Phillip "Darn, they didn't pick my essay" Dampier

Time Warner Cable paid $20,000 for a report that concludes, “policymakers not only need to focus on the oft-stated long-term goal of encouraging Fiber-To-The-Home but also on the more immediate need to bring fiber significantly closer to the customer.”

That declaration was included in one of five essays released this week by Time Warner Cable’s Research Program.  When we first wrote about this program in February, we were convinced that the resulting essays would parrot the cable company’s public policy agenda.  We were largely right, especially in those that delved into public policy matters.  They stayed safely inside the company’s policy boundaries.  Even those who focused on technical matters avoided directly challenging the company writing the check.

The cable company earlier announced it would pay $20,000 stipends to essayists that wrote research reports on these questions:

• How are broadband operators coping with the explosive growth in Internet traffic? Will proposed limits on network management practices impede innovation and threaten to undermine consumers’ enjoyment of the Internet?
• How can policymakers harmonize the objectives of preventing anticompetitive tactics and preserving flexibility to engage in beneficial forms of network management?
• Regarding these issues, describe a vision for the architecture of cable broadband networks that promotes and advances innovation for the future of digital communications.
• How might Internet regulations have an impact on underserved or disadvantaged populations?

The winners:

• Dale N. Hatfield, executive director, Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology and Entrepeneurship, University of Colorado, “The Challenge of Increasing Broadband Capacity.”
• John G. Palfrey, Jr., Henry N., Ess III professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “The Challenge of Developing Effective Public Policy on the Use of Social Media by Youth.”
• Nicole Turner-Lee, vice president and director, Media and Technology Institute, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, “The Challenge of Increasing Civic Engagement in the Digital Age.”
• Scott J. Wallsten, vice president for Research and Senior Fellow, Technology Policy Institute, “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.”
• Christopher S. Yoo, professor of Law & Communciations, University of Pennsylvania Law School, “The Challenge of New Patterns in Internet Usage.”

Among the reports were a few that echoed the cable industry’s public policy agenda, particularly Scott Wallsten’s policy essay, “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.” Wallsten is an industry favorite.  He works for the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten's essay parrots the cable industry's agenda

Wallsten argues worrying about residential broadband service is far less important than delivering broadband improvements to businesses to spur economic growth.  Part of the money to do that might come from raising residential broadband prices.  Wallsten points out consumers are willing to pay far more than they do today for their broadband accounts — up to $80 a month for today’s typical access speeds.  That’s music to an Internet Overcharger’s ears.

Wallsten’s essay hints that broadband expansion to the unserved, and Washington’s focus on broadband competition, might be misplaced if they are looking for the biggest economic bang for the buck.  His overall conclusion?  Worry about business broadband, not home residential use.

This is hardly new territory for Mr. Wallsten, who in 2007 wrote a piece warning of the perils of flat rate, unlimited use broadband pricing for the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute, both great friends of large industry players. Only this time, he got a nice chuck of change from Time Warner Cable ratepayers.

More remarkable was Dale Hatfield’s essay, “The Challenge of Increasing Broadband Capacity.” Unlike Mr. Wallsten’s cable industry public policy echo chamber, Hatfield tries to keep things technical, but also safely made sure he didn’t stray too far off Time Warner’s broadband plantation.

Hatfield discusses the challenges of different broadband technologies ranging from twisted-pair copper wiring that delivers DSL to cable’s hybrid coaxial-fiber networks and the latest generation wireless and fiber optic technologies.  Hatfield largely calls them as he sees them, noting DSL’s inherent distance limitations and maximum supportable speeds, cable’s potential for last-mile/neighborhood congestion, wireless spectrum inadequacy, and the promises fiber optics can bring to the broadband revolution if costs can be reduced.

