Not really

Back in 2002 Vincent and Liza Concepcion walked into a southern California AT&T Mobility store to purchase new cellphones for themselves.  AT&T advertised a buy one, get one “free” offer for cellphones.  What AT&T didn’t say was that the family would end up paying more than $30 in hidden sales taxes for both phones.

More than eight years later, that purchase — and the resulting class action lawsuit it launched — threatens to sweep away important consumer protections by letting corporations ban class action cases and curtail Attorneys General from enforcing state consumer protection laws.

Oral arguments in the case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court last Tuesday in one of the most important consumer protection cases in decades. At issue is this clause, inserted into the Concepcion’s service contract with AT&T that would disallow the family from participating in a class action lawsuit:

“You and AT&T agree that each may bring claims against the other only in your or its individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding.”

That clause clashes with several state laws, California’s included, which basically say consumers cannot be compelled to sign away their basic consumer protection rights.  California law also says some contracts can be considered unenforceable ‘if they are built on deception, are too-one sided, or violate broader public policy.’

Hello, AT&T.

Vincent and Liza, through their attorney, argue that bringing an individual lawsuit against AT&T over $30 in sales taxes would be crazy — no lawyer would take the case and no plaintiff would front a retainer well beyond the amount in dispute.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in another class action case, “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”

The “class action” concept provides at outlet for aggrieved consumers who can attract legal representation if a company can be sued on behalf of every impacted customer.  For AT&T, that could mean facing not just the Concepcion family, but millions of Californians — each charged sales taxes for phones the company advertised as “free.”

How AT&T’s Case Has Broadened Into a Major Dispute Over Arbitration vs. Class Action Lawsuits

It's easy to navigate AT&T's terms and conditions to achieve a good outcome from arbitration, right?

But what began as a legal argument over a “free” phone has broadened into a much larger legal case before the Supreme Court: can consumers be compelled to participate in company dispute settlement schemes and give up their legal right to petition the court system for relief?  Further, what happens when those contract clauses conflict with state consumer protection laws?

Following in the footsteps of the credit card industry, AT&T inserted a clause mandating customers stay away from class action lawsuits.  By telling consumers they are forbidden to participate in such cases, AT&T pushes customers into the murky world of “arbitration” — a system where AT&T picks a private company, with whom it has a financial-business relationship, to “impartially” rule on customer complaints in secret proceedings.  Consumers have to pay their own way to attend arbitration hearings, often held in cities a thousand miles away or more.  They also must agree the decisions are binding and final.

AT&T argues, both directly and through its dollar-a-holler advocates, that class action cases are annoying, expensive, and do not typically deliver substantial benefits to class members.  The wireless carrier argues arbitration of individual cases is much faster and potentially more lucrative to would-be class action members.  Stephen J. Ware, a professor of law at the University of Kansas School of Law argues consumers have often done far better avoiding litigation and entering into arbitration programs.

But consumer advocates claim AT&T’s arbitration rules are stacked against consumers.  Arthur H. Byrant, executive director of Public Justice argues:

First, AT&T’s “agreement” bars its customers from court (except small claims court) and requires them to utilize the company’s mandatory arbitration program. Its rules say that, if a customer completes the process and recovers more than the last written settlement offer AT&T made before the arbitrator was chosen, a $7,500 premium will be paid. Second, the “agreement” bans AT&T’s customers from bringing or participating in class actions against it. Third, the “agreement” provides that, if AT&T’s class action ban is found to violate the law (as 20 states have held contractual class action bans do when they effectively immunize a company from liability), the arbitration clause “blows up” and the class action must proceed in court. Then, when the class action ban is struck down under state law (as AT&T knew it would be), the company springs its wacky trap: It argues that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA) pre-empts — and invalidates — that state law because (believe it or not) the state law is biased against arbitration.

AT&T’s call for pre-emption suffers from a bad connection. State law is not biased against arbitration. It allows AT&T to resolve disputes in either arbitration or court. Only AT&T’s “agreement” is biased against arbitration. Its “blowup clause” precludes class actions from proceeding in arbitration, but not in court.

Using the scroll bar to the right of the player, move down and click on Attorney Paul Bland’s name and watch him argue forcefully that AT&T’s motives are plain and simple — to allow them to get away with anything they want and not face accountability from the legal system. — “Arbitration is not the Candy Bridge into Rainbow Land.”

Tapping Into Consumer Discontent With Class Action Cases for the Benefit of AT&T

What the lawyers get

Ask anyone about the merits of most class action settlements and one will often get a response that the lawyers win while consumers lose.  Just this week many owners of HP printers will get word a deal has been reached over a class action case involving printer ink.  The multiple law firms involved will split not more than $2.9 million under the terms of the proposed settlement.  Consumers will get “e-credit” worth $5, $2, or $6 redeemable at HP’s online store, which sells ink cartridges at inflated prices.  In effect, HP has little to grumble about delivering “awards” to consumers that ultimately benefit its own enterprise, the only place those awards can be redeemed.

With settlements like that all too common, it is easy for AT&T’s advocates to tap into consumer discontent with class action lawyers, proclaiming AT&T’s case is actually consumer-friendly because it would cut those money-grabbers out of disputes with the company.

