Cox Communications is telling customers if they exceed the company’s usage caps three times over the lifetime of an account, they either must upgrade to a more expensive service plan, make sure they never exceed plan limits again, or face an indefinite loss of their Internet service if they exceed Cox’s limits a fourth time.

Stop the Cap! reader Adam found out about Cox’s Three Strikes Program for himself in an online chat with Claudia, a Cox customer service representative:

Adam: I am concerned with the messages I got about a usage cap. I was told by the salesman that there was no bandwidth cap on our Internet, however this message is very troubling. Please explain this cap to me.
[...]
Claudia: I am really sorry for the lack of information provided to you by our Sales representative.
Adam: Is there a hard cap coming? Is that why we’re getting these messages?
Claudia: That is correct.
Claudia: At the fourth message your services will be blocked, on the previous one they will suggest you to upgrade your plan.
Adam: Fourth monthly, or fourth cumulative?
Claudia: Your Data Usage is reset each month, so it will be your fourth monthly message if exceeding the allowance.
Adam: So four months of going over. Does that counter ever reset?
Adam: Like if I’m bad three months, then good for three. Is it reset?
Claudia: Unfortunately, it is not reset.

Cox, like Comcast, does not charge overlimit fees, but the company does encourage customers who want to use the Internet more than their arbitrary allowances permit to upgrade to a more costly service plan.

Cox’s limits are detailed in an earlier piece Stop the Cap! brought readers a few weeks ago.

Internet Service Providers claim usage caps are important to protect the customer experience from “excessive users” slowing down service in your neighborhood, but as companies like Cox upgrade to DOCSIS 3, the broadband pipeline that results has increased so exponentially, it eliminates the excuse that came with the limits.

Now, ISPs increasingly see another reason to retain usage allowances: fatter profits from tiered usage plans that inevitably drive video-hungry Internet customers into costly upgrades.

Konrad Von Finckenstein

Konrad von Finckenstein, the head of Canada’s telecommunications regulator who initially rubber-stamped a Bell proposal to force Internet providers in Canada to charge usage-based pricing will not be back for a second term.

Von Finckenstein broke the news himself in a memo sent to staff at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, stating he would end his leadership of the CRTC when his five-year term concludes in January.

The CRTC has made uncomfortable headlines for Canada’s Conservative government, primarily by approving an Internet pricing plan submitted by Bell that would require virtually every Internet provider in Canada to end unlimited, flat rate pricing for broadband service.

The CRTC is hardly a hotbed of headline news for most Canadians.  The sleepy agency regulates telephone, broadband, television, and radio in the country with an increasingly light touch.  Ten years ago, the CRTC was regularly accused by some broadcasters of meddling in their private business.  These days the Commission, packed with members who formerly worked for the companies they now oversee, has gotten considerably more friendly with those they regulate.

That policy blew up in their faces when Bell got most of what it wanted in a wholesale pricing change that was so wide-reaching, it would potentially impact every Canadian Internet user.  Nearly a half-million of them registered their displeasure in a petition sponsored by Openmedia.ca.

Von Finckenstein’s resolute attitude towards the correctness of that decision was soon tempered when Industry Minister Tony Clement found himself overruling the CRTC in a Twitter message, telling Canadians the decision to impose usage-based billing “would not be allowed to stand.”

Opposition members in Parliament had a field day over Clement’s repeated distancing of the government from CRTC policies, particularly the one involving Internet pricing.

Liberal MP Marc Garneau seized on the fact Clement tweeted his intentions to the public at large before sharing them with von Finckenstein himself.  That, Garneau claimed, was the latest example of the government’s lack of clear policy on issues such as usage-based billing that has left the CRTC in what he called a “giant policy vacuum.”

The announcement by the CRTC chairman comes at the same time the Commission is finalizing a re-evaluation of its earlier decision on usage-based billing.

While hundreds of thousands of Canadians upset with the CRTC may be glad to see the back of von Finckenstein, his colleagues were considerably more generous with their praise:

Former CRTC executive Richard French credits Von Finckenstein, saying he sped up the commission’s decisions, improved the atmosphere around the offices and rarely left anyone guessing what he thought, “which I think is a virtue in a regulator.”

