I’d like to hear your impressions of Clear’s 4G wireless broadband service, which is also known as Road Runner Mobile in Time Warner Cable territories or Comcast High Speed 2Go where Comcast provides cable service.

I am specifically looking for speed results, coverage impressions — whether the coverage maps reflect reality or not, and what type of wireless modem you’ve chosen with the service.  Also, customer service impressions are welcomed.  Feel free to leave your comments in our comment section or use the Contact Us link above if you’d prefer to remain anonymous.  Please remember to include your city and state.

YouTube is littered with negative reviews and complaints about the service, but I’d like to hear from our readers.

Here is one annoyed customer who literally attached her USB modem to a broom handle and mounted it halfway up the side of her home and still could not connect. (Warning: Profanity) (3 minutes)

The classic one-two punch of Internet Overcharging is to limit your broadband usage -and- throttle speeds downwards.  AT&T wireless customers in several major cities across the United States are experiencing that for themselves over the long holiday weekend, reporting upload speeds have been throttled down to 100kbps or less (one-tenth of the speed most customers enjoyed as late as last week).

Speedtest.net has shown AT&T network throttling in many parts of Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Fairfax, Houston, Kansas City, Las Vegas, New York, Orlando, Phoenix, St. Paul,  Salt Lake City, and Washington, D.C.

The speeds are so noticeably slow, it has become a national story as irate customers find their wireless broadband service first usage capped at just 2GB per month, and now upload speed throttled to the point of unusability.  AT&T promised a statement explaining the issue, but one has not yet been forthcoming.  Some speculated the throttles were designed to reduce congestion on AT&T’s network over the holiday, while others suspect a technical fault.

Reducing your wireless speed reduces the impact on AT&T’s backhaul network, which in turn reduces congestion and the number of dropped wireless calls.

The introduction of speed throttles for “heavy users” is a favorite in countries where overcharging schemes predominate.  Most permit a preset amount of traffic to pass at normal speeds, but once customers exceed an arbitrary allowance, a temporary speed throttle gets applied to dramatically reduce speeds and discourage further use.  Some limit customers to a selected amount of traffic per day, others per month.  Once the window expires, the throttle is automatically removed.

While there is no indication AT&T is applying such a throttle at this point, the company has strongly opposed efforts to ban such schemes.  AT&T has a history of antagonizing its wireless customers with poor network performance, and has been judged the least favorite provider by Consumer Reports.

This empty water tower in Madison, Wis. caught fire Friday as workers began painting preparations, disrupting wireless communications services on the city's west side for months. (Photo: WMTV Madison)

A water tower fire on Madison’s west side has wiped out WiMAX broadband service for at least 150 fixed wireless broadband customers, leaving them cut off for so long, provider TDS Telecom is canceling their service and assisting customers in switching providers.

A Madison utility manager said workers Friday were preparing to paint the 100,000-gallon tower in the 2700 block of Prairie Road when insulation around communications cables caught fire.  Smoke was visible from the empty water tower for miles, and several nearby homes had to be evacuated because of fears of a potential collapse.

City engineers have since deemed the tower safe, but the real impact will be several months of interrupted broadband and cell service from several area providers who depended on the tower as an antenna site.  The tower was particularly crucial to TDS Telecom, which depended on its strategic location to deliver its wireless broadband service in western Madison.  It will take several months to restore service.

“Based on our discussions with the City, we anticipate it could take a very long time to repair the damaged tower,” states DeAnne Boegli, TDS National Public Relations Manager. “Since this is the only viable tower location TDS can use to serve these homes, and because temporary solutions are not available, our customer’s best option is to select another facilities-based communications provider.”

TDS will assist all 147 impacted customers in changing their service without penalty and remove the equipment from customer homes at their request and convenience. The company is also providing the customers a month’s service credit.

“Unfortunately, this accident has left us with no reliable or timely restoration options. TDS understands communications services are critical to our customers and we want to get them transitioned as quickly as possible, even though it means they must select another provider,” said Boegli.

Affected cell phone companies are trying to establish temporary cell tower sites to improve service in the area while repairs get underway.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WMTV Madison Water Tower Fire Wipes Out WiMAX 5-14-10.flv[/flv]

WMTV-TV in Madison broke into regular programming to deliver a special report on the fire.  We’ve also included some raw video of the fire.  (11 minutes)

Customers of Vistabeam in Nebraska and Wyoming who subscribe to the company’s rural Wireless Internet Service are about to discover their online activities are about to be capped… for real this time.

Matthew Larsen, who runs the Wireless Cowboys blog, includes some illustrative examples of Internet Overcharging schemes in action and what they’re all about.  He writes about his experiences at Vistabeam, which serves rural Nebraska and Wyoming with wireless broadband service.  The company started operations with an admittedly-unenforced 3GB usage limit, backed up with a stinging $25/GB penalty overlimit fee to underscore the point.  Today that cap is described by Larsen as “a joke” — too low to be taken seriously.  [Note to Frontier: Are you reading this?]

But the company was determined to monitor and measure its customers’ online activities and developed an in-house tool that is providing daily insights into customer usage, and gives Vistabeam the ability to begin penalizing customers who exceed the limits established by the provider.

Wireless providers, known as WISPs, often provide the only Internet access in rural areas that are too sparsely populated to deliver DSL service and where cable television is a financial impracticality.  For Nebraska and Wyoming residents bypassed by cable and underserved by DSL (if at all), it’s often a choice between dial-up, satellite fraudband service barely capable of 1Mbps service with a punitive “fair access policy,” or an independent WISP.  A number of customers have chosen the latter.

