Verizon Wireless will force customers off of their grandfathered unlimited data plans when they reach the end of their current two-year service contracts, according to the company’s chief financial officer.

It is all part of the cell phone company’s strategy to boost the average bills of customers with new, more expensive tiered family-shared data plans. With a significant number of current customers grandfathered on unlimited data plans that users likely will not forfeit voluntarily, Verizon will force the issue as customers come up for contract renewal.

The plan received considerable approval at today’s JPMorgan Chase TMT conference, a gathering for Wall Street investors and tech companies like Verizon.  Executive vice-president and chief financial officer Fran Shammo laid out the plan to switch customers to forthcoming family “data share” plans that are priced based on anticipated usage:

As you come through an upgrade cycle and you upgrade in the future, you will have to go onto the data share plan. And moving away from, if you will, the unlimited world and moving everybody into a tiered structure data share-type plan.

So when you think about our 3G base, a lot of our 3G base is unlimited. As they start to migrate into 4G, they will have to come off of unlimited and go into the data share plan. And that is beneficial for us for many reasons, obviously. So as you pick what tier you want to be and we think that there will be some price up in those tiers.

“Price up” is code language for bill hiking. Customers adopting family share plans may be able to share data across a larger number of devices, but at consumption pricing, many customers will find their Verizon bills substantially higher than before.

Shammo

“And the important part of that is we want the connections to come in and the way we have designed our plan, this plan is built on tiers and as we look at the future growth of LTE consumption because of the speeds and video consumption and consumption of other M2M-type devices, it is going to be more important that people will start to upgrade in their tiers as they start to really realize the benefits of the LTE network,” Shammo said. “As [customers] add more devices, they are going to have to buy up into tiers. So again, you will see the revenue increase there.”

Those revenue predictions were not sufficient to satiate Phil Cusick, an analyst at JPMorgan Chase. He questioned Shammo about the prospects for Verizon further increasing revenue with across-the-board rate increases on service plans.

Shammo would not commit to that, but was pleased with the lack of customer protests over their recent introduction of a $30 equipment upgrade fee. He called the new fee “the right thing to do.” More fees and surcharges are likely, according to Shammo.

“I think implementing these additional fees is probably where we are at,” he said. “With the construct that we have dealt with around data share and where we see consumption of LTE going, when you put the combination of them together, we are fairly confident that we will see people start to uptake in the tiers, which is really where we will get the revenue accretion in the future.”

Shammo also said Verizon’s fiber to the home network FiOS has gotten such rave reviews, it almost sells itself. That means the company will pull back on promotional offers and plans a general rate increase for all customers in the coming months, if only to bolster company profits.

“We have to do a better job in discipline of price increases and I think that you’ll see us do some price increases here over the next two quarters to offset the content increase and that will also contribute more profitability to the bottom line,” Shammo said. “You are going to have to concentrate more on reducing the amount of promotions, reducing the amount of retention that you put on the table to retain a customer and then also you are seeing that the industry is pricing up.”

Verizon FiOS customers will find rate increases applying both to equipment rental and service pricing nationwide, according to Shammo.

“We were actually below-market compared to our competitors on the amount of fee that we charge on the rental of a set-top box or a digital converter box,” Shammo explained. “We are switching around our bundles and the customers that are coming out of the current bundles will be priced up to the newer bundles. So you are going to see really a shift over the next two to three quarters in price-ups coming out of FiOS.”

As far as FiOS expansion goes, the company does not expect any major expansion in the service for the next several years.

“If we can penetrate the market and really turn the wireline profitability, could we potentially build out to other areas? Yes, but that is a decision that will be made in years out, not right now,” Shammo said. “So from a capital perspective, we are being very disciplined with where we are going to put that capital.”

No related stories.

Time Warner Cable and Viacom have ended their dispute over whether the cable company had the right to stream Viacom-owned cable networks over its lineup of streaming apps for portable devices and home computers.