But consumer advocates stress class action cases do more than deliver settlements — they deter bad behavior on the part of would-be wrongdoers, bring corporations to account fiscally when they are forced to settle, and open the door to legal discovery which can uncover patterns of extensive wrongdoing that would otherwise remain secret in arbitration.

But most important of all, class actions impact every customer, not just the handful who navigate arbitration to achieve a confidential settlement.  That can be critically important to stop unfair business practices.

What you get

Of course, reform is also desperately needed in the class action system.  Too often, judges approve class action cases that deliver maximum benefits to the law firms that bring them, leaving consumers with peanuts.  Strict limits on legal fees recouped in such cases, perhaps tied to a percentage of total recovery would be a start, as are bans on settlements that don’t provide cash refunds to consumers who choose not to conduct further business with companies that abuse them.  Coupons, low value trinkets, and donations to third party groups (non-profit or otherwise) are insufficient.  Attorneys that selfishly claim most of the proceeds for themselves have only themselves to blame when corporations use that fact against them under so-called “tort reform” proposals.

Some advocates of AT&T’s position also argue that government oversight can provide a more effective system of checks and balances against corporate overreach.  While a noble sentiment, anyone who has watched the revolving door of lobbyists going to work for such agencies, later returning to lucrative jobs with the companies they formerly regulated, knows that is a classic case of the fox overseeing the hen house.  In an era of government “oversight” that missed everything from BP’s safety lapses, salmonella-infected eggs, produce, and meat, tainted pet food ingredients from China, and indecisiveness about telecommunications reform like Net Neutrality — such proposals are not to be treated seriously.

The Supreme Court Decision

While it will be months before the Court rules, most observers suspect consumers will ultimately win the case.  Liberals on the court are skeptical AT&T’s efforts to preempt state consumer protection laws are actually for the benefit of consumers, and some of the most conservative members of the court like Justice Clarence Thomas, big believers in “states’ rights” are likely to find for the Concepcion family.

“Based on what was said during the argument, I predict a 8-1 or 7-2 vote for the consumers and California, with Samuel Alito dissenting and John Roberts a toss up. Thomas, who never speaks at oral argument, will vote for the consumers and state on federalism grounds, as he always does in [arbitration] cases,” writes Lawrence Cunningham, Argument in Class Waiver Case Favors Consumers, States, Concurring Opinions.

“[I]t doesn’t look as though there are too many votes at the high court to do away with the right of consumers to band together to sue the great American manufacturers of fine print,” said Dahlia Lithwick, Can You Hear Them Now? The Supreme Court reads the fine print on your cell phone contract, Slate.

If these two observers are wrong, it will be open season on consumers who will be forced into arbitration agreements that deliver all of the benefits to companies like AT&T.  Under such a scenario, there would be little to dissuade companies from developing new fine print to trick and overcharge consumers.  Few will be willing to buy a ticket to fly halfway across the country to sit for arbitration proceedings over a $20 dispute, especially when the arbitration firm’s income depends on fees paid by the very companies that are accused of wrongdoing.

Ontario residents enjoy less than half a serving of broadband their neighbors in Quebec enjoy from Bell, for less money

Residents of Quebec enjoy more than double the broadband usage allowance Bell provides its Ontario customers, showing once again h0w arbitrary Internet Overcharging schemes are for consumers in North America.

Broadband Reports reader Ironsight200 ponders why customers in Quebec enjoy substantially less abuse from the skimpy usage allowances Bell imposes on its customers.

The prices charged differ as well, with Quebec residents also getting an out-the-door lower monthly price because Bell does not impose charges on the modem Ontario customers rent for $3.95/month — $6.95 a month with the Fibe 25 service.

Let’s take a look (and don’t worry Ontario readers, Bell promises you can still look at least 624,999 additional web pages this month without incurring overlimit fees):

Quebec users get more than double the usage allowance of...

...their neighbors in Ontario.

Pricing for Bell broadband service at the bundled price:

*- includes $3.95 modem rental fee. ^- includes $6.95 modem rental fee.

Sinclair Broadcasting is threatening to pull 33 television stations in 21 cities from Time Warner Cable customers on January 1st if the cable company doesn’t agree to demands to pay around 20-25 cents per month per subscriber for each of the stations, primarily Fox and MyNetworkTV affiliates.

It’s just the latest in a series of retransmission rights battles underway between broadcasters and cable companies over cable carriage agreements.

Sinclair is a major group owner of television stations, and the impact on viewers in places like western New York, Dayton, Ohio, Greensboro, N.C., San Antonio, Tex., and Pittsburgh, Pa., won’t be missed because these markets have multiple Sinclair-owned or programmed stations involved in the dispute.

As always, the dispute is about money.  This week, viewers of affected stations, including our readers Lance and Andrew, started being annoyed with repeated warnings scrolled at the bottom of screens about the potential loss of their “favorite stations.”  In the case of WUHF, viewers might have thought a serious weather warning was being issued as text crawled against a distinctive red background.

So far, the dispute has not infected Sinclair’s local newscasts, which have often been used as a sounding board for the company’s past retransmission consent fights.  But then, many Sinclair stations have abandoned producing local news themselves over the past few years as a cost-savings measure.  However, many of the stations involved have put the dispute high on their home pages, as a too-cute-by-half link: “Learn About Time Warner Cable’s Plans to Drop Carriage Of This Station.”  Sinclair leaves no doubt about who they blame for the debacle.