“He balanced the desire for more market forces with a recognition that for most of the industries in question, the Canadian market is sub-economic, it’s just not big enough to sustain enough players in this capital intensive business to create real competition so regulation is required,” French said Monday.

“He’s done an excellent job and he deserves the respect and appreciation of the industry and of the population,” French said.

Heritage Minister James Moore’s office issued a statement thanking von Finckenstein for his service as CRTC chair and said a process to select a new chair would be announced in the coming weeks.

AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and nine other giant corporations selling cigarettes, shoes, shipping services, and jet aircraft have formed a new group demanding major cuts in the corporate tax rate that would allow some of them to repatriate billions in cash reserves stuffed in overseas banks to dodge U.S. taxes.

RATE — the Reducing America’s Taxes Equitably Coalition, says cutting the corporate tax rate is key to increased spending of accumulated corporate dollars in the United States.

“In a global economy where capital is highly mobile, it is simply harder to compete from America,” the companies’ executives wrote in a letter. “A lower corporate tax rate will boost investment in the U.S., bringing more American jobs, innovation and growth.”

But many of these corporations already pay less taxes than you do as a percentage of income.  Take Verizon, which shovels substantial profits through its British wireless partner Vodafone through Luxembourg, at an effective tax rate of around 10%.

Forbes reports last year Verizon had sales of $108 billion.  It’s pretax income was $11.8 billion.  The company paid just $1.2 billion in income taxes thanks to its $42 billion wireless joint venture with Vodafone, which Forbes reports “draws off much of Verizon’s income.”  But that is hardly a bad thing for Verizon.  Its effective tax rate: 10.5%.  Most middle class Americans pay twice or more that rate.  Verizon itself was surprised it only paid that much, because it ended up getting a federal tax refund for an overpayment amounting to $705 million.

In 2010, AT&T got hit harder, but still managed to eke out a winning year for shareholders.  AT&T enjoyed sales of $123 billion.  Its pretax income: $19 billion.  The company ended up paying $6.2 billion in income taxes for an effective tax rate of 32.4%.  But their executives got the benefit of every tax loophole available for their personal tax returns, made possible by AT&T’s generous subsidy of up to $14,000 a year for each executive officer to hire the best tax accountants around.

American companies already pay the second lowest taxes in the developed world, once all of the loopholes and deductions in the corporate tax code are accounted for. American corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, so its unclear why more cash (in the form of tax breaks) would lead to more hiring, unless it involves adding more Washington, D.C. lobbyists, of course.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has issued new guidelines for consumers with complaints about their Internet Service Providers’ throttling practices that puts the burden of proof on the consumer to demonstrate an ISP is engaged in wrongful behavior before the CRTC will act.

The revised guidelines appear to come in response to complaints from consumers who have been subjected to dramatically reduced speeds when using Rogers Cable Internet service to play online games while also running file sharing software in the background. Rogers’ speed throttling technology appears to be unable to discriminate between game traffic, which is not subject to speed reductions, and file swapping traffic, which is.

The Canadian Gamers Organization filed a formal complaint with the CRTC this summer accusing Rogers of engaging in Network Neutrality violations.

The CRTC gave Rogers until today to fix the errant speed throttle or respond to the agency with an explanation for the delay.  As of this hour, Rogers appears not to have responded.

Last week, the CRTC began a crackdown of its own — against consumers bringing Internet complaints.  The CRTC modified the complaint procedure to instruct consumers to first work with their ISP and application developers to resolve any outstanding issues before filing complaints.  From the updated CRTC Guidelines:

How to make an Internet performance complaint

Before you complain to the CRTC about an Internet traffic management practice, you should first contact your Internet service provider to see if it can resolve the issue.

If your service provider doesn’t address your complaint to your satisfaction, and you believe that your service provider’s traffic management practices are not compliant with the CRTC’s policies, you can complain to the CRTC. Before doing this, make sure that you know your rights.

Rogers chokes the speed of undesireable peer to peer file traffic, but other applications like online gaming are also impacted. Consumers are complaining about the collateral damage.