Hatfield avoids embarrassing his benefactor too much by spending the least amount of time and space on the benefits fiber brings to the broadband expansion question:

The fourth technology, fiber optic cable, is generally regarded as the “gold standard” in terms of increasing broadband digital access capacity because of its enormous analog bandwidth and its immunity to natural and man-made forms of electrical noise and interference. The actual digital transmission rate delivered to or from a customer depends upon the details of the architecture employed, but the ultimate capacity is limited more by economic factors rather than by the inherent technical constraints on the underlying technology imposed by Shannon’s Law. In this regard, fiber optic cable is often referred to as being “future-proof” because the maximum digital transmission rates are governed more by the electronic equipment attached to the cable rather than by the actual fiber itself. It is future-proof in the sense that the capacity can be increased by upgrading the associated electronic equipment rather than by taking the more expensive step of replacing the fiber itself.

Hatfield

While Time Warner Cable does market itself as having an “Advanced Fiber Network,” it is, in reality using the same technology the cable industry has used for a decade — fiber distribution into individual towns and large neighborhoods, coaxial cable the rest of the way.  Hatfield believes that simply isn’t good enough:

[…]Both DSL and cable modem technology benefit from the shorter distances that are associated with a more dense deployment of their access nodes. This suggests the growing need to extend fiber optic cable capacity closer to the customer—either fixed or mobile—to minimize the distance between the customer and the access nodes.

Hatfield’s subtle conclusion is that broadband expansion is ultimately best served by delivering fiber-optic connections straight to the home, something Time Warner Cable has argued against and refused to provide for years, but has now paid $20,000 to put on their website:

[…]Policymakers not only need to focus on the oft-stated long-term goal of encouraging FTTH but also on the more immediate need to bring fiber significantly closer to the customer to support a vastly increased number of access nodes. This is particularly important in the wireless case, where the capacity added through frequency reuse is critical to facilitating wireless competition with the two major suppliers of fixed broadband capacity—the incumbent telephone and cable television companies.

Epix, the pay-TV channel from Viacom, Lions Gate and MGM, will -not- be coming to Time Warner Cable lineups anytime soon.

Why? Because the network ‘cheapened themselves’ when they agreed to get in bed with Netflix, which will offer online video streaming of the three studios’ movies just 90 days after appearing on the channel.

Time Warner Cable Chief Financial Officer Rob Marcus said the network did itself no favors with that deal.  He told attendees at the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Media, Communications & Entertainment Conference that Epix’s online video deal “devalued the channel.”

Epix may have irritated the cable company for another reason — it streams much of its content online for its subscribers to watch anytime they like, outside of the industry’s TV Everywhere project.

Indeed, the majority of cable operators seem to share Time Warner’s sentiment, as the new HD pay channel faces a virtual embargo from the industry’s big players, including Comcast and DirecTV.  In fact, Epix’s four million subscribers come primarily from just three companies — Verizon FiOS, DISH Network, and Cox Cable.

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Introduction to Epix.flv[/flv]

A short introduction to Epix.  (1 minute)

Forget about peer-to-peer torrents, file sharing networks, and download sites.  They are so yesterday.  Newsgroups?  That’s so last month.  No, today’s targets of Hollywood’s copyright cops are online video streaming sites that make watching pirated movies and television shows simple.  So simple, many viewers may not even realize they are watching illicitly.

At issue are video streaming sites that take uploaded video files and use them as part of one-click streaming entertainment portals.

Websites like Megavideo deliver thousands of shows and movies to viewers who want to watch online.  These sites bypass video “pay-walls” that limit viewing thanks to an army of volunteers who capture copies of programming and then upload them to file storage sites.  Previously, those who wanted to watch had to download multi-part files and use software to put the pieces back together.  With online streaming of that content, it’s as easy as watching Hulu.

The Los Angeles Times lifted the lid on the world of underground online viewing in a piece that sounds the alarm for the next generation of video piracy:

Streaming video is the most visible sign of how Internet piracy has evolved since the days of Napster and its imitators. The new digital black market combines “cyberlockers,” such as Megaupload and Hotfile, which piracy experts say hold stores of pilfered content, with linking sites such as TVDuck and TVShack.cc, which act like an underground version of TV Guide, helping people locate bootlegged TV shows and movies. Some of these linking sites even contain reviews and recommendations that lend a patina of legitimacy.

