Time Warner Cable’s TV Everywhere authentication system went live today for customers, who can now access several channels of ESPN on their broadband connection, assuming they can prove they subscribe to a video package that includes ESPN.

Time Warner’s agreement with Disney-ABC, which owns ESPN, made online viewing possible for Time Warner Cable subscribers.  Viewers can authenticate themselves by visiting ESPN’s website and invoking the live video player, which will connect with Time Warner Cable’s MyServices website.  Just log in and Time Warner will send authorization to ESPN to unlock the video streams to watch.  There is no additional charge for this service.

Earlier, there was some confusion over whether broadband-only customers could have access.  A message on ESPN’s website indicates the answer is no — you must be a Time Warner Cable customer with at least Standard Service to get authenticated.

Unfortunately, once logged in and watching, the results were underwhelming, at least for ESPN3.  The picture quality from Stop the Cap!‘s Brighton, N.Y., headquarters was dreadful, even from a Road Runner Turbo account.  A “signal strength meter” barely moved into second position about five minutes after I started watching.

Results were much better for ESPN’s primary channel feed, currently showing a football game between the New York Giants and the Dallas Cowboys.  That managed to peg the meter one position from maximum.  On a 28″ LCD monitor, the picture looked reasonably good, but frankly not as impressive as either Netflix streaming or Hulu.  Pixel problems and other video artifacts were far too common.  But for on-the-go-viewing, the results were adequate.

Commercial breaks were replaced with either ESPN’s logo or, in the case of the football game, short ad spots for NFL gear.  Watching a slowly moving logo for two plus minutes in uncomfortable silence, especially with a group, can be unnerving enough to actually prefer the commercials.

The results for ESPN3, "powered by Time Warner Cable" were unimpressive, with a "signal strength" meter showing just a single bar on our 15/1Mbps Road Runner service.

Things looked better on ESPN's primary network, which managed to peg the signal strength meter to one position below maximum.

Cisco has released the results of the third annual study from the Saïd Business School at Oxford University, which looks at broadband quality in 72 countries and 239 cities around the world.  The results are an embarrassment to much of North America’s broadband.

Using data from 40 million real-life broadband quality tests conducted in May-June of 2010 on the Internet speed testing site, Speedtest.net, the researchers were able to generally evaluate broadband conditions in the 72 countries which generated enough tests to provide useful results.

Although these kinds of studies often end up indirectly promoting Cisco’s own products (which they’d argue go hand-in-hand with broadband improvement), the findings highlight the very real problem that most aggressive broadband development is taking place outside of North America.  Here at home, reduced investment and foot-dragging has kept growth in check, even as prices continue to rise.

Based on the findings, the countries with the most sophisticated and advanced broadband networks are:

While the United States and Canada both languish in 15th place, broadband in South Korea has gone from excellent to outstanding as it continues aggressive, almost revolutionary improvements in service and speed:

• South Korea tops the broadband leadership ranking for the second year in a row;
• Broadband quality in South Korea is ranked the highest and has set a new benchmark for the world;
• Average download throughput is 33.5 Mbps, an increase of 55% from 2009, average upload throughput is 17 Mbps, an increase of 430%, and average latency is 47ms, an improvement of 35% vs. 2009 figure;
• South Korea has achieved 100% broadband penetration.

Cisco’s study found North America is in peril of falling even further behind because providers are trying to incrementally upgrade inferior, obsolete copper-wire phone networks on the cheap instead of replacing them.

As long as providers in the United States and Canada maintain a Dollar Store-mentality towards broadband improvement, both countries will increasingly fall further and further behind countries many Americans couldn’t find on a map.

Developing economies, especially in eastern Europe, are poised to leapfrog over North America and potentially become new powerhouses in the digital global economy of the future.  Among the nations on the verge of blowing past the United States and Canada: Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic and Hungary.