Stations Impacted

• AL  Birmingham — WTTO (CW)
• AL  Birmingham — WABM (MyNetworkTV)
• FL  Pensacola — WEAR (ABC)
• FL  Tallahassee — WTWC (NBC)
• FL  Tampa — WTTA (MyNetworkTV)
• KY  Lexington — WDKY (Fox)
• ME  Portland — WGME (CBS)
• MO  Girardeau — KBSI (Fox)
• NC  Greensboro — WXLV (ABC)
• NC  Greensboro — WMYV (MyNetworkTV)
• NC  Raleigh — WLFL (CW)
• NC  Raleigh — WRDC (MyNetworkTV)
• NY  Buffalo — WUTV (Fox)
• NY  Buffalo — WNYO (MyNetworkTV)
• NY  Rochester — WUHF (Fox)
• NY  Syracuse — WSYT (Fox)
• NY  Syracuse — WNYS (MyNetworkTV)
• OH  Cincinnati — WSTR (MyNetworkTV)
• OH  Columbus — WSYX (ABC)
• OH  Columbus — WTTE (Fox)
• OH  Dayton — WKEF (ABC)
• OH  Dayton — WRGT (Fox)
• SC  Charleston — WTAT (Fox)
• SC  Charleston — WMMP (MyNetworkTV)
• PA  Pittsburgh — WPGH (Fox)
• PA  Pittsburgh — WPMY (MyNetworkTV)
• TX  San Antonio  –  KABB (Fox)
• TX  San Antonio — KMYS (MyNetworkTV)
• VA  Norfolk — WTVZ (MyNetworkTV)
• WI  Milwaukee — WVTV (CW)
• WI  Milwaukee — WCGV (MyNetworkTV)
• WV  Charleston — WCHS (ABC)
• WV  Charleston — WVAH (Fox)

Sinclair’s website warns viewers negotiations with Time Warner Cable are not promising:

Sinclair (or in some cases the licensees of the television stations not owned by Sinclair) and Time Warner are in the process of negotiating a renewal of the current agreement between Sinclair and Time Warner Cable which is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010. Without a renewal, Time Warner Cable will no longer have the right to carry the broadcast of the television stations covered by this expiring agreement. Unfortunately, based on the status of the negotiations Sinclair does not believe we are going to be able to reach agreement on an extension of the deal. As a result, Time Warner would no longer be carrying the stations covered by the agreement with Sinclair beginning on January 1, 2011. Although some might try and characterize this as a dispute, in the end it represents nothing more than the failure of two companies to reach a business agreement, something that happens in the business world thousands of times a day.

Taking a cue from News Corp., Sinclair claims Time Warner Cable is stalling, hoping the Obama Administration will intervene and prohibit signal blackouts while negotiations are still underway.  Despite the claim the cable company is the one with the plan to drop stations, Sinclair informs viewers it is giving them early warning to help them make arrangements with alternative providers like Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-verse, or satellite companies to “avoid interruptions” in programming.

Time Warner Cable recognized the seriousness of the Sinclair dispute and has given it top billing on their Roll Over or Get Tough website.  So far, the cable company has rolled over in every dispute, eventually caving to programmer demands.  But the cable company would claim it has at least reduced the rates being demanded, or won concessions that allow subscribers to catch shows on-demand as part of its TV Everywhere project.

Because the cable industry has so far been dealt the weaker hand in these disputes, they are spending an increasing amount on lobbying the issue in Washington, right down to creating a front group that claims to represent viewers.  The s0-called “American Television Alliance,” has a mission statement that, on the surface, doesn’t wade too deep into actual solutions:

The ATVA’s mission is a simple one – to give consumers a voice and ask lawmakers to protect consumers by reforming outdated rules that do not reflect today’s marketplace.  We are united in our determination to achieve our goal: ensure the best viewing experience at an affordable price, without fear of television signals being cut off or public threats of blackouts intended to scare and confuse viewers.

The overwhelming majority of the interests represented by the ATVA are giant cable and phone companies (and two groups willing to play along when sharing common interests: Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation.)

The group filed comments petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to modify retransmission consent policy to give cable and phone companies additional tools to battle with intransigent broadcasters.  The most important, and one we agree with, is an end to the ban on importing distant network signals from nearby cities to replace those from local stations who simply dump “take it or leave it” offers on operators who then raise rates to cover ever-inflating programming costs.

As it stands now, cable systems cannot grab network stations from other cities to at least restore network programming, because FCC rules prohibit it, even if the nearby station doesn’t mind.  While that might not help Time Warner viewers in cities like Rochester, where the nearby Fox affiliates in both Buffalo and Syracuse are also owned by Sinclair, the cable operator’s extended reach made possible serving all three major upstate cities might still deliver relief by grabbing further distant Fox stations like WYDC in Corning, WFXV in Utica, or WFXP in Erie, Pa and distributing them across all three affected cities.

Unfortunately, the Fox TV network has also made it clear stations could risk their affiliation deals with the network if they were to grant retransmission consent to providers that effectively undercut other Fox affiliates.