This means the cable company will be restoring streams of Comedy Central, MTV, VH1 and other Viacom networks over the coming weeks.  In return, Time Warner Cable has agreed to carry/continue Viacom’s Country Music Television on its cable systems.

From the official statement:

Viacom and Time Warner Cable have agreed to resolve their pending litigations. All of Viacom’s programming will now be available to Time Warner Cable subscribers for in-home viewing via internet protocol-enabled devices such as iPads and Time Warner Cable will continue to carry Viacom’s Country Music Television (CMT) programming. In reaching the settlement agreement, Time Warner Cable and Viacom were also able to resolve other unrelated business matters to their mutual satisfaction. Neither side is conceding its original legal position or will have further comment.

The dispute had no effect on traditional cable carriage of these networks. Only online streaming was impacted.

No related stories.

Growing questions are being raised about whether Comcast is violating FCC and Department of Justice policies that prohibit the cable company from prioritizing its own content traffic over that of its competitors.

Comcast’s Xfinity Xbox app offers Comcast customers access to Xfinity online video content without eating into their monthly 250GB Internet usage allowance. Netflix has called that exemption unfair, because its content does count against Comcast’s usage cap. New evidence now suggests Comcast may also be prioritizing the delivery of its Xfinity content over other broadband traffic, a true Net Neutrality violation if proven true.

Bryan Berg, founder and chief technology officer at MixMedia, believes he has found proof the cable company is giving its own video content preferential treatment, in this somewhat-technical finding published on his blog:

What I’ve concluded is that Comcast is using separate DOCSIS service flows to prioritize the traffic to the Xfinity Xbox app. This separation allows them to exempt that traffic from both bandwidth cap accounting and download speed limits. It’s still plain-old HTTP delivering MP4-encoded video files, just like the other streaming services use, but additional priority is granted to the Xfinity traffic at the DOCSIS level. I still believe that DSCP values I observed in the packet headers of Xfinity traffic is the method by which Comcast signals that traffic is to be prioritized, both in their backbone and regional networks and their DOCSIS network.

Berg also contends Comcast’s earlier explanation that its Xfinity content should be exempt from its usage cap because it travels over the company’s private Internet network is also flawed:

In addition, contrary to what has been widely speculated, the Xfinity traffic is not delivered via separate, dedicated downstream channel(s)—it uses the same downstream channels as regular Internet traffic.

Berg

Broadband traffic management is of growing interest to Internet Service Providers, who contend it can be used to manage Internet traffic more efficiently and improve speed and time-sensitive online applications like streamed video, online phone calls, and similar services. But manufacturers of traffic management equipment also market the technology to ISPs who want to favor certain kinds of content while de-prioritizing or even throttling the speed of non-preferred content. The technology can also differentiate traffic that counts against a monthly usage cap, and traffic that does not.

Quality of Service (QoS) technology can be used to improve the customer’s online experience or help a provider launch Internet Overcharging and speed throttling schemes that can heavily discriminate against “undesirable” online traffic.

Berg further found that when he saturated his 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection, traffic from providers like Netflix suffered due to the bandwidth constraints.  Because he flooded his connection, Netflix buffered additional content (slowing his stream start time) and reduced the bitrate of the video (which can dramatically reduce the picture quality at slower speeds). But when he launched Xfinity video streaming, that traffic was unaffected by his saturated connection. In fact, he discovered Xfinity traffic was exempted from his normal download speed limit, allowing his connection to exceed 25Mbps.

While that works great for Xfinity fans who do not want their videos degraded when other household members are online, it is inherently unfair to competitors like Netflix who are forced to reduce the quality of your video stream to compensate for lower available bandwidth.

According to the consent decree which governs the merger of the cable operator with NBC-Universal, prioritizing traffic in this way is a no-no when the company also engages in Internet Overcharging schemes, namely its arbitrary usage cap:

“If Comcast offers consumers Internet Access Service under a package that includes caps, tiers, metering, or other usage-based pricing, it shall not measure, count, or otherwise treat Defendants’ affiliated network traffic differently from unaffiliated network traffic. Comcast shall not prioritize Defendants’ Video Programming or other content over other Persons’ Video Programming or other content.”