Welcome to the 500GB Broadband Economy

Cisco’s study also includes some important findings about data consumption that expose North American broadband providers who support Internet Overcharging schemes as direct threats to our economic future in a knowledge economy:

The study assessed the average consumption of different household segments and found major differences between basic-digital homes and smart and connected homes:

• Basic digital homes which mainly use the web for simple-quality requirement applications such as web browsing, instant messaging and social networking, consume about 20 GB per month;
• Smart and connected households, who would use the web for high definition video communication, high definition entertainment, tele-education or telemedicine, home security and others, can easily consume 500 GB per month and require an assured bandwidth of 18 Mbps.

Under these terms, Canada’s digital economy is already destined to fail because virtually every provider in the country limits broadband consumption to levels far below that required by “smart and connected households.”  In the United States, some providers have suggested as little as 5GB would represent “enough usage” under residential broadband accounts.  The nation’s largest cable company, Comcast, limits consumption to half the amount required.  Those advocating unlimited broadband or far higher limits are accused of being “bandwidth hogs” or pirates by many of these providers and their dollar-a-holler friends.

World leaders in broadband have some things in common: availability of inexpensive, unlimited broadband delivering fiber-fast speeds.  Those falling behind or at the bottom are raising broadband prices, putting limits on consumption and delivering slow broadband speeds that would draw laughter in countries as diverse as Japan, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates.

Shaw Communications is preparing to introduce a formal Internet Overcharging scheme for its customers across western and central Canada.  Although the company has maintained “soft caps” that have generally been unenforced, that is about to change.

An Edmonton reader of Broadband Reports first noticed the appearance of a new formal Internet Data Usage Policies section on Shaw’s website.  Some customers also received access to a usage meter that was roundly criticized for being inaccurate.

She's blown away by her high broadband bill.

In short, Shaw Cable plans a “three strikes and then you pay” approach to usage limit enforcement.  After a customer exceeding plan limits receives three warnings from the company, excess usage charges will start to appear on customer bills.

A participant on Broadband Reports inferring he’s a Shaw employee admits the company’s usage meter was so inaccurate, it has been pulled.  So has much of the information on Shaw’s website, which now provides a more general “stay-tuned” announcement:

Thank you for your interest in Shaw’s Internet Data Usage policies. Please stay tuned as we develop information specific to your area on this topic.

Shaw currently sells four levels of service in most areas (“Nitro” is available in limited areas with DOCSIS 3 upgraded service), sold by both speed and data transfer limits:

*Service availability may vary by market. Docsis modem required.
^† Limited areas that are not DOCSIS 3.0 ready will receive 25 Mbps download and 2 Mbps upload.

In contrast, most Americans pay lower prices for equivalent levels of service, with no data transfer limits.

Shaw customers will soon see usage graphs on their monthly bills and face the prospect of paying overlimit fees once they exhaust their usage warnings.  While Shaw works to implement its broadband overcharging scheme, it is also making hay out of its new 1Gbps fiber-based broadband trials in British Columbia (primarily to stay competitive with its nemesis — competitor Novus Entertainment) and Alberta:

This service launched in select Vancouver neighbourhoods in June – and Pinebrook, a suburb west of Calgary, will be the latest area to try out the 1 Gigabit Internet service FREE for six months!

Our test neighbourhoods have the advantage of “future proofing” as they receive the best technology has to offer with Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) and will be able to support new, cutting-edge Internet applications that will require faster download speeds – compliments of Shaw.

At the end of the six month trial, customers will still be able to retain their existing services without any change in features or function.

This is a great opportunity for our customers and we are thrilled to be the first provider in Canada to offer this incredible service.

Of course, most of the applications that require faster broadband speeds also consume plenty of data, and when Shaw formally introduces the fiber service, limits on its use are likely to come along for the ride.

Early adopters of Google TV will find nothing but frustration if they want to watch ABC’s “Modern Family” and Fox’s “Glee” with the new broadband-driven TV service.  They can’t, thanks to America’s content companies erecting Berlin Wall-like blockades of programming the service was supposed to provide.