The ATVA also wants providers to retain the right to continue carrying disputed signals so long as good faith negotiations are ongoing, and has also suggested binding arbitration as another alternative reform.  Broadcasters have rejected both.

Some of the ATVA’s proposals are worthy of merit to benefit consumer interests, but consumer groups might do better creating their own group to fight this issue, if only to keep broadcasters from dismissing the group as heavily stacked with cable and phone companies with a biased, vested interest in the outcome.

Just reviewing the FCC petition left a bad taste when they quoted everyone’s favorite “dollar-a-holler” group — the League of United Latin American Citizens, which continues to amaze with its omnipresent Zelig-performance in just about every telecommunications policy debate involving LULAC’s benefactors.

More than a few politicians are likely to accept broadcaster arguments, which would ultimately weaken the effectiveness of any reform effort.

Stop the Cap! comments: After today’s confirmation of the story below, it turns out that not only will Charter enforce its usage caps, it is also implementing a throttling scheme that will turn down speeds for “heavy users” when Charter’s overburdened broadband network is congested.  We’ve seen how that works in Europe.  Network management techniques like throttling and usage caps allow providers to turn up the speed and usage controls and turn down the level of investment to grow their broadband networks to meet growing customer demand.

Wall Street will certainly encourage this kind of behavior so long as Charter customers have few alternative choices.  This is bad news for Charter customers who may find the phone company’s unthrottled and typically unlimited broadband a much better alternative, even if it does run slower.

Two separate e-mails arrived in our mailbox this evening from individuals claiming to work for Charter’s call center informing us customer service agents are required to attend a meeting Thursday to explain Charter Cable’s new hard-usage cap Internet Overcharging policy.

It’s too late for us to touch base with company officials for verification, but both our sources shared nearly-identical details of the forthcoming hard usage cap program:

“Effective Nov. 16th, Charter will begin enforcing their Usage Cap policy strictly:

• Base Service: 100GB per month
• Plus & Max: 250GB per month
• Ultra: 500GB per month

Violators will receive two warnings and then face service suspension for up to six months unless they switch to a Business Class broadband product.”

Our other source tells us CSR’s are being trained to deal with irate customers who are deemed violators, all because Charter is in no financial position to keep up with network demands.

Until we receive absolute verification, this should be considered unconfirmed information.

Charter Cable has maintained soft usage caps for some time, rarely enforced on a system-by-system basis with phone calls.  The details are buried on Charter’s website.  They have generally left most customers alone.  But if Charter intends to enforce a formal Internet Overcharging scheme, customers will have just one more reason to despise the company, which already rates as the worst cable broadband provider in the United States according to Consumer Reports (only Wildblue and HughesNet — both satellite fraudband providers scored worse for broadband).

Updated 3:04pm ET:  Here is a statement we received from Charter regarding this matter:

Charter is introducing some new programs designed to improve our high-speed Internet service.  We had planned to send information your way when we start to inform our customers directly; however, in the spirit of flexibility here is a quick summary for you today.

As I know that you know, Charter has long offered graduated tiers of Internet service, ranging from lower speed “Lite” (1 Mbps) versions to “Ultra60” (60 Mbps) and each service level has a monthly usage threshold within which customers are supposed to limit their usage.  Until this point, we haven’t taken action to enforce our thresholds; however, in order to continue providing the highest quality Internet service, we do plan to begin enforcing our “No Excessive Use of Bandwidth” policy documented in our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). The thresholds are substantially above typical use for approximately 98% of our customers.

In December, we will begin reaching out to a select group of customers whose use is excessive to make them aware of their usage patterns, to help identify possible causes (e.g., unsecured wireless routers or viruses) and review security options with these customers to reduce the risk of unauthorized Internet use. We are currently working on a way to present data usage to customers so they can self-monitor their bandwidth usage.  Until we make that tool available directly, customers who are notified of excessive use will be provided a contact at Charter who can check the customer’s usage throughout the month to help them better manage their Internet usage. If the excessive usage continues repeatedly, their Internet service could be suspended. Our intent is to prevent the very small number of users who are consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth from negatively impacting the experience for the majority of our customers.

In tandem with enforcing our “Excessive Use of Bandwidth” policy, we will also introduce a congestion management policy to improve the Internet experience for all of our customers.  Congestion Management will become part of our standard Network Management practices, and the policy will be protocol agnostic, which doesn’t distinguish among the online activities, protocols or applications a customer uses. It applies only during periods of congestion (which we find to be relatively rare).  It affects only the heaviest users (less than 1%) in small time increments, who will have their bandwidth limited during times of congestion, however, no Internet activities will be blocked.  We based this system on the “fair share” model described to the FCC in September of 2008.

We certainly wanted you to know about these initiatives and believe these steps will help us deliver the best possible Internet experience for our residential users.

Anita Lamont

[Updated 12:14pm ET:  We reached out to Charter Cable's social media reps and media relations in e-mail this morning and are still waiting for a confirmation/denial/comment on this story.  If/when we get one, it will appear here as an update.]

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.

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)

Chase Carey (courtesy: Forbes)

Chase Carey, President, Chief Operating Officer of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., has blamed the federal government and politicians for giving aid and comfort to Cablevision, the cable system serving most of suburban New York City, forcing Fox to cut off the World Series for millions of subscribers in the recent contract dispute between the two providers.

