Comcast wants to be paid twice for carrying Netflix online video content to its customers: once from customers themselves and a second time from Level 3 Communications, Inc., the company providing much of Netflix’s streamed video traffic.

“On Nov. 19 Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content,” said Level 3’s chief legal officer, Thomas Stortz, in a statement. “By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content.”

The backbone and content distribution company accused Comcast of threatening the open Internet and of abusing its market position as America’s largest cable broadband provider.  Comcast disageed, calling Level 3’s position “duplicitous” and accused the company of sending far more traffic from its content partners than the cable giant sends in the other direction.

Joe Waz, senior vice president of External Affairs and Public Policy Counsel at Comcast posted a response on the company’s blog claiming Level 3 was trying to have it both ways, running a lucrative content delivery business for clients like Netflix while also acting as a major Internet backbone provider.  Waz claims Level 3 is purposely confusing the fair exchange of backbone traffic with the commercial content delivery business it also runs:

Comcast has long established and mutually acceptable commercial arrangements with Level 3′s Content Delivery Network (CDN) competitors in delivering the same types of traffic to our customers. Comcast offered Level 3 the same terms it offers to Level 3′s CDN competitors for the same traffic. But Level 3 is trying to gain an unfair business advantage over its CDN competitors by claiming it’s entitled to be treated differently and trying to force Comcast to give Level 3 unlimited and highly imbalanced traffic and shift all the cost onto Comcast and its customers.

To quantify this, what Level 3 wants is to pressure Comcast into accepting more than a twofold increase in the amount of traffic Level 3 delivers onto Comcast’s network — for free. In other words, Level 3 wants to compete with other CDNs, but pass all the costs of that business onto Comcast and Comcast’s customers, instead of Level 3 and its customers.

Level 3′s position is simply duplicitous. When another network provider tried to pass traffic onto Level 3 this way, Level 3 said this is not the way settlement-free peering works in the Internet world. When traffic is way out of balance, Level 3 said, it will insist on a commercially negotiated solution.

But Level 3 claims Comcast threatened to pull the plug if they didn’t agree to the cable company’s demands, which would have cut off Comcast customers from a wide range on content.  The company agreed to pay Comcast under protest, and took the issue public just as attention has become re-focused on Net Neutrality at the Federal Communications Commission.

The dispute increasingly resembles cable TV carriage fights where programmers threaten to yank programming if their terms are not met.  Had Comcast delivered on its alleged threat to cut ties to Level 3, widespread disruptions of content delivery could have been the result, starting with a blockade against Netflix streaming video.  That would leave Comcast broadband customers paying for a hobbled Internet experience, missing popular websites because of Comcast’s roadblocks wherever Level 3 traffic was involved.

It’s a classic case of a Net Neutrality violation, with money being the motivating factor.  Pro-consumer public policy groups immediately pounced on the news.

“Comcast’s request of payment in exchange for content transmission is yet another example of why citizens need strong, effective network neutrality rules that include a ban on such ‘paid prioritization’ practices,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director of Media Access Project. “It is also yet another clear demonstration of why Comcast should not be permitted to acquire NBC Universal, given its clear tendency to exercise control in the video marketplace.”

“On its face, this is the sort of toll booth between residential subscribers and the content of their choice that a Net Neutrality rule is supposed to prohibit,” said Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge. “In addition, this is exactly the sort of anticompetitive harm that opponents of Comcast’s merger with NBC-Universal have warned would happen — that Comcast would leverage its network to harm distribution of competitive video services, while raising prices on its own customers.”

Although Netflix and officials at the Federal Communications Commission both refused comment, analysts predict consumers will ultimately pay the price for Comcast’s newest fees in the form of higher prices for online content.  Comcast does not impose these fees on its own TV Everywhere online video service, Xfinity Fancast.  Waiving expensive content delivery fees for “preferred content partners” could leave independent competitors like Netflix vulnerable to the whims of the broadband providers charging extra to deliver traffic to paying customers.

The FCC is rumored to be considering enacting some broadband reforms before new Republican members of Congress take their seats in January.

(Thanks to several of our readers, including Terry and ‘PreventCaps’ for sending word.)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Comcast Internet Toll Booth 11-30-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News briefly covered the dispute in this morning’s Business Briefs segment.  (1 minute)

If you have nearly $200 a month burning a hole in your pocket that you’d be willing to give Time Warner Cable for a cable-TV, phone and broadband package, have we got a deal for you.

