Their prices are sky high.

Back in May 2010, Stop the Cap! launched a debate with a few Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) that provide largely rural America with wireless access to the Internet over long range Wi-Fi networks.  The debate got started when Matthew Larsen, who runs the Wireless Cowboys blog, announced the arrival of an Internet Overcharging scheme at his WISP — Vistabeam, which serves residents in rural Wyoming and Nebraska.

WISPs are being increasingly challenged by the changing tastes of Internet customers, who are gravitating towards broadband multimedia content, saturating limited capacity networks and forcing regular infrastructure upgrades to keep up with increasing usage demands.  Unlike larger providers, many WISPs are independent, family-run businesses that lack easy access to capital and resources to rapidly respond to demand, especially when most have a rural customer base that numbers in the hundreds or thousands.

That’s one of the reasons why Stop the Cap! has not been as harsh on these providers when they implement usage limit schemes on their customers.  Because WISPs provide service where cable and phone companies usually don’t bother to serve, these wireless providers are the only option beyond satellite Internet, which we regularly label “fraudband” for claims of broadband speeds that are rarely delivered.  Still, we were not impressed last year with some of Larsen’s language about what his usage caps were intended to do (underlining 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.

Ouch.

It’s been over a year, and Larsen is back with an editorial patting himself on the back for an Internet Overcharging success story well-implemented:

We have never raised prices on our services.    We still have a customer note on the wall that reads “Your bill was the only one I got this month that DIDN’T go up.   Thank you!”     I would have a hard time raising prices on this person because of their neighbors that are downloading 20x as much.   Usage Based Billing is a much fairer way to go, especially when the provider faces so much reinvestment cost to accommodate the heavier users.   After the first year of implementation, I am very glad that we took the time to implement it and intend to use the revenue to build a better network for all of our customers.

Larsen is also upset with those who believe in the concept of unlimited Internet:

Operating a broadband network is not free, and it is not a low-maintenance business.   I have a group of dedicated employees and subcontractors that have spent a lot of late nights and early mornings away from their families to build and maintain our network.   Anyone who thinks that unlimited broadband is a God given right should be forced to spend a few days in my lead tech’s shoes, getting a good look at what a broadband provider has to do to build a network and keep it running.

Larsen, like other WISPs are confronting the reality that Internet usage is on the upswing, and while we sympathize with the challenges faced by Vistabeam and other WISPs, his statements do not apply to every broadband network around.  And frankly, an increasing number of customers simply aren’t interested in Larsen’s challenges, especially if another provider can deliver service more cheaply and efficiently.  Vistabeam better hope nobody does, because their prices are simply not competitive if just about any other provider manages to work their way into his territory.

Vistabeam prices start at $29.95 a month for 384kbps/128kbps service with a monthly usage limit of 10GB.  Exceed that and you will pay an additional $1 per gigabyte.  Customers who need more speed pay dearly for it.  A tier providing 4/2Mbps service will run you $99.95 a month with a 60GB monthly usage allowance.

As of late, Larsen has been railing against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over recent broadband stimulus awards designed to improve coverage of broadband Internet in the same rural regions of the country Vistabeam serves.  He’s upset the USDA has awarded a $10.2 million infrastructure loan to the Hemingford Cooperative Telephone Company, which provides service in western Nebraska under the name Mobius Communications.

Larsen speaks highly of the fact Vistabeam delivers service in the absence of government funding or stimulus. But average consumers are not likely to care when they compare prices and consider the fact Mobius doesn’t appear to limit customers’ usage.

Mobius DSL Prices:

• 500kbps – $35.00
• 1.5Mbps – $40.00
• 3Mbps – $50.00
• 5Mbps – $60.00 (Currently available in Alliance and Chadron.)

Mobius charges effectively half the price Vistabeam charges, and offers faster tiers of service in some areas, without fear of overlimit fees.  It’s also important to recognize the “award” was actually a “loan,” which must be repaid.  Larsen seems less upset with the fact there are broadband stimulus programs than with the reality industry lobbying has effectively cut out many Wireless ISPs from standing any chance of winning one.

I get especially frustrated by loan awards like this one because I have operated two ISPs that have had to compete directly with Mobius and did not have access to any federal grant or loan programs.   The USDA Broadband and Loan programs are essentially only available to [regional phone companies].   When I made inquiries into the programs several years ago, I found that they would only loan to a single recipient in a region so that they were not funding competing projects.

Phillip Dampier

For Stop the Cap!, our constituents are consumers interested in obtaining the best possible broadband service at the best price.  Larsen’s views, understandable from the perspective of a business owner, would leave a number of consumers paying effectively double the price for usage-limited broadband. That would, however, satisfy a business argument that self-funded private providers should not face competition from other providers that can extend faster, unlimited DSL, cable, or fiber service with low interest loans.