This graph shows Berg's artificially saturated 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection. The traffic in red represents Xfinity Xbox traffic, which is given such high priority, it allows Berg to exceed his usual download speed limit.

Comcast sent GigaOm a statement that denies the company is doing any such thing:

“It’s really important that we make crystal clear that we are not prioritizing our transmission of Xfinity TV content to the Xbox (as some have speculated). While DSCP markings can be used to assign traffic different priority levels, that is not their only application – and that is not what they are being used for here. It’s also important to point out that our Xfinity TV content being delivered to the Xbox is the same video subscription that customers already paid for and is delivered to their home over our traditional cable network – the difference is that we are now delivering it using IP technology to the Xbox 360, in a similar manner as other IP-based cable service providers. But this is still our traditional cable television service, which is governed by something known as Title VI of the Communications Act, and we provide the service in compliance with applicable FCC rules.”

Our View

Comcast, as usual, is talking out of every side of its mouth. In an effort to justify their unjustified usage cap, they have pretzel-twisted a novel way out of this Net Neutrality debate by paving their own digital highway on a Comcast private drive.

Comcast argues their 250GB usage cap controls last-mile congestion to provide an excellent user experience. That excuse completely evaporates in the context of its new toll-free video traffic. In fact, their earlier argument that its regionally-distributed streaming traffic should not count because it does not travel over the “public Internet” at Comcast’s expense does not even make sense.

Berg provides an example:

A FaceTime call from my house to my neighbor’s—which never leaves even the San Francisco metro area Comcast network, given that both of us are Comcast customers—goes over the “public Internet.”

Yet Comcast’s Xbox streams, which pass from Seattle to Sacramento to San Francisco through all of the same network elements that handle my video call (and then some!) are exempt from the bandwidth cap?

You can’t have it both ways, guys.

DOCSIS 3 technology has vastly expanded the last mile pipe into subscriber homes. If Comcast can launch their own private pipe for unlimited IPTV traffic that travels down the same wires their Internet service does, they can comfortably handle any additional capacity needs to support their “constrained” broadband service without the need to limit their customers’ use.

Usage caps remain an end run around Net Neutrality. Consumers given the opportunity to view content under a usage cap on the “public Internet” or using the “toll-free” traffic lane Comcast created for content from their “preferred partners” will make the obvious choice to protect their usage allowance. Comcast is certainly aware of this, and it is a clever way to discriminate through social engineering. It’s also less obvious. You don’t have to de-prioritize or block traffic from your competition to have an impact, you just have to limit it. Customers who repeatedly exceed their usage allowance face suspension of Comcast broadband service for up to one year. That’s a strong incentive to follow their rules.

Netflix is fighting to force Xfinity traffic to fall under the same arbitrary usage cap regime Netflix endures — a truly shortsighted goal. The real issue here is whether Comcast should be capping any of its Internet service.

Comcast has given us the answer, launching the very bandwidth-intense video streaming it used to decry was contributing to an Internet traffic tsunami.

It’s time for Comcast to drop its usage cap.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Netflix’s Reed Hastings Discovers Comcast’s Usage Cap: The End Run Around Net Neutrality
2. Comcast Changes Language Over Xbox-Usage Cap Spat: Same Story, Different Words
3. Comcast Proves It Doesn’t Need a 250GB Usage Cap; Net Neutrality Violation Alleged
4. Netflix to Broadband Industry: Please Don’t Kill Us With Usage Caps
5. Internet Overcharging Gravy Train: Average Home Wi-Fi Use to Exceed 440GB By 2015

$118 million up in smoke as far as rural Ohio residents are concerned. Where did the money go?

Rural Ohio is still waiting for broadband… -any- broadband.

