Life's for sharing... just not on our wireless network.

British T-Mobile wireless broadband users got — how shall we put it — an “abrupt” and uncharacteristically rude notice about a change in the company’s “Fair Use” policy that takes effect in February (underlining ours):

Browsing means looking at websites and checking email, but not watching videos, downloading files or playing games. We’ve got a fair use policy but ours means that you’ll always be able to browse the internet, it’s only when you go over the fair use amount that you won’t be able to download, stream and watch video clips.

So what’s changing? – From 1st February 2011 we will be aligning our fair use policies so our mobile internet service will have fair use of 500MB.

What does this mean? – We’ll always let you email and browse the internet and you’ll never pay more than you agree to. We do have a fair use policy but ours is there to make sure we deliver the best service possible to all our customers.  This means that you’ll always be able to browse the internet.

So remember our Mobile Broadband and internet on your phone service is best used for browsing which means looking at your favorite websites like Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, BBC News and more, checking your email and looking for information, but not watching videos or downloading files.

If you want to download, stream and watch video clips, save that stuff for your home broadband.

T-Mobile's warning to customers to avoid watching videos on their network flies in the face of their own smartphone promotions.

As our regular reader “Jr” observes, broadband carriers want customers to use their broadband connections to browse web pages and read e-mail — and little else.  Rarely has a carrier come right out and said it, though.

Not only has T-Mobile “aligned” their fair use policies to deliver you less service (down from 1-3GB per month), but they’ve kept the same high price.  T-Mobile is the same company that routinely markets smartphones and other multimedia-equipped handsets specifically for the services they don’t want you to use on their network.

T-Mobile illustrates once again how Internet Overcharging schemes really work:

1. They implement a usage cap and suggest it is “generous” and that the majority of customers will never come close to hitting it;
2. They gradually reduce the usage allowance when revenue needs eclipse the needs of customers;
3. They still claim the new, lower limit is still “generous.”
4. They suggest almost nobody is likely going to hit the limit, no matter what it is.

Of course, had T-Mobile customers really come nowhere near the old limits, what problem was resolved lowering it?  T-Mobile claims the vast majority of customers don’t exceed 200MB of usage per month, an exceptionally low amount in comparison to other carriers.

The telecoms regulator Ofcom told ZDNet UK on Monday that, “if consumers are being notified of a change likely to cause them material detriment, the provider must give the customer one month’s notice of the change, and at the same time they must also inform the customer of their right to terminate their contract without penalty if the proposed change is not acceptable to the customer”.

As the changes take effect from 1 February, T-Mobile has given less than one month’s notice.

“We encourage unhappy consumers to speak with their provider about their concerns,” Ofcom’s spokesperson said. “If the problem relates to a particular term or condition that you feel is unfair, then you can log your complaint with Ofcom. We monitor complaints about the behaviour of communications providers and if there is a high volume of complaints about a particular issue, we do investigate and take action as required.”

(Thanks to our reader “PreventCAPS” for sharing the story with us.)

Media excitement about recent iterations of allegedly “4G” networks aside, no currently available wireless broadband service will replace the need for traditional wired broadband so long as providers limit consumption to 5GB (or less) per month.

As average consumption per household is now at least three times that level, wireless broadband customers will be faced with three choices:

1. Supplement a wireless broadband account with an unlimited, wired broadband service;
2. Be prepared to pay overlimit fees or purchase additional accounts or “usage packs;”
3. Reduce usage to remain within plan limits.

Sprint currently remains the largest carrier offering unlimited access to its 4G network, also sold independently under the Clearwire brand.  But as Clear subscribers found out, “unlimited” comes with “unlimited hassles” if Clear’s “intelligent network management” software catches you using it “too much.”  Speeds are quickly throttled downwards, well below even Sprint’s slower 3G network.

Many of Clear’s customers signed up in response to ads promising the 4G wireless service as a “home broadband replacement.”  Ditch your cable modem or DSL service for a wireless alternative!  Some salespeople even dared to suggest Clear was faster than cable or DSL.  Only for most it is not.

Every carrier has their own version of “4G” here or on the way, most of which can deliver better and faster service than the 3G alternative, but wireless providers are hellbent on ensuring customers never get used to the concept of truly unlimited service.

Glenn Britt, CEO of Time Warner Cable, admits the wired broadband industry erred when it got people used to all-you-can-use broadband.

“We made a mistake early on by not defining our business based on the consumption dimension,” Britt told investors back in 2009 when the company was contemplating its own metered usage trials.

4G networks can bring out the "data hog" in everyone if you actually take advantage of the faster speeds to stream multimedia.

Wireless providers are working hard not to repeat that mistake.