Wouldn’t a better solution be to form a coalition to force open the same beneficial loan programs to Wireless ISPs who can more readily and affordably build up their networks and ease the Internet Overcharging that too often comes along for the ride?  We’re not accusing Larsen of gouging his customers for fun and profit, but we would like to see WISPs like Vistabeam develop win-win strategies that deliver success for their innovative efforts and lower priced, faster service for their customers.

The alternative may be the eventual arrival of those rural phone companies, increasingly equipped to deliver faster and cheaper service to Vistabeam’s current customers, eventually spelling disaster to that company’s business plan.  It has happened before.  Anyone remember the “wireless cable” industry that delivered a few dozen cable channels over microwave signals?  That’s a service whose time came and went, largely replaced with satellite television and rural telephone cable TV, better equipped to provide the kind of service consumers actually wanted, but wireless cable was ill-equipped to provide.

The sequel to this story could be written from a jail cell.

The guilty pleas just keep on coming in a two-year old prosecution of a wireless broadband scheme that never delivered much service, but ripped off taxpayers to the tune of more than two million dollars.  This week, the president of Mountain State College, who has been employed there for more than 35 years, owned up to hiding facts from prosecutors in his role as chairman of the board of the now-defunct Sequelle Communications Alliance, Inc.

Alan Michael McPeek of Parkersburg, 63, plead guilty Wednesday to obstruction of justice charges in federal court, admitting he misled a criminal investigation reviewing fraud allegations against the company.

Sequelle, a publicly funded project to establish wireless Internet service in the mid-Ohio Valley region, received a $3.295 million loan in 2002 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a $600,000 grant from West Virginia’s Development Office and another $400,000 in loans from the Mid-Ohio Valley Regional Council and a bank.

For that funding windfall, the mid-Ohio Valley got several towers ready for wireless antennas, a website that didn’t get updated much beyond the fall of 2000, some software to administer the project, and nothing else.

Instead, federal prosecutors charged some of Sequelle’s officers and several Ohio-based subcontractors of laundering loan and grant funds as seed money and salaries for a new for-profit venture designed to market an “Internet in a box” concept to other rural areas seeking wireless Internet service.

Prosecutors particularly focused on the USDA loan, which required the money “to be used solely for the project specifically described in the application to furnish or improve broadband services in rural areas … in the states of Ohio and West Virginia.”

Like many federal grants and loans, this one prohibited using the money to pay salaries, utilities, and basic office expenses.  Prosecutors would later learn Sequelle’s principal founder and former CEO Heidi Ditchendorf Caroline Laughery laundered loan money through a sub-contractor who kicked back at least $250,000 she used as a salary. McPeek’s guilty plea came in part because he knew about it.

Another grant from Ohio was paid on the promise Sequelle would provide at least 45 high paying jobs within three years.  That never happened.

Laughery

Worst of all, many of the grant and loan applications asked whether any officer in the company had been convicted of a felony or was a defendant in any criminal case.  Laughery answered no to both.  Had government officials verified that information they would have discovered Laughery was previously convicted in 1987 on two counts of felony wire fraud — based on her embezzlement of more than $130,000 of customer funds and securities during her employment at Merrill Lynch.

Laughery didn’t want to bring up those bad memories, so she left her Merrill Lynch years off Sequelle’s website documenting her prior experience.

Prosecutors have been successful in bringing those responsible for this caper to justice:

• Laughery was sentenced in April to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay $850,000 in restitution.
• Sub-contractor R. Scott Truslow plead guilty to conspiring to commit money laundering and is now spending six months under home confinement and ordered to pay nearly $550,000 in restitution.
• Charges are still pending against a second sub-contractor.

McPeek faces up to five years in prison when sentenced in October.  He was released on a $10,000 unsecured bond pending sentencing.

Laughery’s attorney, Michael Callaghan, claimed in 2008 that the project failed because technology marched ahead of the project.

“All the money that the government is alleging was stolen actually went into the development of Internet (infrastructure),” he told a West Virginia reporter. “My client worked for a year-and-a-half without pay because she believed in this project. The concept was great, but the technology developed faster than the project did. Technology moves fast. Technology businesses fail every day.”

Tapdancing your way around money laundering charges can move fast as well.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTAP Parkersburg McPeek Enters Plea in Sequelle Investigation 6-30-10.flv[/flv]

WTAP-TV Parkersburg has this report on McPeek’s plea.  (1 minute)

AirRunner Wireless serves a small portion of central Wisconsin from its headquarters in Marathon.