The state has spent millions of taxpayer funds on deficient broadband maps produced by the industry-connected Connected Nation and on gold standard broadband networks individual consumers and businesses are forbidden to access.  Dellroy resident Salva Sedlak wonders where all that money has gone, because it hasn’t produced any new broadband service in her area.

Sedlak and her husband can’t get broadband for either their home or their Carroll County business, and it isn’t from lack of trying.

Time Warner Cable won’t extend their lines an extra four miles to their neighborhood, Frontier Communications has the family on some type of waiting list, Verizon is marketing 4G wireless broadband in an area with no 4G reception, and Ohio-based Horizon says service to their area is “undetermined” at this time.

Sedlak is taking matters into her own hands, using a proven technology that worked for America’s Native Americans for hundreds of years:

In August 2010, that $118 million of grant money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were available to Appalachian counties. Obviously, none of the above mentioned companies are using any of this money in my area, so I am going to apply for grant money to finance my smoke signaling business.

I figure there will be a lot of demand for my new skills. All of those companies that are supposed to be moving into Ohio to support oil fracking are going to need rapid communication.Since they will probably experience the same problems with obtaining broadband that I have, there should be a demand for smoke signals. The only downside I can see is I will not be able to use an on-line instructional video for training purposes.

I once said I would vote for any politician who could make broadband happen. So far, I have heard a lot of promises, but no actual service. As I said, I’m just going to have to take matters into my own hands.

No related stories.

Walden

House Republicans attacked the Federal Communications Commission Tuesday for “rushing” special waivers and conditions that allowed LightSquared to begin operations without fully considering its impact on GPS devices and services.

GOP Reps. Cliff Stearns (Fla.), Fred Upton (Mich.), and Greg Walden (Ore.) said the need for intensifying an investigation first launched in February was more pertinent than ever with this week’s bankruptcy declaration by the wireless Internet service.

“Now, more than ever, we need to get to the bottom of how we got this far down a dead-end road,” said the congressmen in a joint statement. “There are many unanswered questions, specifically about whether the FCC’s own objectives led to sloppy process. We are continuing to examine the information we’ve received so far to determine what happened and how it can be avoided in the future.”

Upton

All three said the FCC’s “rushed” review cost investors billions that were “wasted” building a broadband network that was later determined to create serious interference problems for global positioning satellite receivers.

The FCC previously denied they were pressured by Obama Administration officials to approve the project as part of the White House’s strong focus on broadband improvement.

But the House Republicans believe the interference problems should have been identified before the project got too far along.

Initially, the FCC issued a conditional approval to begin testing the service, which quickly led to growing evidence it unintentionally blocked GPS reception.

A preliminary report found GPS receivers were incapable of rejecting the adjacent channel interference from LightSquared’s powerful ground-based transmitters.

While technically not the fault of LightSquared, which argued it should not be held responsible for poor GPS receiver design, the fact millions of GPS receivers are already in use swayed the FCC to reject the use of those frequencies for the wireless Internet service.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. LightSquared’s Last-Minute ‘Solution’ to GPS Interference Gets Skeptical Response from Some
2. LightSquared Fail? America’s Newest Wireless Competitor Could Wipe Out Your GPS
3. Game Over: LightSquared Declares Bankruptcy; The Spectacular Fall of Phil Falcone
4. Dish Network Wants to Convert Satellite Frequencies to Add Voice, Broadband Services
5. LightSquared Sunk by FCC; Shared Spectrum Interference to GPS Devices Cited

Happy Days Are Always Here for Top Telecom Execs

Our friends at Fierce Cable put together a list of the top-paid telecommunications executives, and they’re in the money. Your money. While your rates keep going up, their take-home pay often is, too.

Remarkably, actual performance as executives (or lack, thereof) often had no relationship to their ultimate pay package, with a handful of exceptions:

Cable & Satellite

Brian L. Roberts, Comcast — $26.9 million: The Roberts family has dominated Comcast since the 1980s, so it is no surprise their pay packages are as colossal as the company itself.