Google TV has already come under a state of siege from a coordinated campaign by the four major broadcast networks to keep programming off the new service until Google agrees to pay retransmission consent fees.  Even Hulu, which delivers online access to hundreds of shows for free, has successfully manned the barricades to keep “unauthorized” Google TV out in the cold.

Some of the virtual barbed-wire fences have become so sophisticated, many wonder whether the biggest players in online video are spending more time and energy on innovating new ways to stop people from accessing content than on actually delivering it.

For a service trying to gain attention out of the starting gate, Google TV has remarkably little mainstream programming to show on it.  To date, their most significant content partners are HBO’s Go service, available only to authenticated HBO subscribers, Turner’s TNT and TBS channels, also only available to current cable, satellite, or telco-TV video subscribers, and a CNBC “app.”

The spat between Google and the broadcasters is similar to the one between Cablevision and Fox in suburban New York City — until a company like Google agrees to pay a fee for the right to deliver content already given away for free online, the online portals that provide access will identify and block Google TV customers from accessing any of it.

Those fees are likely to be passed down to subscribers, and now some are wondering just how successful ventures like Google TV can be if consumers have to pay another monthly TV bill.

Wall Street is one, Variety notes:

That’s a major problem for any business plan, but excessive fees could also destroy interest in Google’s nascent entry into the world of online entertainment television.  Consumers already face steep hardware costs up to $300 just to make Google TV work.  Whether they would also part with a monthly subscription fee should not be too difficult for the folks in Mountain View to answer.

In fact, it’s the same answer Hulu’s owners are getting from viewers about its Hulu Plus pay-TV service, which delivers the same commercials as its free companion and charges $10 a month to watch them.

Subscribers to Hulu’s premium tier were promised access to entire runs of popular shows, programming not available on its free alternative, and a library of episodes that don’t expire and disappear after a few weeks.  But many paying customers complain Hulu Plus still limits most of its shows and offers few exclusives. Even less-in-demand shows like Fox’s “COPS,” profiling the criminally stupid for more than 23 years, remain limited on the premium (and free) service to a single month of episodes.

But nothing causes more annoyance than Hulu’s recently-increased advertising load, dumped equally on both sides of the pay wall.

“Why should I pay $10 a month when I get (mostly) the same shows for free on Hulu, and have to watch the same ads?” asks our reader Stephanie.  “It should be one or the other — ad-free pay or ad-supported free.”

Because Stephanie is hardly alone in asking that question, there are reports Hulu is about to slash its premium asking price in half to attract more subscribers.

Peter Kafka, who writes The Media Memo for All Things Digital, wrote Hulu is preparing to change its pricing as early as this week.

The idea is that paying subscribers get access to a deeper catalog of TV shows and movies than what the free service offers, as well as the ability to watch Hulu on devices like Apple’s iPhone and iPad, Microsoft’s Xbox 360 game machine and Internet-connected TVs from Samsung and Sony.

But a price cut would indicate that consumers haven’t bought in to the pitch. That shouldn’t be a shock, considering the other video options that consumers have, and the limits that Hulu’s content providers have placed on the service.

But even at half-price, many former Hulu Plus customers won’t be back.

Zwei, commenting on the rumored price change, said he dropped his subscription before the first month was up because of the Hulu’s byzantine rules and technical limitations over how premium shows can be accessed.

Watch it their way or not at all.

“You aren’t guaranteed the ability to stream to anything but your computer! “Fringe?” Not available to stream to my other devices. “Caprica?” Not available to stream to my other devices.  Why the heck would I want to pay $10 a month if I still have to watch a lot of the content on my Mac,” he writes.