Carey told Bloomberg News that the standoff with Cablevision would have been resolved much more quickly if lawmakers hadn’t threatened to weigh in, leading the cable provider to hold out in hopes of getting better terms.

“This process would have been resolved more easily, more quickly,” Carey said. “I would actually contend we wouldn’t have gone off the air at all.”

Carey said Fox needs the feeds that it collects from cable companies because even with advertising revenue, the broadcast network loses a “few hundred million dollars” every year. Carey said he came to Washington to explain to lawmakers why Fox needed two streams of revenue and explain why public declarations of support for Cablevision from more than 50 lawmakers only helped to prolong the standoff.

“We’re not running a nonprofit,” Carey said.

Was John Kerry responsible...

If Fox is unprofitable, you wouldn’t know it from Carey’s compensation package.  The COO will earn $8.1 million this year, plus a $15 million bonus and additional compensation totaling more than 26 million dollars.

Carey is upset with Democrats for inserting themselves in private corporate matters, despite the fact the resulting dispute left millions of cable subscribers without the networks they were paying for (and forced to fight for refunds from Cablevision.)

“You’re going to bastardize every negotiation because you’re going to have this specter of arbitration,” he said.

At least 50 members of Congress, many from the northeastern United States where cable blackouts have been the most prevalent, support binding arbitration for such disputes, and criticized Fox for demanding increasing amounts of money for formerly free television signals.  Cablevision contends it was forced to pay an “unfair amount” to get the signals back on cable.

Carey especially targeted Democratic senator John Kerry from Massachusetts, who was among the most vocal opponents of cable systems and programmers putting viewers in the middle of disputes.

...or Rupert Murdoch?

Kerry intends to introduce legislation during the lame duck session of Congress to force both parties to keep programming on while negotiations are underway, especially because consumers have already paid, often in advance, for such programming.  Analysts say Republicans in the Senate will likely filibuster any such measure.  Most Republicans are inclined to share Carey’s view and let the companies duel it out amongst themselves, according to Andrew D. Lipman, a Washington-based partner with the law firm Bingham McCutchen.

Carey himself has been on both sides of the issue.  His former job was chief executive of DirecTV, the largest U.S. satellite-television provider.  Carey at the time thought the television networks and local stations were responsible for their own failing business models and were late to the table demanding payments for cable carriage.  When the Great Recession caused advertising revenue to plummet, both networks and local stations decided the concept of free, ad-supported television was no longer a viable business model.  Now stations want dual revenue streams — ad revenue and payments from the majority of Americans who watch those stations on cable, satellite, or telco-TV.

More importantly, Carey wants the government to butt out, even when consumer dollars are at stake.

Bloomberg News reflects on the dispute between News Corp.’s Chase Carey and Cablevision.  (3 minutes)

Although the cable trade press reports it is business as usual at most of the nation’s largest cable companies, news that several companies are losing more cable-TV subscribers than they are adding is creating concern in boardrooms and on Wall Street.  Although the power of the perennial “rate increase” has kept revenues up, cable operators like Time Warner Cable are beginning to realize they can’t just keep raising rates expecting customers to sit still for it.

For more than 30 years, cable operators have assumed (correctly) that raising rates far in excess of inflation will bring about a lot of grumbling from upset subscribers, but few will actually resort to cutting the cord and going back to free TV (or books).  But as many cable households now routinely pay “triple-play” bills well in excess of $200 a month, that is finally starting to change:

• For many households, the switch to digital TV and an increasing number of sub-channels has proved adequate to meet the needs of many viewers, so long as they receive a decent picture and at least a handful of digital sub-channels;
• Online access to at least some cable programming, movies, and television shows on-demand has solved the problem of having too few viewing options.  If nothing of interest is running on local channels, a quick visit to Netflix or Hulu can satisfy most viewers;
• Many increasingly prefer spending their free time online instead of parked in front of the television;
• The realities of the current economy and tightened middle class budgets make many cable packages simply unaffordable, even if customers wanted them.

Time Warner Cable has recognized the growing strain on their video side of the business and has initiated some strong marketing efforts to hold onto customers who are one rate increase away from canceling.

This fall, the cable company unveiled its $33 per service promotion, charging that price for each component of their triple-play package for a year.  While Time Warner has more aggressively priced individual services in the past for new customers, this one is unique because it is open to existing customers as well.  Customers speaking to Time Warner’s retention agents are being offered this package in an effort to keep customers hooked up to the company’s video, broadband, and phone services.  Currently, many markets also include a free year of Showtime or at least six months of DVR service, and a year of Road Runner Turbo.  In highly competitive markets, informal promotions can bring even lower prices or extra add-ons.

A few weeks ago, the cable company unveiled online video streaming of ESPN Networks for existing cable subscribers, and an online remote DVR-programming application that lets subscribers set up recordings while away from home.