Michael J. Lovett, Charter Communications — $20.54 million: He resigned in Feb. 2012 but got a great golden parachute: nearly double the compensation he earned the year before. Charter is one of America’s least-distinguished cable companies, usually scoring just above “pond scum” in popularity with customers. But you can take that trash talk when you walk $20 million to the bank.

Glenn A. Britt, Time Warner Cable — $16.43 million: His pay went down slightly (well, by a million dollars but with that kind of money, does it really matter?) in 2011. Britt has been around at some iteration of Time since 1972… when Nixon was still president, so he worked his way to the top. But some of his best accomplishments are irritating his customers with talk of overcharging them for Internet access.

James L. Dolan, Cablevision — $11.45 million: The Dolan family and Cablevision go together like cookies and milk, but Wall Street can’t help but bet when the family will finally cash out of cable and sell the company to Time Warner or Comcast. With $11 million in salary, stock awards, and bonuses, what’s the hurry?

Joseph Clayton, Dish Network — $9.84 million: Clayton is a Dish freshman, only coming on board 11 months ago. His salary was a paltry $467,000 in 2011. Thank goodness for the $9 mil in stock and bonus pay!

Michael D. White, DirecTV — $5.94 million: Ouch… a pay cut. White made $32.93 million the year before. Now he’ll have to clip coupons from the Sunday newspaper like the rest of us.

Rodger L. Johnson, Knology — $3.13 million: Not bad for running a company almost nobody has heard of and will soon no longer exist.  WideOpenWest bought them out last month.

The Wireline Companies & Their Friends

Stephenson: Blew a $39 billion dollar merger deal with T-Mobile, but walks away with $22 million in pay anyway.

Lowell McAdam, Verizon — $23.1 million: McAdam’s promotion paid handsomely. As former chief operating officer, he only walked home with a little more than $7 million last year. Now he’s earning every penny conjuring up ways he can do away with your cell phone subsidy -and- keep Verizon Wireless’ rates as high as ever.

Randall Stephenson, AT&T — $22.01 million: If you blew a multi-billion dollar merger deal at your company, do you think the only punishment you’d receive is a $5 million pay cut? Stephenson is the cat that fell out of the wireless merger window, and landed on his feet unharmed. Unfortunately the same isn’t true for his customers.

Dan Hesse, Sprint — $11.88 million: His pay is down about $2 million from 2010, and he recently announced he was going to take another pay cut for the team. If anyone deserves hazard pay, Hesse is the man. Wall Street hates him for not following his competitors gouging customers with higher prices and more restrictive service plans and policies. The big money crowd in New York’s financial district already has his going away party well-planned.

Jeff Gardner, Windstream — $9.78 million: His pay is up around $2 million. Windstream can afford it, acquiring companies later stripped clean of employees. PAETEC workers will learn this lesson soon enough. At Windstream, all the money rises to the top… management that is.

George A. Cope, Bell Canada — $9.6 million: His salary more than doubled over 2010 and why not. Bell is the first telecommunications company in North America to be audacious enough to demand an entire country be stripped of flat rate Internet service. That move managed to organize 500,000 Canadians that normally are resigned to the fact the revolving door at the Canadian Radio-tv and Telecommunications Commission has locked them out for years. Thanks Bell!

Glen F. Post III, CenturyLink — $8.55 million: Post saw his pay slashed from $14.5 million the year before, but merger deals like Qwest (with the corresponding huge bonus for pulling it off) only come once or twice in a career.

Hesse: Wall Street's least-wanted.

Maggie Wilderotter, Frontier — $6.72 million: No, we don’t understand it either. Her pay is down from $8.58 million, but considering Frontier’s current stock price and bottom-rated service, wouldn’t half of this money be better spent on improving broadband in states like West Virginia?

John F. Cassidy, Cincinnati Bell — $6.06 million: Cassidy earned more than two million more the year before. Cincinnati Bell is an aberration in an industry that is convinced the only good thing telecom companies can do is merge with each other to get bigger and bigger.