Paul notes it’s also hard to attract paying customers when most of your library consists of old shows already rerun into the ground:

“The problem is that they are cutting all the most appealing content from the service, Hulu Plus has a huge catalog of content, but it’s 95% leftovers from the 80’s.  Give us current content when and how we want it (quickly and on the devices we want) and people will pay for it, even more than $10/mo.  But if they give us 20 year-old content that we might not even have liked the first time, they shouldn’t expect our money,” Paul says. “It’s funny when they get worked up about piracy too. It’s just another market force — people only go to it when they don’t have other valid options,  just like they’re doing here.”

Networks increasingly treat their programming as a valued commodity that can be sold, re-purposed, re-packaged, and re-sold again and again.  Syndication, DVD box sets, online rental, cable company on-demand, and online ad-supported streaming each can fetch plenty of money, and many agreements include temporary restrictions on other distribution mechanisms to avoid “diluting” the programming’s value.

Consumers don’t care about these restrictions, because many will simply search out the shows they want regardless of the source — legal or otherwise, preferably for free.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google TV 10-25-10.flv[/flv]

Two reports about Google TV — a review of the service from KSTU-TV Salt Lake City’s ‘Kurt the Cyberguy’ and a report from KTBS-TV in Shreveport, Louisiana (5 minutes)

Telephone companies will lose up to half of their broadband market share if they insist on sticking with DSL technology to deliver Internet access, according to a new report from Credit Suisse analyst Stefan Anninger.

Anninger predicts DSL will increasingly be seen as the “dial-up” service of the 2010s, as demand for more broadband speed moves beyond what most phone companies are willing or able to provide.  Credit Suisse’s analysis says DSL accounts sold in the United States top out at an average speed of just 4Mbps, while consumers are increasingly seeking out service at speeds of at least 7Mbps.  The higher speeds are necessary to support high quality online video and the ability for multiple users in a household to share a connection without encountering speed slowdowns.

A lack of investment by landline providers to keep up with cable broadband speeds will prove costly to phone companies, according to Anninger. He believes a growing number of Americans understand cable and fiber-based broadband deliver the highest speeds, and consumers are increasingly dropping DSL for cable and fiber competitors.  Any investments now may be a case of “too little, too late,” especially if they only incrementally improve DSL speeds.

Anninger says providers may be able to offer up to 18Mbps in five years by deploying ADSL 2+ or VDSL technology, but by that time cable operators will be providing speeds up to 200Mbps, and many municipal providers will have gigabit speeds available.

The impact on phone company broadband market share will prove bleak for phone companies in all but the most rural areas, Anninger predicts.  He says by 2015, cable companies will have secured 56 percent of the market (up by 2 percent from today), phone companies will drop from 30 percent to just 15 percent, Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-verse, and wireless broadband will each control around 7 percent of the market, with the remainder split among municipal fiber, satellite, and other technologies.

Anninger is also pessimistic about wireless broadband being a wired broadband replacement in the next five years.

A Credit Suisse online survey of 1,000 consumers in August found that less than half would consider going wireless only.  The reasons?  It’s too slow, too expensive and most plans have Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles.

Although cable companies are on track to be the big winners in broadband market share, still have one giant hurdle to overcome — a lousy image.  Just 36 percent of cable customers say they are “very satisfied” with their local provider.  More than 60% of FiOS and U-verse’s broadband customers said they are “very satisfied” with the services these advanced telephone company networks provide.  Consumer Reports has regularly awarded top honors to Verizon FiOS for the last several years.

Independent phone companies and smaller cable operators routinely score at the bottom, typically because they are relying on outdated technology to supply service.

This makes the marketplace ripe for disaffected consumers to jump to an alternative provider.  Unfortunately, as most Americans face a duopoly of the cable company they hate and the phone company that doesn’t deliver the services they want, there is no place for them to go.

Anninger also predicts the risk of broadband reform by reclassifying broadband under Title II at the Federal Communications Commission is now “minimal.”  That suggests Net Neutrality enforcement at the FCC is not a priority.  The Credit Suisse analyst says if action hasn’t been taken by winter or spring of next year, it’s a safe bet the Commission will never re-assert its authority.