AT&T found usage caps anger customers, but got away with implementing a 2GB monthly wireless usage cap tied with the introduction of the wildly popular newest iPhone (and helped by grandfathering existing unlimited customers until their next phone upgrade.)

“If I had a baby in my hand and my iPhone and I had to drop one, I’d drop the baby,” laughed Dallas iPhone owner Luisa Benton.  But Benton’s love for her Apple phone does not extend to AT&T’s network, noting she has dropped calls and had poor reception in certain areas.

Many iPhone owners retain their cable or DSL broadband service because AT&T’s wireless usage cap limits what they can manage online, and the company’s network problems only adds insult to pocketbook injury.  With many locked into two year contracts, few are going to brave early termination fees to find an alternative.

As providers upgrade their networks, they are also upgrading their prices.  Verizon’s new LTE network, for example, carries a premium price tag for those wishing to use it.

Customers looking for a faster wireless experience will pay $50 for 5 GB or $80 for 10 GB of data on Verizon’s new network.  Run over those limits and an overlimit fee of $10 per gigabyte kicks in.

“People are never going to use wireless networks the way you see them on the commercials,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Jo-Anne in Seattle.  “They are always watching movies or TV shows — services you absolutely don’t want to risk at those prices.”

J0-Anne asked a Verizon representative if new 4G smartphones would be permitted to use unlimited data plans.

“‘Don’t bet on it,’ was the reply I got — Verizon may keep unlimited around for 3G network users only,” she said.

If true, Verizon will deliver overpriced, inadequate service for any customer looking to leave their home broadband account behind.  As soon as multimedia gets involved, usage caps rapidly become a dealbreaker.

Verizon recently contracted with Bridgewater Systems Corporation to supply it with data management software.  Bridgewater is also a major supplier of network throttling solutions to ferret out heavy users and impede their speed, as part of “fair use policy” regimes.

Some wireless companies are trying to have their cake and eat it too — selling “unlimited” wireless broadband service hampered by an aggressive “policy control” network management scheme.  You’ve seen the ads promising unlimited access, but probably missed the fine print warning the provider will throttle your wireless broadband speed to something comparable to dial-up once they deem you a data hog.

Cricket and Clear are both notorious for throttling customer speeds and delivering disclosures of the practice more impenetrable than North Korea.

A Clear blog entry tried to simplify the legalese:

During times of high network utilization our network management system may limit speeds, but we never limit the amount of data a customer with an unlimited data plan may use. The algorithm in place reviews several factors including long and short-term usage, current network capacity, and network demand to determine if network management needs to be applied.

The end result is that a few heavy users temporarily give up some speed during limited times of high demand so that everyone can have a good experience. A majority of customers are having a positive experience and experiencing faster speeds during times of greatest demand since these enhancements were enacted.

The “positive experience” Clear’s blogger reports may be wishful thinking, however, after reading the company’s support forums.  They’re overloaded with thousands of angry customers and probably many more ex-customers.  An “unlimited” broadband experience is meaningless if customers endure speeds well below the minimum acceptable definition of “broadband,” often for days on end.

Cricket is no better:

Cricket sets usage levels on the amount of data a customer can upload and download within stated periods of time. If you exceed your rate plan usage levels, Cricket will temporarily reduce the speed at which you can send and receive data over the Cricket network. You will still be able to use the service but your speed will be slower. Cricket may use other traffic management and prioritization tools to help ensure equitable access to the Cricket network for all customers. Your service speed is not guaranteed and is subject to this Fair Use Policy.

Cricket has set a data usage level (“Usage Level”) per customer. As shown in your rate plan brochure or on www.mycricket.com, this Usage Level varies based on the rate plan you’ve selected. Every day, we measure your upload and download data usage (“Actual Usage”) to determine if your total Actual Usage, as aggregated over your bill cycle (“Usage Total”), exceeds the Usage Level for the rate plan you selected. During hours of operation, you can inquire about your Usage Total versus your monthly Usage Level by calling 1-800-Cricket and speaking with a Care representative.

Once you begin a new bill cycle your rate plan Usage Level upload and download speeds will be restored.

The average Cricket customer is unlikely to grasp anything beyond the fact their speed sucks if they are targeted by Cricket’s throttle.  It’s not as simple as breaking through your monthly usage allowance.  Cricket can and does throttle customers who seem like they could exceed the limit, based on their daily account activity.

In the end, most wireless customers pay more for less service.  The primary benefit is portability, and carriers consider that worth the premium prices charged.  But as the Internet’s love affair with all things multimedia continues, none of these providers will provide a suitable alternative to the traditional home-wired broadband account.