What to include in your complaint

In your complaint, explain why you think your service provider’s traffic management practice doesn’t meet the requirements set out in their traffic management policy.  It is not necessary to provide technical details about the problem, but the CRTC needs enough information to understand the problem.  Please, clearly describe:

• What part of the traffic management policy you believe the provider has not followed
• When the problem occurred, and whether it is a recurring problem
• Which software program, or application, has been affected
• How the application has been affected
• The steps you’ve taken to try to resolve the issue with your service provider, including your provider’s response to your complaint

Consumer groups are not pleased the CRTC won’t engage directly in independent oversight of ISP speed throttling practices regardless of consumer complaints.

“We are not a consumer-protection agency,” the CRTC’s Denis Carmel was quoted as saying back in July.

“The CRTC must start enforcing its own policies,” says Canadian Gamers Organization co-founder Jason Koblovsky. “The CRTC needs to put a plan forth to ensure that regular audits are done on Internet Providers rather than relying solely on consumer complaints. We are asking the public to tell the CRTC that enough is enough: the Commission needs to take a much more proactive role in ensuring that Internet providers play by the rules. We are ready to act politically and force a solution here if need be.”

Koblovsky expanded his views on the subject in a blog entry:

We find this policy update to be more of an insult to consumers, and puts the responsibility of monitoring ISP’s use of [speed throttles] directly on the back of consumers. This is not acceptable by any means, and none of the policy recommendations we made that were thrown out by the CRTC in our initial complaint were taken into consideration, or for that matter seriously by the CRTC. This is a slap in the face to what we have been fighting for, and that is the CRTC has the responsibility to follow through, monitor and enforce its policies.

[...] Not one ISP has been found by the CRTC to be acting against net neutrality policy since they acted on this in 2009 with several complaints sent to the CRTC by consumers being dismissed due to lack of evidence over years of enforcement failure by the commission. There is no indication here that the CRTC is going to be dealing with a very high evidentiary thresh hold put on the consumer to launch a CRTC investigation in this policy update. All this update does is provide information on CRTC complaints procedures that are already in place, and consumers are already abiding by.

[...] Maybe it’s time we start acting politically on this issue instead, drop the CRTC from the picture to force the CRTC through legislation to listen to consumers, and start putting forth a much better effort on their responsibility to the public to enforce their policies. Or better yet, start billing the CRTC for our efforts on each complaint we become a part of.

Read this excellent analysis of game throttling and how Canadian ISPs master the art of Internet Overcharging.

Sprint is preparing to launch its own 4G LTE network early next year in an undetermined number of markets to increase 4G speeds and compete with AT&T and Verizon.

Sprint’s existing 4G service, based on older WiMax technology that powers the Clearwire network, has not kept up with subscriber demands, and many of Sprint’s “4G”-capable markets have speeds more in common with 3G than Verizon’s LTE or AT&T HSPA+ 4G networks.  As Clearwire continues to struggle through serious financial problems (the service has not expanded into a new market since 2010), lawsuits, and disgruntled customers, Sprint isn’t waiting around for Clearwire’s own planned upgrade to TD-LTE, which would require at least $600 million in financing to undertake.

Instead, Sprint is deploying the same technology used by Verizon for its LTE network.

CNET reports Sprint will initially use its G-block spectrum (1900MHz) for its LTE network, but the most robust coverage will come in 2013 when Sprint retires the Nextel iDEN network which currently resides in the 800MHz band, more suitable for longer range reception.

Sprint says the 4G LTE upgrade is all part of its Network Vision plan, which upgrades virtually the entire Sprint network at a cost of $4-5 billion.  But shareholders aren’t reacting over Sprint’s LTE spending, because it is included in the earlier budget already disclosed to Wall Street.

For consumers, the upgrade will mean the company that first embraced 4G will once again deliver speeds worthy of that label.  Sprint customers across the country have reported network speeds have suffered as more customers have piled on Sprint’s and Clearwire’s network.  Clearwire will remain a Sprint partner, but that wireless provider will increasingly depend on Sprint’s network, a reversal of Sprint’s current dependence on Clearwire WiMax for their existing 4G service.  Clearwire may ultimately be unable to finance its own upgrades.