Time Warner Cable is completing a test of its Cadillac cable plan for ultra-premium customers in Charlotte, N.C.  Dubbed “Signature Home,” the plan targets the cable company’s biggest spenders with a deluxe package of cable television, phone, Road Runner Wideband high speed Internet, two premium whole-home DVR units, and a wireless home network.  Customers in Charlotte paid $179.95 a month for the service during the test.  One of the conclusions apparently reached — Time Warner was not charging enough.  As the service goes national, its price will increase by $10 a month for some, $20 for others, topping out just a nickel shy of $200 a month before taxes and fees.

For that price, customers get just about everything Time Warner Cable offers, except premium movie channels:

Time Warner Cable expects to unveil the service in other areas of the country in a matter of weeks.

CEO Glenn Britt told Bloomberg News the targeted packages of services are designed to retain different classes of customers.

“If this were a BMW this would be the 750 IL, with all the whiz-bang things,” said Britt. “It’s our package with everything we have to offer and a different service experience all wrapped up in one.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Signature Home Time Warner Cable East.flv[/flv]

Time Warner Cable produced a brief promotional video for Charlotte customers explaining the benefits of its new Signature Home service.  (2 minutes)

Good News! (For the station's advertisers)

WTXL-TV’s The Good News Show fell all over themselves last week gushing about Comcast’s rebranding as Xfinity.  The noon weekday program, apparently produced by the station’s news department, managed to obliterate any firewall between journalism and the advertising & sales department at the station.

A sampling of praise from the host, in between tossing softball questions at the two Comcast representatives followed by vigorous nodding in agreement:

• “Wow, that -is- amazing.”
• “It’s so much more for less, really.”
• “I know, unbelievable!”
• “Yeah, definitely,” in response to Comcast’s community coordinator’s statement that she thinks everyone should sign up for Comcast service.
• “Yes, true — especially with the holidays coming this is something everyone’s going to want to get in on!”

The journalistic malpractice doesn’t stop with Comcast.  Other features practically evangelize local Tallahassee businesses and restaurants, a whole mess of which also turn out to be sponsors or “partners” offering discount coupons on the station’s website or “advice” to viewers.

A little exploration of WTXL’s website uncovered a page inviting those interested in appearing on the program to contact… the station’s advertising & sales department!:

Reach your potential customers in Tallahassee, Thomasville, Valdosta and beyond with the power of television and innovation of the internet.

ABC 27 can…

• reach over 290,000 households in North Florida and South Georgia
• produce your commercial in high definition
• create custom promotions to help you reach new customers
• increase traffic to your website and position your company more effectively through customized online advertising and sponsorships
• put together an advertising plan that will meet your  marketing goals and fit your budget.

Your ABC 27 account executive will be dedicated to helping you grow your business and assist you through every step in creating your advertising campaign.

Of course the last people to understand this special relationship between the station and its advertisers are the viewers, who don’t appear to be told if the guests appearing on the program are also paying clients.

This is not unprecedented.  Many small city television stations beef up their ad revenue inviting sponsors to appear on morning and interview shows.  But WTXL is among the first to package it under the moniker “news” and deliver it to Florida and Georgia viewers on a Comcast/Xfinity Silver Platter.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTXL Tallahassee Comcast Introduces Xfinity 11-23-10.flv[/flv]

An excerpt from WTXL’s ‘The Good News Show,’ featuring two representatives from Comcast who received a glowing reception from the program’s host.  (4 minutes)

AT&T Mobility thinks it has a winning strategy when it took away unlimited data plans, forcing new customers to choose high-priced, usage-limited alternatives.  But a new survey from Wall Street research firm Sanford Bernstein found AT&T customers will grab, claw, and scream to keep the peace of mind that comes from having the choice of an unlimited use plan.

Sanford Bernstein’s study found a large number of customers willing to abandon any carrier that takes unlimited data away from them.  About a third of the more than 800 people responding said AT&T’s move toward usage-based billing left them with a bad impression of the wireless carrier.  That’s particularly bad for AT&T, which already scores as America’s lowest-rated wireless company according to Consumer Reports.

AT&T mitigated some of the potential damage by letting existing customers keep their unlimited data plans when they ceased selling the unlimited option this past June.  New customers are forced to choose between two limited-use plans — $15 for 200MB or $25 for 2GB of usage (a tethering option is also available.)  Existing customers will only face that hard choice if or when they change phones, presumably in the next year or two.

Had they not grandfathered in existing customers, Sanford Bernstein’s research suggests a large proportion of customers forced to give up unlimited data would quit AT&T even if it meant buying a new phone and paying a higher bill just to get the unlimited data option back.  When AT&T eventually forces these customers’ hands, Sanford Bernstein predicts trouble.