Now the company is further bolstering its video packages:

1. As part of its long term agreement with Disney, ABC and ESPN, this week Time Warner Cable added over 300 hours of new On Demand programming content from ABC, Disney and ESPN. In addition, the company will launch Primetime HD On Demand tomorrow, which will also be available to Digital Cable customers at no additional cost.  The new channel Primetime HD On Demand will carry primetime programming from ABC, NBC and CBS in High Definition. Subscribers will have over 100 hours of the networks’ popular primetime programs including NBC’s 30 Rock and The Office; ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy and Desperate Housewives; and CBS’ Medium and CSI.
2. Time Warner Cable Look Back will bolster the existing “Start Over” feature by archiving up to three days of programming on more than two dozen different networks and cable channels.  Now, if you missed a favorite show that aired the evening before, you can watch it on demand.  As with “Start Over,” Time Warner has disabled fast-forwarding, so no zipping through commercials is allowed.  But the service comes free of charge, and includes an impressive lineup of participating networks including ABC, NBC, Fox Cable Networks, Discovery Networks, and Scripps’ Food Network, Cooking Channel, HGTV, and DIY.
3. HBO Max and Go Max, part of TV Everywhere, will reach more than 50 million Time Warner Cable customers by the end of the month.  These services deliver online on-demand access to movies, series, and specials airing on HBO and Cinemax and will be available to customers paying for the premium channels at no additional charge.  More than 70 million customers will have access by the second quarter of 2011.
4. Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt told investors on a conference call held last week that the cable company is aggressively pursuing renewal agreements with programmers that allow the cable company to begin offering smaller, budget priced packages of cable-TV programming.  While it won’t be the a-la-carte option many consumers crave, cable programming packages could begin to resemble what home satellite dish customers used to receive — a core package of two dozen channels with theme or network-based add-on “programming packs” for additional fees.  For example, customers looking for reality or educational programming might buy a “Home and Garden” package consisting of Food TV, HGTV, The Weather Channel, Discovery and The Learning Channel.  Movie fans might get a package of Encore, AMC, Turner Classic Movies, Fox Movies and MGM.  “We have negotiated some additional flexibility beyond what we had a few years ago that will allow us to begin to offer some smaller packages at lower prices. Probably not all the way where we’d like to be. But we’re moving in the right direction,” Britt told investors.

The cable company’s friendly former owner — Time Warner, Inc.,  has also helped man the barricades against cable’s competitors.  For Netflix and Redbox customers: longer waiting times for access to the latest Time Warner movies are likely.  The current delay of 28 days could be extended, according to CEO Jeff Bewkes.

“So far the 28-day window has clearly been a success versus no delay,” Bewkes told investors. “The question of whether we ought to go longer is very much under scrutiny. It may well be a good idea.”

Even local movie theaters face some potential competition, as Time Warner considers introducing a premium pay-per-view option that would allow cable customers to watch movies currently in theaters at home.  But they’ll pay a heavy price to watch — reportedly between $30-50 per title, and the cable operator will insert anti-recording technology into the signal to prevent digital recordings.

Will these new services ultimately stop the bleeding from departing cable customers?  For most it’s a matter of dollars and sense.

The media has gotten aggressive about talking to viewers about how they can get rid of their cable-TV subscription and save plenty.  (10 minutes)

Thomas Clancy Jr., 35, in Long Beach, N.Y., canceled the family’s Cablevision subscription this spring. He said he has been happy with Netflix and other Internet video services since then, even though there isn’t a lot of live sports to be had online.

“The amount of sports that I watched certainly didn’t justify a hundred-dollar-a-month expense for all this stuff. I mean, that’s twelve hundred dollars a year,” Clancy told the Associated Press. “Twelve hundred dollars is … near a vacation.”

Customers like Clancy are comfortable with technology and well-versed on how to hook up Internet video and integrate it with the family’s TV sets.  For customers like him, online video will increasingly be an attractive alternative to high cable TV bills.

For some western New Yorkers, Wegmans' Redbox kiosk is their new "cable company."

For homes with less tech-savvy subscribers who have watched their wages fall over the past decade even as cable rates keep increasing, economic realities driven home by the Great Recession are making the decision for them.

“The price of cable TV has risen to the point where it’s simply not affordable to lots of lower-income homes. And right now there are an awful lot of lower-income homes,” Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst who favors the cable industry said. “The evidence suggests that what we’re seeing is a poverty problem rather than a technology phenomenon.”

For these customers, including many in the middle class, each time cable companies like Time Warner increase cable rates, they drop a service or two.

“First it was Showtime, the Movie Channel, and Starz!,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Joanne in Penfield, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. “Then when they raised the rates again on the premium channels, we dropped them all — bye bye HBO and Cinemax.”

“When Time Warner sends us their rate increase notice right after Christmas as they’ve done for years, we’re dropping digital cable and returning our cable boxes,” she writes.  “If they keep it up, we’ll drop cable altogether — something we might have done earlier if we had some competition around here.”

“I don’t care how much they claim it’s a ‘great value,’” Joanne says. “My husband got laid off from his job at Xerox in 2009 and was just let go from his new job at Carestream.  I already work myself and we have three kids, and our health insurance premiums are skyrocketing at the end of the year.  We haven’t had a real raise in five years, so that made the decision for us.”

Joanne now rents movies from Redbox just inside the local Wegmans grocery store and has a $9 monthly subscription with Netflix, mostly for online streaming.

“It’s more than made up for the $40+ a month we used to spend on premium channels with Time Warner,” she said.

WISN-TV in Milwaukee introduces viewers to Time Warner Cable’s newest on-demand features.  (1 minute)

Dora Gonzales may have to explore other options for Internet service, thanks to Cable One.