A wireless Internet provider serving central Wisconsin has banned online video streaming from its wireless Internet service, telling its customers WISPs are not designed for it.  To drive home the point, the service is jumping on the bandwagon of AT&T’s mobile network 2 GB usage limit with some stringent limits of its own.

Bill Flood, owner of AirRunner Networks LLC dispatched e-mail to every one of its central Wisconsin customers informing them some are violating the company’s use policies by streaming online video on its service, which it cannot accommodate.  Flood blamed companies like Netflix for forcing him to carry the costs of transporting movies and TV shows to his customers:

Hello! Over the past month we have been seeing an increasing issue on the network during peak times. From our investigation we have determined these problems stem from customers who are streaming Netflix or other ‘instant movie or movie on demand’ type services.

These types of products should not be used on the network for these reasons:

First, a wireless network uses access points, those by design do not handle continuous connections without affecting the other customers of that access point. Because the movie stays connected for a longer period of time, eventually other customers simply get less access and as a result see a severe network degradation.

Our Acceptable Use Policy over the years has grown as a result of new technology.

Not all new technology works well on every type of Internet platform. Although some customers have told me they have been using this type of service in the past, the increased usage spurred on by recent Netflix advertising, a CD for Wii devices and now by one of the satellite TV companies has brought this issue to the forefront.

These companies see the Internet as a means to save their resources and push the load onto the Internet.

Welcome to the Internet circa 2010.  The days of a voice declaring “You’ve got mail” from your AOL account are long gone.  Customers are demanding access to a much richer multimedia experience available online today.  That demand is beginning to regularly collide with the limitations some networks have to deliver the service.

To make sure his customers understand the implications of streaming video, Flood is also introducing one of the most punitive Internet Overcharging schemes we’ve yet to encounter, starting with a monthly usage limit of 5 GB accompanied by some vicious overlimit fees:

All non-business customers will be allotted 5 GB of total aggregate usage.

If the customer exceeds 5GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $30.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

If any customer exceeds 10GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $60.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

If any customer exceeds 15GB of total aggregate usage on any given monthly billing cycle, they will be assessed an additional $90.00 to cover their bandwidth use.

Although these additional charges seem excessive, we are not alone on making such changes as the rest of the ISP’s [Internet service providers as well as cellular providers] are also implementing similar programs on their networks to deal with network congestion issues caused by ‘on demand’ type products. The good news is, the typical Internet customer never exceeds 5GB of aggregate usage. Only a small percentage of our customers are involved in this ‘on demand streaming activity’. Here is what can be done by the typical customer while not exceeding the 5GB threshold: Our basic residential Internet packages will offer 5GB of usage — that’s the equivalent of 500,000 basic text e-mails, 2,500 photos, 40,000 web pages, over 300 hours of Online game time, 1,250 downloaded songs, or a mixture of the above! 1,000 megabyte (MB) = 1 gigabyte (GB) We will send out a notice to everyone again when we are ready to implement these changes.

Flood’s e-mail doesn’t tell the whole story to his customers, however.

First, his imposed overlimit fees are ludicrously high.  A customer using 16 GB for the month would face an overlimit penalty of $90.  Considering AirRunner’s pricing, that’s a potentially enormous bill:

AirRunner offers six rate plans for residential and small business:

• $15.00 256K/256K, tiered access. New accounts only

The below programs require a contract.

• $19.00 1.0 Mbps/768K, tiered access. New accounts only
• $45.00 2Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access
• $55.00 2Mbps/2Mbps, tiered access Bi-direction connection; useful for working from home.
• $65.00 3Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access
• $75.00 5Mbps/1Mbps, tiered access

Second, “the rest of the ISPs” are not in fact imposing similar programs.  AT&T just abandoned theirs for DSL customers in two cities.  Attempts to ration broadband access typically meets resistance from consumers, if not an outright revolt.  As soon as customers get a bill with a $90 overlimit penalty on it, they will revolt as well.

It is true that wireless providers do face bandwidth challenges, but that’s not always disclosed to customers until after they sign up for service.  In 2010, would you sign a two year contract for a broadband service that banned online video?  Of course, if Flood offers the only service in town, for all practical purposes he can dictate the terms of the service provided.  But many customers have long memories and when another provider does arrive, they’ll take their business elsewhere.

Therein lies a potential problem for Flood.  A considerable part of central Wisconsin has been served by Verizon North, one of the divisions Verizon has sold to Frontier Communications.  Verizon dramatically cut investment in Wisconsin broadband expansion as soon as it became apparent they were leaving.  Frontier Communications is betting its long-term survival on bringing at least 1-3 Mbps DSL service to areas just like central Wisconsin.  It’s a safe assumption at least some parts of Flood’s service area will be challenged by Frontier DSL within the next year.