Vistabeam offers service plans for its 2000 customers ranging from 384kbps for $29.95 a month to 4Mbps service for $99.95 a month, with a discount for paying in six month increments.  That’s not cheap by any means.  But rural Americans routinely face higher broadband bills because of the inability of providers to achieve economy of scale.  Fewer customers have to share the expenses to construct, operate and maintain the service.

But those bills could soon grow even higher if customers exceed the new harder-line Vistabeam will take on usage cap offenses.

Larsen’s measurements identified what their customers were doing with their broadband connections and identified Vistabeam’s biggest users:

Out of 2000+ customers, 80 used more than 10 gigs for the month.

One customer – a 1 meg subscriber at the far eastern edge of our network, behind seven wireless hops and on an 802.11b AP – downloaded 140gig.

Another one, on the far western side of our network, downloaded 110gig.   We called them and found out that they were watching a ton of online video.

We discovered a county government connection that was around 100gig – mostly because someone in the sheriff’s department was pounding for BitTorrent files from 1am to 7am in the morning, and sometimes crashing their firewall machine because of the traffic.

One wonders what the sheriff’s department was grabbing off BitTorrent, but the question itself opens the door as to whether or not your provider (and by extension, you and I) should know what they are doing with their broadband connection in the first place.

Larsen says the other subscribers on his list were watching lots of online video, had a virus, or had “mistakenly” left their file sharing programs running.

Larsen’s solution is usage caps and overlimit penalties for his subscribers.

A home equipped with a WISP antenna on the roof

Package                                                               Monthly Download Cap

384k                                                                       10 gigabytes

640k                                                                       10 gigabytes

1 meg                                                                    20 gigabytes

2 meg                                                                    40 gigabytes

3 meg                                                                    50 gigabytes

4 meg                                                                    60 gigabytes

8 meg                                                                    80 gigabytes

Additional capacity over cap                        $1 per gigabyte over the cap

Although Larsen claims the cap and the overlimit fee isn’t “a profit center,” it would be disingenuous to suggest it isn’t about the money (underline emphasis ours):

I feel that these caps are more than generous, and should have a minimal effect on the majority of our customers.   With our backbone consumption per customer increasing, implementing caps of some kind became a necessity.    I am not looking at the caps as a new “profit center” – they are a deterrent as much as anything.    It will provide an incentive for customers to upgrade to a faster plan with a higher cap, or take their download habits to a competitor and chew up someone else’s bandwidth.

Customers upgrading to a faster plan have to pay a correspondingly higher price for that service and taking their “download habits to a competitor” reduces the cost for the provider no longer encumbered with serving the higher-usage-than-average customer now heading for the door.  Among his 2,000 customers, the end effect will be what Larsen himself hopes is a deterrent for customers using increasingly common higher bandwidth applications like online video, file backup, and uploading and downloading files.  Larsen himself admits that one of his customers was a little bit upset to be told he was using too much.

Rural providers do face higher costs to provide service than their urban counterparts.  But before they enjoy any benefits from Universal Service Fund reform or other government-provided stimulus, customer-unfriendly Internet Overcharging schemes should not be part of the deal.

Last year I participated in an online focus group about wireless broadband pricing.  The subject was consumption billing vs. usage limits — do consumers value unlimited broadband plans with overlimit fees more than strict usage caps that cause speeds to plummet for customers who reach them.  Also under consideration were various usage allowances sold at different price points.  Focus group members could rate the plans’ acceptability from a scale of “extremely interested” to “would not consider this plan.”  It took me mere minutes to work my way through dozens of combinations, rating them all unacceptable.  Participants were next directed into an online forum to discuss the different plans amongst ourselves, with a moderator focusing and encouraging discussions.

Inevitably, I was asked why I rated every plan on offer as not worthy of my consideration.  My short answer was that while I understand wireless was not presently a limitless resource, the plans suggested all included overlimit fees or plan allowances that would-be customers had to choose, many with no insight into what their monthly usage could or would be.  Not on offer was a true consumption plan that charged wireless customers only for what they used during a month.  If they didn’t use it at all, no bill would result.  My bottom line — customers should not have to take a crash course in data consumption to predict their usage or face steep penalties when they guessed wrong.

T-Mobile has found a third way, although Cricket’s wireless broadband service beat them to it well over a year ago.

The company’s new 5GB wireless broadband plan offers a traditional usage cap every mobile broadband customer is familiar with, but imposes no overlimit fees on customers that exceed it.  Instead, they reserve the right to dramatically reduce your speed until the next billing cycle begins.  T-Mobile representatives tell Stop the Cap! the company won’t automatically impose the speed throttle unless customers have a history of regularly exceeding their usage allowance (or dramatically exceed it.)  T-Mobile also may forgive a customer for an occasional breach, dropping the speed throttle for those who contact customer service and ask.

This effectively matches Cricket’s pricing and usage plan, which may cause that carrier to consider increasing usage allowances or reducing the price to compete.

T-Mobile's data plans for mobile broadband and smartphones

Broadband Reports notes that the 200 megabyte plan still requires overlimit fees, but they’ve been cut in half from 20 cents per megabyte to 10 cents.

Larger carriers like AT&T and Verizon still impose overlimit fees on their usage-capped wireless broadband accounts.  Cricket sells a $50 10 gigabyte usage allowance plan through Wal-Mart as well.