Dora Gonzales sat down in front of her computer this week to check her e-mail, surf the web and play a little Tetris.

Instead of e-mail, the Albuquerque resident found a message telling her to call Cable One’s Internet security department, because her service was canceled.

“You downloaded a movie illegally and we’re shutting your service off,” came the explanation from Cable One, her local cable company.

Gonzales proclaimed her innocence, noting she doesn’t have the first clue how to download movies online.

After several minutes of conversation, Cable One figured out what was probably happening.  Gonzales not surprisingly didn’t secure the wireless network Cable One provided her with its cable modem broadband service.  Someone, possibly a neighbor, hopped on board her connection for some downloading mischief.  As a result, the illegal download was traced back not to the perpetrator, but to Gonzales — who takes the fall because it was her account.

Cable One manager told KOB-TV that Gonzales was ultimately responsible, even though the situation is not unique.

“What will happen is because they’re using your modem, it’s going to come back to you,” said Cable One manager David Gonzalez. “So the movie company or whoever is going to be trying to press charges will be looking at you because it came from your computer.”

Cable One wants to reduce the risk customers might face using the company’s wireless equipment, so effective immediately, it is requiring customers use passwords to access their wireless networks.

While a noble idea, Stop the Cap! reader Jon notes his Cable One gear only offers him the option of WEP security, a wireless security protocol that was broken back in 2005.

“Any neighbor savvy enough to run peer-to-peer traffic over the neighbor’s Wi-Fi is probably well-equipped to hack their way through WEP-based security in mere minutes,” he writes.  “Even worse, it becomes a lot harder for victims to claim innocence when they were running in a ‘secure mode’ that is anything but.”

A quick check with Cable One shows the cable company is equipping at least some of its customers with more security-conscious modems.  The company now advises customers to use WPA-PSK security, which its newer equipment supports.  Existing customers using older WEP-only modems should consider switching them out with Cable One for newer equipment.

Frontier Communications is another provider equipping some of its DSL customers with WEP-only modems.  We had one at Stop the Cap! headquarters when we tested their DSL service last year.

Consumers using wireless routers are advised to use the latest versions of WPA security, which offer better protection.  Be sure to use a password that is easy for you to remember but hard for others to guess.  Using a combination of letters and numbers and avoiding words or phrases is strongly recommended.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOB Albuquerque Providers Crack Down of Wireless Pirating 11-8-10.flv

KOB-TV in Albuquerque reports Cable One is shutting off broadband service for customers not using wireless security.  (2 minutes)

Netflix accounts for 20 percent of all broadband activity in the United States during prime time evening hours.  As expected, “Internet experts” that are really little more than paid lobbyists for the broadband industry have started to feed the media scare stories about the great Internet traffic crisis soon to befall the Internet.

Just a few years ago, it was peer-to-peer traffic responsible for Internet “brownouts,” but now Netflix offers an even better, more convenient scapegoat — especially for the broadband providers that compete with it.

Fortune magazine provides a handy dandy needle to pop the balloon of BS from the broadband industry bully boys:

Just for fun, try to guess the year in which the following warnings about the Internet’s impending meltdown were issued:

No. 1: “Over the coming six to 12 months, computer users around the planet are likely to experience the Internet equivalent of the Great Blackout, or at least frequent brownouts, as our information infrastructure staggers and struggles under the heavy onslaught of new users and new demands.”

No. 2: “Internet access infrastructure, specifically in North America, will likely cease to be adequate for supporting demand within the next three to five years.”

No. 3: “Will Netflix Destroy the Internet?  American broadband capacity might not be able to keep up.”

The answers: 1997, 2007 and this week—and that’s just a small sampling from the past 20 years. Such predictions of the Internet’s breakdown are always premised on  the arrival of a scary new device or application that will send lots of digital bits over the Net.  Back in 1995, when Internet sage Bob Metcalfe tried to explain why he foresaw “the Internet’s catastrophic collapse,” he cited a wave of new “Internet appliances,” in particular the dangerous Sony Playstation, which for the first time had Internet access!

[...]What the chicken littles often miss are the clever ways in which Netflix movies and other content get delivered.  Like most major companies that move lots of Internet traffic, Netflix contracts with companies whose job it is to deliver lots of bits, fast and cheap.  Netflix relies mainly on industry giant Akamai, which runs 77,000 servers with big hard drives that it has placed in every nook and cranny of the Internet.  When a college student downloads “Dexter Season 1″ from Netflix there’s a good chance the show is already stored on campus on an Akamai box.

“That video is growing rapidly and going to be huge is true,”  says Akamai co-founder Tom Leighton. “But there’s tons of capacity out at the edges of the network….plenty of capacity in the last mile to your house.”  That capacity, he says, combined with smart delivery of Netflix content from nearby servers, means the Internet can handle Netflix just fine.  If all that traffic had to travel closer to the center of the Internet then many larger peering points would be overwhelmed, Leighton adds. (There’s reason to trust Leighton’s numbers on both counts: he’s also a professor of applied mathematics at MIT.)