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFAA Dallas iPhone Frustration 11-30-09.mp4[/flv]

Last year like this year, WFAA-TV in Dallas reports frustrations continue with AT&T’s wireless data network.  The company’s response?  Limit customers’ use of it and push more of them off to Wi-Fi alternatives.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Net Neutrality Primer 12-21-10.flv[/flv]

For those who may not fully grasp Net Neutrality, CNN’s Ali Velshi delivered a primer that helps explain how Internet traffic moves, how providers want to manage that traffic, and the implications of not enforcing robust Net Neutrality.  Velshi’s explanation delivers both sides of the argument with only a few minor errors.  We’d remind him consumers already paid for the big pipe depicted in the video.  Consumers should not have to pay twice for the same thing.  Less useful is CNNMoney Staff Writer David Goldman, who got several points wrong, especially about wireless. (8 minutes)

Clearwire’s often-unclear “network management” policies are the subject of a lawsuit filed yesterday in Seattle seeking class action status.

Angelo Dennings vs. Clearwire Corporation was filed in the Western District of Washington federal court, and seeks refunds for consumers who were mislead by the company’s failure to disclose its network speed throttling and usage limitations, and charged early termination fees when subsequently canceling service.

Clearwire promises that its high-speed Internet service provides a “fast” and “always on, always secure” Internet connection allowing users to “[d]ownload pictures, music and videos.” But Clearwire does not provide an “always on,” “high-speed” connection as it promises. Clearwire purposefully slows the connection of its users because it cannot accommodate the high volume of traffic. Clearwire engages in a practice known as “throttling,” which is the intentional delay and/or blocking of Internet communications. This practice deprives Clearwire customers of the ability to “[d]ownload music and videos,” and leads to slow connection speeds.  Clearwire engages in throttling at times when demand for Internet use is highest, beginning at approximately 7:30 p.m. and ending at about 1:00-to-2:00 a.m.

If users attempt to cancel their service, Clearwire claims that, pursuant to its “contract” with them, it is entitled to collect an early termination or a re-stocking fee. The “contract” referred to by Clearwire is not a contract between it and its customers. The contract between Clearwire and its customers is simply that the customers will pay for, and Clearwire will provide, “unlimited” Internet usage at certain speeds, depending on the speed and payment plan selected in Clearwire’s stores, kiosks, or online.

The remaining “terms” invoked by Clearwire at its convenience are embedded in a document that consumers never see prior to subscribing to Clearwire’s service. Clearwire sells its services in its stores, kiosks at shopping centers, and online. Clearwire’s stores and kiosks do not have copies of this “contract” on hand for potential subscribers to read before they “agree” to its terms. Users who subscribe through Clearwire’s website never see the contract either because the link to it is at the bottom of a page, in substantially smaller font and lighter shade than all of the other text on the page. The text states: “Want to read the fine print (and who doesn’t read the fine print?) It’s all there in the CLEAR Legal Index.” No one wants to read fine print legalese and almost no one does. The statement is obviously and sharply ironic, and mocks anyone who may have been fussy enough to have considered continuing.

Despite not showing its terms to consumers, Clearwire refuses to allow users to cancel their service without paying the unconscionable fees it claims it is owed under this “contract.” These fees include an early termination fee (“ETF”), which penalizes consumers that want out before the end of the two-year term. Although Clearwire breached its contract with its customers, Clearwire insists on the payment of this ETF when customers realize they are not getting what they bargained for.

The suit argues that Clearwire has oversold its wireless broadband network, and allegedly quotes a company representative at one point telling Dennings, “Clearwire had signed up more customers than its cell towers could accommodate, and that therefore it was ‘managing’ users’ accounts.”

Attorney Clifford Cantor argues in the filing that Clearwire reduces customer speeds to 300kbps or lower when their network is congested, making the service unsuitable for most broadband applications.  Dennings, who lives near Ft. Worth, Tex., was outraged to learn Clear sold him a home and mobile broadband account that was advertised as a replacement for wired cable or DSL broadband, but was left with service he considered largely useless when throttled.  Even more upsetting, the suit alleges, Denning was asked to pay a $219 early contract termination and restocking fee when he tried to cancel service over the matter.

Cantor is asking for a court ruling declaring Clear’s policies to be unconscionable, attorneys’ fees of at least $5,000, and refunds for all impacted subscribers.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Michael in Chicago for sending along a copy of the lawsuit.  He runs the “Clear/Clearwire internet not as advertised” Facebook group.

A Facebook group has been established to oppose Clear's Internet Overcharging schemes

The clock may be running out on Clearwire, America’s “4G-WiMax” wireless broadband provider controlled by Sprint, with close investment ties to Comcast and Time Warner Cable, who both resell Clear wireless broadband under their own brands.