Paul H. Sunu, FairPoint — $4.25 million: The company that couldn’t find one customer’s business on a service call despite being literally right next door to FairPoint itself, is clawing its way back from bankruptcy and Sunu’s pay package reflects that. He only earned $775,000 the year earlier.

Ian Paul Livingston, BT — $3.8 million: British Telecom’s chief got a modest salary hike in 2011, and the U.K. phone company has done modestly better recognizing better broadband in the key to its future. BT is the AT&T of the United Kingdom, but British salaries are downright frugal compared to the high flyers on this side of the Atlantic.

David A. Wittwer, TDS Telecom — $2.29 million: You can’t complain about a cool $2 million in salary for a company with only around 1.1 million customers.

Ben Verwaayen, Alcatel-Lucent — $2.25 million: His salary dropped slightly from 2010. Alcatel-Lucent could do considerably better if they can win the public policy debate that fiber optic broadband is the wave of the future. Alcatel-Lucent is a major player.

No related stories.

This monopole cell tower antenna just showed up one day in the backyard of this Kirkland, PQ resident.

Rogers Communications installed a 49-foot monopole cellular antenna in the backyard of a Kirkland, Que. resident earlier this year, but the only signals being transmitted are discussions over its fate at town hall.

Residents were furious when a neighbor leased out a portion of a residential backyard to Rogers, who claims the small cube antenna mounted on the pole will improve cell reception in the immediate area. Ever since Stop the Cap! first covered this story earlier this year, local officials have been flummoxed about what they can do about the antenna, which is currently non-operational.

“For now (there is) no resolution, but talks are progressing,” Kirkland’s director general Joe Sanalitro told The West Island Gazette. “We are demanding it come down.”

Rogers and Kirkland officials have been meeting about the antenna, which has generated considerable interest and complaints over whether the company used a zoning loophole to sneak the antenna into the neighborhood.

If allowed to stand, residents fear Rogers and other cell companies could offer cash incentives to other homeowners to erect similar towers, increasing visual pollution.

Industry Canada rules state towers less than 15 meters are excluded from municipal notification rules and do not require permits to install.  Rogers was evidently aware of this rule — its Kirkland antenna tops out at 14.5 meters, just shy of the height limit.

No related stories.

An innovative plan to rent New Yorkers a dime-sized over-the-air antenna housed in a Brooklyn data center to receive and stream local broadcasters could be the end of broadcast TV as we know it, at least if you believe the claims being made by network executives in their high-powered lawsuit.

Aereo, which charges $12 a month to an invitation-only customer base, is the target of serious legal action brought by the major broadcast networks and local TV stations that believe Aereo’s disruptive business model could allow cable operators to avoid paying retransmission consent fees for free, over the air television signals.

Aereo only streams local broadcasters in the New York metropolitan area to residents within viewing range of the signals. The company argues it operates legally because of a time-tested, sound legal principle: the Communications Act of 1934, which offers broadcasters a license to use the public airwaves in return for operating in the public interest. Aereo only rents its tiny antennas to one customer at a time, and provides them with streamed video received by that antenna. The company charges a nominal monthly fee to cover the costs of operating its data center and to cover streaming expenses.

The monthly subscription fee grants viewers access to watch one channel while recording another on a cloud-based DVR “storage locker.” Viewers can watch the signals on just about any device, as long as they are located within the New York metropolitan area. Travelers and those who live outside of the area cannot watch programming or subscribe to the service.

The threat to the nation’s pay television operators and broadcasters is obvious. Over the air television broadcasters increasingly rely on so-called “retransmission consent payments” collected from pay television operators in return for permission to place their signals on the cable, telco, or satellite TV dial. Broadcasters bank on that growing revenue. Pay television providers grudgingly agree to the payments and promptly pass them on to already rate-increase-weary subscribers, who want a way out of paying for hundreds of channels they don’t care to watch.