Check out KOCO-TV Oklahoma City’s “Internet Panic” story, delivering the broadband industry’s talking points about Internet traffic jams in just 30 seconds.  (1 minute)

Virgin Media broadband customers in the United Kingdom who spend free time playing the highly addictive World of Warcraft (WoW) suffered some serious withdrawal episodes after game developers released a major software patch (v4.0.1).  Just after installation, customers noticed their game play started slowing to a crawl, resulting in game performance worthy of a Noob popping Xanax.  With online ‘street cred’ at risk on the multiplayer game environment, WoW players rushed to Virgin’s support forums inquiring about the sudden slow lane performance:

Ever since this patch I have experienced very high latency (around 2-4k ms) whilst being in combat in 25-man raids. This latency causes me to disconnect from the game after around 10 seconds of very lagged out combat. Outside of raids I seem to yo-yo up and down. I have been as low as 70ms and as high as 1kms.

I have tried everything I can think of game related. I have ensured all the correct ports are opened via port forwarding on my router.  I have tried running the game in its default state with all add-ons removed. I have done virus scans, disabled my firewall and I am running out of options. No one else in-game seems to have the same problems as I do. Admittedly, a couple of them are Virgin Media customers too and have no problems but I cannot think what else it could be.

Now stuck in the slow lane on Virgin Broadband

Virgin Media customers and staff initially seemed at a loss about what could cause just WoW traffic to become very un-WoW.  Virgin’s terms of service includes a virtual paddle to spank customers who “excessively utilize” their broadband connections, and the patch itself — amounting to at least 7GB with accompanying updates — was worthy enough to put some customers in the time-out corner.  But even as company support officials were asking impacted customers to do the problem-solving sleuthing for them, a growing number of customers suspected the provider’s “intelligent network traffic shaping” technology was the real culprit.

Traffic shaping is a term Americans are just getting acquainted with.  It’s essentially a virtual traffic cop that can identify different types of online traffic and assign different levels of priority for different applications.  The broadband industry claims traffic shaping is a net plus for broadband consumers because it forces traffic gorgers like peer to peer file sharing to the back of the line, making room for more predictable performance of Internet phone calls, video, and other time-critical Internet applications.  Virgin even markets its broadband service as enhancing online game play by giving the highest possible priority to game-related traffic.

But when traffic shaping goes bad, it can create a nightmare for broadband customers who find roadblocks that ruin their online experience.

Virgin initially denied it was responsible for traffic shaping WoW to the point of unusability. Eventually, Virgin admitted it -was- responsible for the game traffic throttles, but passed the blame to WoW’s game developers, Blizzard Entertainment.  At one point Virgin suggested the company might want to recall the latest patch, just to get the game to work again on Virgin’s broadband network.  When that didn’t fly, company officials eventually released a statement taking responsibility, but telling customers it will be weeks before their “traffic management supplier” can create a workaround:

Since the latest World of Warcraft update we have seen that the type of packets used by Blizzard to deliver the on-line gaming has changed significantly.  This means that Virgin Media’s National (ADSL) traffic management system is unable to recognise the packets as gaming traffic and assumes that they are peer to peer traffic.  Due to this the traffic management system does not place the packets within the gaming queue which has the highest priority and lowest latency within the VM network, instead they fall into the peer to peer class which gets a low level of priority within our network and by default a higher level of latency.

We are working to try and rectify this as soon as we can with our traffic management supplier however it will take us a few weeks to upgrade the traffic manage solution so that is can recognise the new traffic class and correctly classify it as gaming.  Unfortunately due to the nature of most traffic management solutions we can not manually move these packets into the gaming queue as the solution can not work out which ones to move.

We appreciate that some customers will have noticed a similar issue with the previous World of Warcraft update.  The reason behind this is because gaming companies are not prepared to share the updates with Virgin Media or traffic management suppliers prior to its release and so the first time we see the new packets is when people start to use the new updates.  We are trying to change this view point of the gaming companies however at present they are un-willing to work with us.

We apologise for the affect that this has on your gaming experience and we will update you when we have a confirmed fix date for this.

By that time, many WoW enthusiasts will have probably fled Virgin for another provider.

Our reader James, who alerted us to this story, notes it takes a special kind of nerve for a broadband provider running speed traps to blame software developers for the problem.

“So, wait — Virgin is blaming the game developers because their code runs on the assumption that all traffic is treated equally and because they don’t verify their updates with the ISP before pushing them out to consumers?” James incredulously asks.

Virgin could always discontinue their faulty un-intelligent network traffic shaping scheme until a solution can be found, but that hasn’t happened.  It could interfere with “preferred content partnerships” — clients who pay to avoid the speed traps and throttles and always get special treatment.

Paying customers?  They can wait two or three weeks.

A Blizzard representative said Virgin’s buck (or is it pound?)-passing was inexcusable because the game producer -has- made efforts to reach out to ISPs in the past:

“In our defense, most of our previous attempts to work with ISPs have been shut down by the ISP management. I’m going to avoid naming actual ISP names for obvious legal reasons. We’re not the ISP’s actual customer so they rarely care what we have to say.”

And that is a perfect real-world example of what happens when Net Neutrality is not the law of the land.  Providers claim their traffic management schemes benefit their customers, but in reality they are only responsive to the “preferred content partners” that pay them to be responsive.

If Americans want to enjoy a similar level of service from their Internet Service Providers, just oppose Net Neutrality, sit back and wait… and wait… and wait.