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.
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.
They're in your neighborhood, just waiting to break into your home network, according to WXYZ-TV in Detroit
The biggest security threat most broadband users will encounter doesn’t come from identity thieves or kiddie porn rings roving neighborhoods looking for unsecured computers to exploit — it’s from your neighbors looking for free access to your broadband service.
Local newscasts have recently been running sensationalist stories of mysterious cars parked on neighborhood streets driven by ne’er-do-wells barging onto unsecured home wireless networks.
In fact, the most common threat isn’t from drive-by crime rings, but right next door. With most broadband accounts providing flat rate service, the occasional uninvited guest ‘borrowing access’ probably goes unnoticed. But should Internet Overchargers have their way, the consequences of account sharing in a world with paltry usage limits and usage-based-billing could show up on your monthly bill.
In countries where these overcharging schemes already have taken firm root, reports of customers receiving enormous broadband service bills are common. In Australia, rarely a week goes by without someone reporting a hacked wireless network incident. Consumers have been forced to become watchdogs, constantly checking usage statistics to ensure someone in the neighborhood hasn’t been “borrowing” their Internet account and blowing through their monthly usage allowance.
One customer, who lives in an apartment complex, shares a too-common story:
Over the past 24 hours someone (or something?) has been sucking the life out of my internet connection and chewed up 10Gb of my quota. How do I troubleshoot the cause of this? I have a Buffalo WHR-G54S Wireless Router and my network is secured. I live by myself in a small block of apartments; I have had no visitors either.
Another customer discovered when it’s your word against your provider’s, the provider wins:
Yesterday, I was checking my broadband bill and was surprised to find out that they had charged me for downloading an extra 4 GB of data. I checked my usage online for the current month and it was already 8GB! This is despite the fact that I have been on holiday for ten days, and my normal usage involves casual browsing and downloading e-mails.
Furthermore, I never exceeded my download limit since I started with my ISP. My ISP also confirms that this is quite unusual and against my normal usage pattern. I have asked them to provide me some usage statistics but they can only give me the data that I already see on my account online.
The cost of exceeding the limit can be enormous. BigPond in Australia, for example, has a few Internet plans that charge a $0.15 per megabyte overlimit penalty. That’s $150AUD per gigabyte.
[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WXYZ Detroit Open Wi-Fi Risks 1-26-10.flv[/flv]
WXYZ-TV in Detroit ran this sensationalist report on drive-by hackers breaking into wireless networks. (3 minutes)
The solution suggested by most Internet Service Providers is to enable built-in wireless security. How much protection that provides and whether customers will be able to understand how to configure security remain open questions.
Some phone companies providing DSL service have plenty of older equipment still in customer homes that only supports the older WEP security standard. That’s insufficient to protect consumers from intrusion because WEP security has been seriously compromised.
“WEP as a security measure is so broken that your (and everyone else’s) kid sister can easily circumvent it,” computer security researcher Ralf-Philipp Weinmann told the BBC. Weinmann is co-author of the aircrack-ptw tool that can crack WEP in minutes.
Anyone caring about their privacy, said Weinmann, should not use WEP to stop others using their wi-fi hotspot.
Current generation wireless routers typically provide both WEP and the more secure WPA standard. But now there is evidence WPA can also be compromised, with a little help from “cloud computing,” which puts several high powered computers together to quickly work on cracking your password. A service has even been launched to let would-be crackers rent time on the “cloud” to “test” network security passwords, starting at just $17. In as little as 20 minutes, those with relatively simple passwords will find their network security compromised.
You can protect yourself by at least making sure your router is “secured” with a password. Most every router comes with instructions or software that make this process as simple as possible. When you have a choice of security standards, aim for WPA2, if available.
Thus far, most reported WPA network break-ins occur because the user is relying on a simple password — often a common word, name, series of numbers, or something similar that is much easier to break. Try to use a password that is not a word in a dictionary, doesn’t correspond to information anyone could mine off your Facebook page (city/town, school, birthday, parents or siblings names, etc.), and would be impossible to guess off-hand.
Be Sure to Read Part One: Astroturf Overload — Broadband for America = One Giant Industry Front Group for an important introduction to what this super-sized industry front group is all about. Members of Broadband for America Red: A company or group actively engaging in anti-consumer lobbying, opposes Net Neutrality, supports Internet Overcharging, belongs to […]
Astroturf: One of the underhanded tactics increasingly being used by telecom companies is “Astroturf lobbying” – creating front groups that try to mimic true grassroots, but that are all about corporate money, not citizen power. Astroturf lobbying is hardly a new approach. Senator Lloyd Bentsen is credited with coining the term in the 1980s to […]
Hong Kong remains bullish on broadband. Despite the economic downturn, City Telecom continues to invest millions in constructing one of Hong Kong’s largest fiber optic broadband networks, providing fiber to the home connections to residents. City Telecom’s HK Broadband service relies on an all-fiber optic network, and has been dubbed “the Verizon FiOS of Hong […]
BendBroadband, a small provider serving central Oregon, breathlessly announced the imminent launch of new higher speed broadband service for its customers after completing an upgrade to DOCSIS 3. Along with the launch announcement came a new logo of a sprinting dog the company attaches its new tagline to: “We’re the local dog. We better be […]
Stop the Cap! reader Rick has been educating me about some of the new-found aggression by Shaw Communications, one of western Canada’s largest telecommunications companies, in expanding its business reach across Canada. Woe to those who get in the way. Novus Entertainment is already familiar with this story. As Stop the Cap! reported previously, Shaw […]
The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the Canadian equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, may be forced to consider American broadband policy before defining Net Neutrality and its role in Canadian broadband, according to an article published today in The Globe & Mail. [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s] proposal – to codify and enforce some […]
In March 2000, two cable magnates sat down for the cable industry equivalent of My Dinner With Andre. Fine wine, beautiful table linens, an exquisite meal, and a Monopoly board with pieces swapped back and forth representing hundreds of thousands of Canadian consumers. Ted Rogers and Jim Shaw drew a line on the western Ontario […]
Just like FairPoint Communications, the Towering Inferno of phone companies haunting New England, Frontier Communications is making a whole lot of promises to state regulators and consumers, if they’ll only support the deal to transfer ownership of phone service from Verizon to them. This time, Frontier is issuing a self-serving press release touting their investment […]
I see it took all of five minutes for George Ou and his friends at Digital Society to be swayed by the tunnel vision myopia of last week’s latest effort to justify Internet Overcharging schemes. Until recently, I’ve always rationalized my distain for smaller usage caps by ignoring the fact that I’m being subsidized by […]
In 2007, we took our first major trip away from western New York in 20 years and spent two weeks an hour away from Calgary, Alberta. After two weeks in Kananaskis Country, Banff, Calgary, and other spots all over southern Alberta, we came away with the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Good Alberta […]
A federal appeals court in Washington has struck down, for a second time, a rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission to limit the size of the nation’s largest cable operators to 30% of the nation’s pay television marketplace, calling the rule “arbitrary and capricious.” The 30% rule, designed to keep no single company from controlling […]
Less than half of Americans surveyed by PC Magazine report they are very satisfied with the broadband speed delivered by their Internet service provider. PC Magazine released a comprehensive study this month on speed, provider satisfaction, and consumer opinions about the state of broadband in their community. The publisher sampled more than 17,000 participants, checking […]