At issue is money — the lack of it, and the wireless company’s cash on hand has grown so perilously low, Clearwire was forced to admit to its investors it may not survive beyond the first half of next year:

Based on our current projections, we do not expect our available cash and short-term investments as of September 30, 2010 to be sufficient to cover our estimated liquidity needs for the next 12 months. We also do not expect our operations to generate positive cash flows during the next 12 months. Without additional financing sources, we forecast that our cash and short-term investments would be depleted as early as the middle of 2011.

The Securities and Exchange Commission rules governing public companies represent a public relations nightmare for anyone trying to put a positive spin on bad news, and Sprint chief Dan Hesse desperately tried to make lemonade out of the financial lemon Clearwire increasingly represents for the wireless company.

“If you get to the point where you don’t have 12 months of cash in the till, even if you’ve got negotiations going on, or what have you, you have to, from an accounting perspective, say you have a going-concern issue,” Hesse said. “That doesn’t mean that Sprint and other partners won’t continue to fund Clearwire.”

With Sprint’s 54 percent stake in Clearwire defining the entity as a subsidiary of Sprint, its demise could risk Sprint’s own financial well-being, something Sprint plans to address in 2011, potentially ending its majority stake in the company.

For Hesse and his cable partners, Clearwire’s financial problems are being spun as a result of the venture’s success.  The company says it cannot afford the rapid expansion it has undertaken to expand its WiMax network into additional cities across the country, and faces serious financial challenges from the subsidies consumers demand when buying smartphones.

Hesse particularly complains about the latest whiz-bang smartphones consumers demand, many costing upwards of $600.  Consumers in the United States don’t pay full retail price.  In return for two year contracts carrying steep cancellation penalties, carriers cut the price of most high end phones to $200 or less.

“Subsidies are going through the roof in our industry,” Hesse said. Nearly 40 percent of Sprint customers use the company’s 4G network, and that number is rising.

Revenues are up 114 percent from a year earlier to US$147 million. But Clearwire’s losses for the last quarter alone amounted to $139 million, or $0.58 per share.

As a result, Clearwire slashed 15 percent of its staff, laying off nearly 600 employees and has indefinitely suspended its expansion plans to bring the network to additional cities.  Clearwire will also shutter many of its planned retail outlets — some already built — and delay the introduction of its own branded smartphone.

But even that may not be enough.

Although Clearwire’s growth has been double the level anticipated, achieving a net gain of 1.23 million subscribers in the third quarter — reaching 2.84 million total subscribers, not all of those customers are sticking around once they begin using the service.

Complaints about the company’s poorly disclosed speed throttling continue to be a regular topic on Clear’s support forums.  At least 1,000 complaints have been logged on Clear’s own support forums and elsewhere online about the speed traps.  A Facebook group opposing the schemes has also been established.

Stop the Cap! filed a formal complaint with the New York Attorney General’s office accusing the company of false and misleading advertising and fraud for claiming customers would enjoy “blazing fast speeds” with no limits or speed throttling, despite the fact company officials later admitted they were throttling customers deemed to be “using the service excessively.”  Dozens of additional complaints from Clearwire customers have been filed with state Attorneys General across the country, as well as with the Federal Trade Commission in Washington.

Just how much is too much has never been made clear by the company, but many users report the speed throttle reduces speeds to 250kbps, often for hours at a time.

Clearwire told Electronista:

Throtting is based on the current utilization for each cell tower, and many low-use towers do not throttle speeds at all. For high-use towers, throttling occurs during peak-use times.

A customer’s maximum speed is based on the number of gigabytes of data transferred in the past seven days and the download speeds for the past 15 minutes. Speeds are recalculated every 15 minutes, at which point a throttled customer will be bumped up to a higher speed. Rather than implementing one speed for throttling, the calculations will move customers between 48 different speed brackets.

The worst offenders using peer-to-peer software on Clearwire’s network may face repeated throttling.

Clearwire advertises a faster Internet experience for their 4G service, but many report they receive speeds far slower, even if they have engaged in very little usage.

Many consumers are also unknowingly finding themselves back on Clear’s network even though they signed up with a third party provider.  Clear resells access to its network under a variety of different brands not limited to Sprint, Road Runner Mobile, Comcast Internet2Go, and Best Buy Mobile/Wireless.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Clear Speed Woes 11-10-10.flv[/flv]

This Clearwire customer visits a Clear hotspot location and discovers even on a Wi-Fi network, Clear’s speeds don’t match their advertising claims.  Then, he discovers just how sneaky Clearwire gets in disclosing important information about the company’s wireless speeds customers might want to know before signing up.  (5 minutes)