At that point, perhaps Flood will adopt a less hostile attitude towards his own customers.  Some of those who departed didn’t appreciate Flood’s tone or actions and shared some of his hostile communications on the subject.  Taking an adversarial stance even with former, paying customers never works well.  Among the thoughts Flood has shared:

• If you don’t like his caps, move to the city;
• One customer was told his service was canceled because he just doesn’t get it — besides, Flood wrote, he can do whatever he wants;
• Customers who are caught streaming are gone;
• If you complain too much, watch out.

Third, Flood follows the discredited playbook of trying to convince customers a 5 GB usage limit for the Internet in 2010 is reasonable with generous-sounding e-mail and web page browsing allowances.  Flood himself exposes the real issue — customers want to watch YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu and his network can’t handle it.  Of course, his marketing materials never bother to mention any of this.  Only after customers sign up, many under a two-year contract, does the truth come out (underlined emphasis ours):

In the case of ‘streaming video/movies or on demand type products or services’ recent weeks shows exactly what happens when these types of products are used. Everyone who uses ‘on demand or streaming products or services’ also knows there is an alternative which does not have an affect on any other user. We suggest the alternative as the best solution. We would appreciate everyone’s cooperation in resolving this current issue. If you are streaming movies you are making everyone mad!! Someday you may want to use the Internet and your neighbor will be streaming, then you won’t work. Wireless Internet was not designed to watch TV or movies.

If you are a ‘on demand user’ you may want to look at other options in lieu of streaming movies over the Internet. A basic resolution movie is typically 700Mb of data. So 1000Mb is equal to 1GB. So roughly 3-6 on demand or streamed movies will draw and additional charge to your account. All paying customers have the right to access their Internet connection, however any customer cannot deny any other customer access as the result of their usage. When this occurs policy is made to correct such actions. We make every effort to provide the best service we can, sometimes new Internet based programs and products do not work well on this type of network, that is not the fault of AirRunner Networks LLC and we cannot guarantee that any type of program or product will work properly or as advertised.

At least Flood was finally honest about the implications of watching online video from a provider with a low monthly usage allowance.  Just watching 3-6 online movies blows right through it, even fewer if it’s an HD title.

Unfortunately for Flood and other WISPs with similar network constraints, the evolution of the Internet and its online resources will increasingly place pressure on many networks that were built for a 1990s-era Internet.  As advanced video game streaming technology, online movies and television, online file backup, and other high bandwidth innovations not yet envisioned become increasingly popular, companies like AirRunner will be forced to upgrade their network or add new applications to the ban list, eventually facing obsolescence if a better provider arrives in town.

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.

Mechanicsburg is located in Bland County, Virginia

Sunday was an exciting day for the nearly 200 residents of rural Mechanicsburg, a small community in southwest Virginia.  It was launch day for the community’s new wireless “broadband” service, which turned the community into one large hot-spot, bringing Internet access to the community at speeds beyond dial-up.

The service expands on a Wireless ISP (WISP) network already serving the nearby communities of Rocky Gap and Bastian, and was funded by a broadband grant, with assistance from Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia).

Residents can subscribe to the service, transmitted from an antenna tower located in each community, or visit the local community center, which will have computers available for Internet use.

While the service represents an improvement over dial-up, it’s not exactly 21st century broadband.

The service, provided by Trificient Broadband Technologies, uses Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum technology in the unlicensed 900MHz, 2.4 and 5.8GHz bands (also used by consumer wireless phones and wireless routers).

Last fall, Trificient owner Jim Ingram told SWVA Today that he defined broadband at anything above 256kbps.  Bland County’s BCNet WISP service provides 512kbps service for $27.95 per month with an annual contract and $99 installation fee.  The Federal Communications Commission currently defines broadband service at speeds of 768kbps or faster.

Providing wireless Internet service in the hilly terrain of southwestern Virginia can be challenging.  The antennas delivering the service have been mounted on antenna towers to be above nearby obstructions, and Ingram told the newspaper every customer gets an on-site survey to determine whether they can receive the service.  If they are within 10 miles of the antenna and have a reasonably clear signal, a small antenna is mounted on the customer’s home and service can begin.

The company offers faster service for a higher price, assuming the customer is close enough to the transmitter to be able to obtain higher speeds.

For rural customers with no option for cable television or DSL service, wireless service at these speeds can provide basic connectivity for e-mail and web page access, but utilizing the Internet’s higher bandwidth services like video and other streaming media can prove challenging.

[flv width=”320″ height=”240″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WVVA Bluefield Mechanicsburg VA Gets Wireless Broadband 10-12-09.flv[/flv]

WVVA-TV Bluefield/Beckley, West Virginia covers the October 11th launch day in Mechanicsburg as wireless Internet service begins for nearly 200 residents in rural Virginia. [2 minutes]