Aereo's over the air antenna is about the size of a dime.

Aereo breaks the business models of both broadcasters and the cable industry. Cord cutters can get reliable and cheap reception of over-the-air stations without dealing with cumbersome in-home antennas (or paying local cable companies for HD-quality local stations and a DVR box). Goodbye $70 cable-TV bill. Broadcasters also lose every time the local pay television company drops a subscriber. Aereo does not pay retransmission consent fees, nor do their subscribers.

But Aereo is not all bad news for pay television providers. If Aereo can survive the legal onslaught from broadcast interests, nothing stops local cable companies from licensing Aereo technology (or constructing their own system) that would bypass retransmission consent fees as well. That could save cable operators millions.

Ridiculous? Not according to Matt Bond, an executive vice-president at Comcast/NBC who told a New York federal court the risk is real.

“It makes little economic sense for cable systems and satellite broadcasters to continue to pay for NBCU content on a per-subscriber basis when, with a relatively modest investment, they can simply modify their operations to mirror Aereo’s ‘individual antenna’ scheme and retransmit, for free, over-the-air local broadcast programming,” Bond said. “I know for a fact that cable companies have already considered such a model.”

Diller

Broadcasters revile Aereo’s disruptive innovation.  Bond called the service “piracy.” Other network executives say it steals their content and resells it at a profit. Some are even predicting the destruction of broadcast television as we know it if Aereo is found to be legal. Virtually every network is on board for the lawsuit, which seeks an immediate injunction that would shut the service down.

Barry Diller, a veteran broadcast executive, has invested in Aereo and calls the broadcasters’ fears rubbish.

“It’s not the beginning of the destruction of anybody,” Diller told New York Magazine. “TV wasn’t the destruction of the movie business. Television wasn’t the destruction of radio. Cable wasn’t the destruction of broadcast networks. What happens is new alternatives come, and they live alongside whatever existed.”

“You have an antenna that has your name on it, figuratively … and it’s one-to-one. It is not a network,” Diller told members of the Senate Commerce Committee during a recent hearing. “It is a platform for you to simply receive, over the Internet, broadcast signals that are free and to record them and use them on any device that you like.”

Aereo is not a pioneer in the video streaming of over the air signals. iCraveTV launched in 1999 streaming broadcast stations from Buffalo, N.Y. and Ontario, Canada from its home base in Toronto. Broadcasters filed suit and quickly shut the service down. ivi-TV tried a similar venture in 2011 and was also shut down. Even companies experimenting with IPTV technology have run into trouble with some networks that feel threatened by a possible precedent that could be mistakenly established, starting a flood of similar services.

To date, only services that agree to broadcaster sanctions (Slingbox) or who have retransmission consent contracts with providers (such as the cable industry’s TV Everywhere project) have survived, but all have limitations imposed on their functionality that reduce their usefulness to consumers.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Aereo TV was demonstrated by the company CEO Chet Kanojia at the New York Tech Meetup May 9.  (21 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. FCC Drops Proposal to Swipe Spectrum From Broadcasters to Reallocate to Wireless Providers
2. Everything New is Always a Threat to Everything Old – The Cable TV Monster
3. “Harming the Core Business”: The Precarious Future of Video Streaming
4. Broadcasters Successfully Shutters Ivi TV With Court Injunction
5. Wireless Plan Could Force TV Stations Off the Air in Upstate NY, Detroit, and Seattle for Verizon & AT&T

Bell Mobility and its parent company, Bell Canada are facing a $100 million class action lawsuit that claims expiration dates on Bell’s prepaid wireless service are illegal.

Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act bans expiration dates from gift cards.  The Toronto law firm of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP alleges that prepaid wireless services, often topped up with prepaid cards, should be treated just like gift cards and not subject to expiration dates that wipe out available balances.

The suit was filed on behalf of Celia Sankar of Elliot Lake, Ont.