Sprint also announced it will keep its unlimited smartphone data plans, because they attract customers from AT&T and Verizon who do not want limited-use plans.  But preserving unlimited data comes at a cost.  Sprint has been cutting perks all month:

1. Sprint nearly doubled its early termination fee from $200 to $350 effective Sept. 9.
2. Sprint slashed its satisfaction guarantee program for new customers from 30 to 14 days on Sept. 16.  Sprint’s guarantee allows new customers the opportunity to test Sprint’s network before committing to a two-year contract.  The company also now expects to be paid for whatever airtime charges were incurred during the trial.
3. Sprint has announced it is ending its Premier Program Dec. 31.  Premier gave customers who spend more than $89 a month on an individual cell plan the opportunity to upgrade their phones annually, penalty-free.  Members also received free minutes, discounts on accessories, early buying opportunities for the newest phones, and regular plan reviews.  Instead, customers will be dropped into the same New for You^SM Upgrade Program lower spenders receive.  But Sprint will be changing that program too:

Unlimited data... for now.

On October 2, the following changes to our New for You^SM Upgrade Program will take effect:

• New lines of service and existing customers who upgrade on or after October 2, 2011 will receive future upgrades after 20 months;
• $75 and $25 upgrade discounts will no longer be available for customers signing up for a 1-year agreement or 2-year agreement after 12 months or signing a 1-year agreement after 22 months.

Additional information for existing customers. As of October 2:

• If you’ve already qualified for a full upgrade, nothing changes. When you sign up for a new 2-year agreement and take your device offer, future upgrades will be available after 20 months;
• If you haven’t qualified for your full upgrade yet, to receive a discount you’ll wait until you qualify for your full upgrade at 22 months.

On Oct. 5, Sprint is expected to introduce the Apple iPhone on its network for the first time.  Some analysts predict iPhone will be the catalyst to drive Sprint’s unlimited data plan into the ground, because the phone has a reputation for being a favorite for heavy data users.  iPhone 5 will remain dependent on 3G networks for connectivity outside of Wi-Fi, which could drive data usage higher than any other Sprint phone.  Should that overwhelm Sprint’s 3G network before its 4G service enjoys a widespread rollout (and Apple introduces a phone that works on 4G), Sprint may find itself limiting data usage as well, as least on its 3G network.

Sprint’s promotional video promoting its current 4G WiMax network, powered by Clearwire.  (3 minutes)

Suburban St. Louis is getting some new jobs and a $20 million data center upgrade courtesy of AT&T, which has announced it has nearly completed hiring 64 additional U-verse technicians and will renovate and upgrade a data center in Bridgeton, Mo. to handle Internet traffic.

AT&T U-verse has captured nearly 100,000 customers in the greater St. Louis area, which is the primary reason the company needed additional technicians.

But St. Louis resident Charles McNed isn’t positive these jobs are as good as AT&T might lead people to believe.

“AT&T is probably adding jobs through a contractor,” McNed says. “Last year I worked for an AT&T contractor and the training was horrendous and the pay was awful.”

The Bridgeton data center, in a building currently leased by AT&T, will be upgraded once the company completes the outright purchase of the property.  AT&T expects to spend approximately $20 million on infrastructure upgrades.

The company held a ribbon cutting ceremony this morning to break ground on the building renovations, and to celebrate the forthcoming use of compressed natural gas-powered service vehicles.

Bridgeton, an economically challenged suburb northwest of St. Louis, is welcoming the new jobs and hopes workers will choose to live and spend their money in the community of 15,000.  Bridgeton has been losing population since at least 1980.

KTVI in St. Louis reports on AT&T’s expansion in northwestern St. Louis County, Mo.  (2 minutes)

Company-owned store or third party reseller?

Customers who see the logo of their favorite wireless phone company on a storefront might do better to look a little closer to determine if they are doing business with a company-owned store, or a third-party reseller.  A Bakersfield, Calif., man quickly learned the difference when he bought a mobile broadband service plan from Go Wireless that Verizon says no longer exists.