According to the study, more than 58 percent of the lowest data users said they would dump AT&T overboard and switch to another provider with an unlimited plan. For heavier users, more than two-thirds are prepared to take their business elsewhere.

But even with overwhelming evidence like that, AT&T and some Wall Street analysts think Internet Overcharging schemes do customers a favor.

AT&T's mandatory data plans

“Customers generally have strongly negative perceptions about Usage-Based Pricing, and these are often not correlated with self-interest,” Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said in a research note analyzing the findings of the survey conducted this past summer. “It is fashionable to argue that loyalty to carriers is dead (except perhaps to Verizon Wireless, whose service level is perceived to be markedly higher than that of its competitors). The new conventional wisdom is that carrier loyalty has been replaced with loyalty to the device. But high inclination to switch carriers and phones to maintain an unlimited plan suggest that perhaps the plan itself is more important than either one.”

The Wall Street firm’s research is hardly news to consumers, who have repeatedly expressed loathing contempt for Internet Overcharging schemes like so-called “usage-based billing,” “data caps,” and speed throttles that kick in when carriers decide customers have used the service enough.

Consumers are willing to pay a higher price just knowing they will never face dreaded “bill shock” — a wireless company bill filled with hefty overlimit fees charged for excessive data usage.  They also have no interest in being penalized by arbitrary usage limits that punish offenders with speed throttles that reduce wireless speeds to dial-up or lower.

AT&T was the first major carrier to throw down the gauntlet and force customers into choosing between a “budget plan” that is easy to exceed at just 200MB of usage per month or an inadequate, overpriced 2GB tier that costs just five dollars less than the now-abandoned unlimited use plan.

Wall Street firms like Sanford Bernstein worry their investor clients may be exposed to a revenue massacre when competing carriers like Verizon Wireless, which retains an unlimited plan for now, unveils its own version of the popular Apple iPhone.  The result could be a massive stampede of departing customers headed for top-rated Verizon Wireless, even if it means paying early termination fees.

AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel sees things very differently however, telling CNET News AT&T’s new limited option plans deliver more choice and flexibility for data-hungry users.

QUBE's "revolutionary" interactive wired remote control, from 1978 (courtesy: QUBE-tv.com)

Happy Thanksgiving to all Stop the Cap! readers.

While we take a break from our usual reports, let’s turn the clock all the way back to 1978, an era before broadband (or dial-up for the most part) and even before most of the basic cable networks know today existed.  Cable television was not even an option yet in many communities, although discussions about the concept were well underway.

In Columbus, Ohio Warner Cable constructed an experimental two-way cable system called QUBE, which brought 30,000 homes in the city access to interactive, locally-produced programming.  Viewers could vote on different topics, share their opinions, answer quizzes, and order individual pay-per-view movies — a new concept for most people back then.

Cable television in 1978 didn’t deliver CNN, TNT, ESPN, or any of dozens of other cable networks that are household names today.  Instead, most delivered clear signals of broadcast television stations received over the air from a master antenna mounted high above the local cable company, supplemented with text-based information channels running newswires, sports scores, financial tickers, weather and other wire service reports.  Locally produced government, public access and educational programming covered much of the rest of the channel lineup.  Cable radio hooked up to home stereos and delivered improved FM radio reception and some privately run cable radio stations.

QUBE was no different in this respect.  The bulk of the programming people watched came from local broadcasters and imported stations from Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Athens — all selected from a wired remote control.  It total, QUBE carried 30 channels, 10 of which were premium or pay per view.  The concept was so revolutionary, some folks traveled from miles around to record sample programming off the system and share copies of videotapes with other cable enthusiasts.

QUBE was not a financial success for Warner, however.  The costs to produce interactive programming, building brand new cable systems, and purchasing the equipment to run them, caused Warner to accumulate $875 million in total debt by 1983.  It abandoned the concept a few years later because new cable networks and superstations were rapidly signing on, creating a huge number of new viewing options that effectively drowned out the locally-produced interactive shows.  Cable would remain a one-way medium, at least for awhile.

Watching the enthusiasm of Ray Glasser, who produced the video included below, all over a 30-channel cable system was fascinating, as was watching the assortment of television stations sampled from more than 30 years ago.  And check out those supermarket prices listed on one of the text channels Ray previews.  After a series of sales and ownership transfers, Warner Cable still exists in Columbus.  But today, we know it better as Time Warner Cable.

[flv width=”422″ height=”327″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Qube.flv[/flv]

A video tour of Warner Cable’s QUBE system in Columbus, Ohio, produced in 1978 by Ray Glasser.  (50 minutes)