Sankar is founder of the DiversityCanada Foundation, a non-profit group that fights for diversity, inclusion and harmony among Canadians. Sankar had her Bell Mobility prepaid balances wiped out on two occasions because she did not use her available balance or “top-up” her account with additional funds within the time window specified by Bell.

A $15 Bell Mobility prepaid top-up card expires in 30 days. A $25 top-up card expires in 60 days. Customers can buy a $100 card and avoid losing their balance for one year. Accounts with a $0 balance for 120 days will be terminated.

“Because the prepaid wireless service is the least expensive way to have a phone, and does not require a credit card or a bank account, it is often the only option for youth, new immigrants, workers on minimum wage, the unemployed, people on disability and seniors on fixed incomes,” Sankar said. “These are the people who can least afford to have their funds forfeited or to have their mobile services cut off.”

Bell declared the suit was without merit and intends to fight it.

If the case is certified as a class-action suit, Bell faces the prospect of defending itself against all Ontario residents who have used Bell’s prepaid services since May 4, 2010. Those brands include Bell Mobility, Solo Mobile, and Virgin Mobile Canada.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Verizon Wireless Fraudulently Pumped Up Prepaid Numbers, New Lawsuit Claims
2. Canada’s Cellular Cartel: 3 Wireless Companies Control 94 Percent of the Market
3. Canadians Trash Their Cell Phone Options: Bad Service, Worse Value; Koodo Rates Highest
4. Competition Bureau Fines Bell $10 Million for Misleading Consumers About Pricing
5. T-Mobile Prepaid Deal Brings Down Online Ordering System As Customers Beat Down the Doors

Time Warner Cable's old branding for broadband

Time Warner Cable is nearing the end of a licensing deal that has allowed the company to use a familiar Warner Bros. animated character to promote their broadband service.

The company has spent at least a year transitioning customers away from the Road Runner brand name, now simply referring to their broadband product as “Internet” or, in some markets, “HSI” — High Speed Internet.

The “brand refresh” comes as Time Warner tries to associate all of its products and services around its traditional “eye-ear” logo, according to company spokeswoman Jeannette Castaneda.

Licensing the Road Runner character as the broadband service’s mascot has also been expensive, and the continued need to use the character to educate consumers about the speed benefits of cable broadband over DSL has diminished in importance.

The new look

The transition away from the Road Runner brand has been ongoing since last summer, but Broadband Reports notes numerous markets will see the brand and logo eliminated completely effective May 19th.  The company is also using the occasion to adjust pricing and tiers of its broadband service.  Hardest hit will be standalone broadband-only customers, who will now pay $53.95 a month for Time Warner’s standard 10/1Mbps Internet service. New customers will also pay a modem rental fee of $2.50 a month. Standalone Turbo (20/2Mbps) customers will pay $73.95 for their Internet service.

Time Warner Cable’s a-la-carte pricing for broadband is designed to make their bundled service offerings more attractive in comparison. The company will sell you Internet-only service for $73.95, or sell you a triple play package of phone, Internet, and television service for just $16.04 per month more on a 12-month promotion.

Broadband Reports‘ source lists pricing for one unspecified market:

• $53.95 for Time Warner’s 10/1Mbps Standard Internet
• $20.00 additional for 20/2 Turbo
• $30.00 additional for 30/5 Extreme
• $50.00 additional for 50/5 Ultimate
• $29.95 for 1/1 Lite (Usually a retention only offer)
• $42.95 for 3/1 Basic

Customers can avoid paying regular pricing by bundling multiple services together, getting a customer retention deal when threatening to cancel service, or bouncing between a six-month new customer promotion available from Earthlink over Time Warner Cable and the cable company’s own broadband promotional offer, good for 12 months. Both cost $29.99 a month in many markets.

Time Warner Cable's marketing machine pushes customers towards multi-service bundles. New customers pay even less.

Click here to view the embedded video.

A Time Warner Cable Road Runner advertisement from 2002.  (1 minute)

No related stories.