what those changes might be.

The government claims it is committed to providing up to 2Mbps broadband service across the entire country, but the lack of action in many areas have forced small towns and villages to launch their own municipal broadband services, sometimes funded by residents themselves.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BBC Municipal Broadband 4-2010.flv[/flv]

The BBC covers two British communities doing it themselves — providing enhanced broadband because private providers wouldn’t.  One in Highworth offers free Wi-Fi for up to two hours daily, while in Lyddington residents raised £37,000 to obtain enhanced DSL service.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Signal – Connectivity on the move 6-10.mp4[/flv]

Highworth (Swindon) relies on Signal, a high speed WISP/Wi-Fi network that offers up to 20/2 Mbps unlimited access with no Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps or overage fees for £5.99 per month, or up to two hours daily access for free.  (4 minutes)

AT&T 3G MicroCell

If you are an AT&T customer with a 3G MicroCell, AT&T’s home-based “cell tower”, take note: your 3G data usage, even while at home, counts against your monthly usage cap.

AT&T’s MicroCell ($150) does not use AT&T’s mobile network — it instead relies on your home broadband connection — but AT&T charges customers as if they were.

For customers who assume MicroCell traffic should be exempt because they provide and pay for the connectivity, AT&T’s overlimit fees await.

The company’s pricing and policies make owning a MicroCell increasingly pointless, particularly for data applications.  That’s because AT&T does not meter Wi-Fi usage, even when using AT&T’s own Wi-Fi network.

The disparity between femtocell traffic (the industry name for devices like the MicroCell) and Wi-Fi doesn’t make much sense to Dean Bubley, writing for his Disruptive Wireless-Disruptive Analysis blog:

Given that the RAN generally costs much more than the core network for most operators, there should clearly be differential (or zero-rated) pricing for traffic using femtocell offload. Either that, or there should be a mechanism for customers to charge AT&T for using THE USER’S broadband pipes for backhaul.

It is critical that any policy management and charging infrastruture is capable of discerning bearer type (which could also be UMA WiFi tunneled via the core on some other networks). Otherwise it makes a total mockery of the concept that policy is intended to align pricing with the underlying costs of service delivery.

It also makes a mockery of the femtocell concept as a mass proposition, if the end-user has to pay more than using their own WiFi. If I was a femto vendor today, I’d be spitting feathers about this, as it completely undermines the positioning vs. WiFi as an offload tool.

AT&T doesn’t care.

“The 3G MicroCell complements Wi-Fi by providing enhanced in-home voice coverage and reliable data when Wi-Fi may not be available — but it is primarily intended for voice calls,” an AT&T spokeswoman wrote in an email to Light Reading Mobile.

As the website notes, for consumers, the femto price model means that they will pay AT&T for the Microcell to get better indoor 3G coverage, pay for the backhaul connection to AT&T’s core network, and pay AT&T to use that indoor 3G base station.  What a great deal — for AT&T.