Allan Fox found out the hard way when his first bill arrived with a steep overlimit fee attached, and without the broadband plan he signed up for.

Fox purchased the discontinued plan from Go Wireless, a third party reseller of Verizon Wireless services.  Fox thought he was purchasing a 3GB plan for $35, with a two-year service contract.  Verizon thought otherwise, and so began weeks of a runaround between Fox, Go Wireless, and Verizon.

It turned out that Verizon no longer offered the plan Fox bought from what he thought was Verizon Wireless itself.  Go Wireless is one of several independent third party companies that resell Verizon Wireless service, often with their own terms and conditions that include early termination fees owed not just to Verizon, but also to Go Wireless.

Go Wireless’ retail stores prominently feature Verizon Wireless’ logo, with their own logo appearing in reduced size, next to a message indicating they were a “premium retailer.”  That presumably sounds better than “third party reseller.”

After several attempts to straighten out the mess, Fox wanted to cancel his contract and just move on.  But then he discovered Go Wireless would charge him a $175 early cancellation fee, even though Fox’s predicament was their fault.  That’s when Fox called a local television newscast for help.

Wirefly is a major online reseller of Verizon Wireless

KBAK-TV news waded into the middle of the dispute that had gone on for nearly six weeks.  Verizon Wireless told the station it was willing to cancel Fox’s service penalty-free, but since Fox purchased the phone from a third-party reseller, and not from a company-owned store, Go Wireless would have to credit their own cancel fee.  Go Wireless, experiencing some turnover in local management, finally agreed to waive the fee, but only after the TV station got involved.

Customers must be careful when purchasing phones or signing contracts with third party sellers — both online and in traditional stores.  Most company-owned stores display their respective carrier logos and nothing else.  Words that usually provide a clue you are dealing with a reseller include: “authorized retailer,” “authorized dealer,” “Service provided by: (name of third party company),” “authorized agent,” and a dead giveaway is a signed contract with anyone other than the cell phone company you are using for service.

Third party resellers make their money on generous commissions earned when a customer signs a new contract or renews an existing one.  That commission can be forfeit if a customer returns the phone or cancels service early, which is why third party dealers protect themselves with their own contracts that include early termination or cancellation penalties owed to them, not the wireless provider.  Some customers can find themselves exposed to $500 or more in total cancellation penalty fees owed between the wireless phone company and the reseller.

So why do people purchase phones from these resellers?  Convenience and savings.

In smaller communities, company-owned stores may be few in number (or non-existent), and in-person help can be a godsend for customers who need to figure out their phone or obtain a warranty replacement.  Online, resellers like Amazon.com, Newegg, Wirefly, and others often charge substantially less than wireless carriers charge themselves for phones.  That savings can often be more than $100.  But these resellers are not for those who are unsure about the phone they want (or the provider).  Returning a phone or canceling service means dealing with two parties — the carrier and the reseller, to end service.  The cost of doing so can be very steep, so always read the terms and conditions before buying.

KBAK-TV’s Investigation Bakersfield unit helped a local man untangle a major billing mess that began when he was sold a mobile broadband plan that no longer existed.  (3 minutes)

Canadians looking for more competitive wireless prices and faster service may think they’re going to get them if they sign on to a new campaign sponsored by Rogers Communications that calls on the Canadian government to eliminate spectrum “set-asides” for the country’s smaller wireless competitors.  Rogers wants those frequencies for itself, critics charge, and they have the resources to outbid any new player in the country’s wireless market.

From Rogers’ “I Want My LTE” Website:

[...] There are some who are supporting a Federal Government regulation that would limit who can have access to the spectrum. Such regulation would exclude select companies from the upcoming auction to license the 700 MHz spectrum band. The outcome of this auction will have a major impact on deploying LTE across Canada. If a decision is made that prevents certain companies, including Rogers, from participating in the spectrum auction, it would be a recipe for leaving Canada behind the rest of the world, stalling Canadian innovation and limiting who can access LTE.

The website offers a pre-written plea to policymakers in government to allow for an open bidding process for the forthcoming 700MHz frequencies many wireless companies crave for their robust performance.

The problem is, according to industry observers, if a wide-open, no-limits auction takes place, it’s a virtual certainty Canada’s largest wireless companies — Bell, Telus, and Rogers, would walk away with most, if not all of the auctioned spectrum.  Even worse, it will stall competition that will lead to lower prices.

“The future of affordable wireless rates is at risk, not the future of long-term evolution (LTE) networks,” said Chief Operating Officer Stewart Lyons. “Mobilicity has helped bring down the cost of wireless in Canada significantly and we need to augment our limited amount of spectrum to ensure affordable pricing continues.”

“[The] big 3 wireless carriers have more spectrum than they need and will stop at nothing to dress up and misrepresent their hidden agenda of eliminating competition so they can raise their rates back up again,” he added.

The government is not planning to ban Rogers and the others from the spectrum sale.  They just want to set aside some frequencies for bidding among the smaller, newer competitors.  But even that is too much for Rogers, who has bad memories from the last spectrum auction that allowed those competitors to become established in the first place.

Today, new cell service providers like Wind Mobile, Mobilicity and Quebecor’s Videotron are forcing larger carriers to reduce prices or lose business.

Fido is actually Rogers under a different name.

For some Canadians, wireless bills have dropped a lot since the competition arrived.  Some are leaving Rogers in favor of better prices elsewhere.

Andy Lehrer from Toronto had a cellular plan with Fido, an ostensibly independent cell phone company that is, in fact, owned outright by Rogers Communications.  Lehrer was paying Fido $150 a month for his Blackberry voice and data plan.  Today, with one of the new competitors, he pays $44 a month for a plan that offers more data and talk time.

Although new competitors still have just under 5 percent of the Canadian market, the price differences have become too enormous to ignore in many cases, especially if a customer is willing to give a new carrier a break as it works through growing pains.

Lehrer told the Globe & Mail his cellular reception is poorer, but not bad enough to make him switch back to Rogers’ Fido.

Convergence Consulting Group Ltd. notes the price disparities mean savings as much as 58 percent with new competitors’ combined voice and data plans.  For data services alone, new providers charge as much as 83 percent less.

If Rogers and the two others head home from spectrum auctions with everything up for bid, it will assuredly stall competition and help protect today’s high wireless prices.  Rogers, Bell, and Telus have never seen fit to undercut each other, adopting a rising prices raise all balance sheets-approach at doing business.  But scrappy new entrants like Wind and Mobilicity are willing to slash prices to attract customers.  But nobody will buy service if those companies cannot obtain necessary spectrum to actually compete.

Regardless of the outcome, North America in general has a long way to go to find the lower wireless prices commonplace abroad.

Just over one year ago, Stop the Cap! introduced readers to Sezmi, a cable-TV alternative that delivered a package of selected cable networks, on-demand movies, video podcasts, YouTube content and local broadcast stations with a 1TB DVR set top box for $19.99 a month. Subscribers that decided to forgo the cable networks paid even less — $4.99 a month for service.

But no more.

As of this morning, Sezmi has discontinued its service, leaving customers with a nearly-worthless set top DVR box they spent $149.99 to acquire, and a number of questions about the company’s sudden change of direction.

The company issued a statement telling customers it has ceased monthly billing and giving customers until later this year to use some of the features Sezmi operates in-house:

We regret to inform you that Sezmi is discontinuing its consumer service. As of Monday, September 26, 2011, you will no longer be able to view or record broadcast TV programming through your Sezmi System. However, you will still be able to view movies and shows you have already saved to your Sezmi media recorder. To help ease the transition, you may also rent movies and shows if available at no charge from Sezmi’s On Demand catalog through November 1, 2011.

Why do you have to discontinue your consumer service?
Sezmi has changed its business focus to providing our product and technology platform to service providers, internationally and in the U.S., who are interested in providing broadband video services to their customers. As a result, we are no longer supporting our direct-to-consumer service.

What does this mean for me?
You will no longer be billed for Sezmi service. As of September 26th, you will no longer be able to utilize the programming guide and your digital media recorder will no longer operate as a recorder. You will be able to view movies and shows you have already saved to your recorder and YouTube access will not be affected. Between now and November 1st, you may rent any movies or shows at no charge to you. After November 1, Sezmi’s On Demand catalog will no longer be available but you will be able to use your Sezmi system to view all programming you have saved to the media recorder.

No Service After Sept. 26, 2011 didn't make the list.

What it also means is customers are stuck with a proprietary DVR box that won’t work with other services.

Sezmi’s business model was most operational in the Los Angeles market, where it leased unused spectrum from several LA-area television stations to carry its lightweight cable package.  In other markets, Sezmi simply wedded over the air digital free television stations with its online lineup of on-demand programming and charged $4.99 a month to watch.  It was never a compelling offer outside of Los Angeles, and even in that city, trouble brewed when Sezmi discontinued the cable package in December.

Among the difficulties Sezmi encountered:

1. Finding cooperative local broadcasters willing to lease unused digital spectrum to Sezmi proved to be a difficult proposition.  Broadcasters are zealously guarding the frequencies they control now and do not want to get into long-term contracts with third parties.  Network owned stations in major cities may have already committed significant spectrum to their own sub-channels and other projects, or want to hold them in reserve for future use.  Besides, why lease spectrum to a company for a cable package large networks could theoretically build themselves.
2. Sezmi lacked access to many popular cable channels, notably ESPN and HBO.  It’s difficult to get consumers to drop a cable or telco-TV subscription in favor of one that is limited to two dozen cable channels, some of which were hardly deal-sealers.  Efforts to move cable channel programming to online distribution were met with difficulty because content owners increasingly want a piece of the action.  Deep pockets are required to sustain video streaming businesses.
3. Consumers never really understood the product and were not convinced to choose it over better known alternatives that included satellite TV.

Sezmi’s new focus on working with larger players could meet with some success, but Sezmi’s best chances of all could be developing the technology for ethnic audiences or other narrowcast opportunities where the lack of a hundred plus channel cable package would not be a factor.

For Sale?

A Wall Street analyst predicts Netflix’s recent announcement to separate itself from its DVD-by-mail rental service (now run independently as ‘Qwikster’) is the first step in selling its online streaming business to Amazon.com.

Michael Pachter, of Wedbush Securities raised his buy rating on Netflix stock, claiming the company could be on the verge of a lucrative sale of its increasingly-important streaming business to the online retailer:

Pachter said that Amazon has always wanted to be in the video-streaming business, but has been hampered by tax considerations due to state sales tax issues. Most states require companies that have physical operations in those states to collect sales taxes on transactions done within those states.

Amazon has so far been able to get around most of those sales-tax issues by virtue of its being an online retailer. Pachter said Amazon would likely have had to begin collecting state sales taxes had it purchased Netflix outright because that company has a wide network of distribution centers across many states.

However, Pachter said a separate video-streaming business from Netflix is more appealing to Amazon, as the company could still avoid enforcing the state sales taxes, and dramatically increase its own video offerings.

“If Amazon were to acquire only Netflix’s streaming business, it could triple the size of its content library, and gain traction as an industry leader,” Pachter said. “Netflix’s streaming has current content deals that provide it with access to movie content during the premium cable TV window, and Amazon has the financial resources to secure additional streaming rights.”

But not every analyst is convinced Pachter is on the right track.

Brett Harriss, an analyst with Gabelli & Co. in Rye, New York, told Bloomberg News that potential buyers are more likely to wait until Netflix gets cheaper before making a bid.

“At some point, this does get cheap,” Harriss said in an interview. “But I don’t think we’re down there yet.”

Other analysts think the concept of a sale is correct, but the buyer is all-wrong.

“The name that would pop in my mind first is Google,” Tim Ghriskey, who oversees $2 billion as chief investment officer of Solaris Group LLC in Bedford Hills, New York, told Bloomberg. “Google loves to throw money at ideas and companies that they think have the potential to be game changers and become major players.”

Netflix Feeding Frenzy: The vultures are circling as analysts on CNBC pound Netflix’s recent price and service plan changes as this compilation of reports illustrates.  (18 minutes)