[…]File-sharing remains the primary source for pirated digital copies of songs, movies, TV episodes and video games. But use has stagnated as media companies have enjoyed greater success in crippling or shutting down popular sites such as Mininova and Isohunt, said Eric Garland, chief executive of BigChampagne, a media tracking firm. Streaming and downloading from so-called cyberlockers are on track to surpass peer-to-peer use by 2013, according to the Motion Picture Assn. of America, Hollywood’s lobbying arm.

[…]The fear is nonetheless palpable throughout the entertainment industry. Executives worry that improvements in Internet speeds and in the software that compresses movie files into easy-to-distribute packages are making matters worse.

“It’s made streaming a lot less clunky than it was even three years ago,” said Darcy Antonellis, president of Warner Bros. Technical Operations.

[…]To strengthen the government’s hand against online piracy, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and senior Republican member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on Monday introduced a bill that would give the Justice Department more tools to track and shut down websites devoted to providing access to unauthorized downloads, streaming and sale of copyrighted content.

Back in July, Stop the Cap! shared the story of Mark Williams, an eager new customer for Time Warner Cable in Lee, Massachusetts.  The only thing getting in the way of Williams’ desire to shower the cable company with money for its triple-play Internet, cable, and phone service was the $12,000 fee the cable company sought to install it.

That sparked a major incident with Lee’s Board of Selectmen, who called the installation fee “ridiculous.”  It warned the cable company they were prepared to vote Tuesday night to sanction the company, taking money from the $10,000 Time Warner posted with the town as part of its local license agreement, if it didn’t relent.

At issue was Time Warner’s reasoning for the high installation fee, invoking a “long driveway clause” Malcolm Chisholm Jr., of Lee’s Cable Advisory Committee argued was an incorrect interpretation of the town’s license agreement.  Chisholm told The Berkshire Eagle the contract entitles all homes to cable service if electric and telephone service already are available.

Before the board voted, Williams reported the cable company verbally agreed to reduce the installation fee to $4,000.

“They’ve given me a price, but it’s still not cheap,” Williams said. “I’m looking to find an independent contractor who will do the job cheaper.”

Williams acknowledged the cost would be even lower, but he wants the cable buried between his home and the nearest utility pole, which is 500 to 600 feet away. He has his electricity service underground to his home on Fernside Road, near the Tyringham town line.

Time Warner’s typical installation fee of $35 covers up to 200 feet — above ground — with the rest of any necessary cost borne by the subscriber. Williams said he didn’t seek a cost estimate from Time Warner for an above-ground installation.

[…]In a similar case three years ago, Time Warner agreed to drop its claim that a homeowner on Antelope Drive in Lee pay $1,102 for cable installation. The company’s decision followed the town also threatening the company with financial penalties. However, Time Warner officials said the reversal was based on the individual case, rather than agreeing to the town’s interpretation of the contract regarding installation.

University of Texas students living in a Richardson on-campus apartment complex are stuck paying a mandatory $15 monthly “technology fee” for AT&T-provided Wi-Fi service that works so poorly, many residents are signing up with other providers and paying twice for Internet access.

Residents of Waterview Park have complained about Wi-Fi access inside the complex for some time, but they were never forced to pay for it until May, when the complex’s governing board notified residents that the mandatory fee would be imposed once AT&T took over the service.

Although AT&T doesn’t bill for, or collect the fee, they do provide the service, and students have complained loudly about its weak signals and poor performance.

The Mercury, the university newspaper, ran a story this weak outlining the complaints:

A sample lease agreement obtained from Waterview shows the mandatory technology fee of $15/month.

Computer science junior Kenny Rodriguez said the problems stem from the use of hotspot Wi-Fi as residential internet for students. Hotspot Wi-Fi generally broadcasts an internet signal from a fixed location that becomes weaker the further you move away from it.

“When I was living in building 29, my roommates and I could only pick up a signal by standing in one corner of the living room,” junior Michael Stettler said.

Stettler and his roommates moved to building 31 and are now able to pick up a signal in two of their bedrooms, albeit a slow one.

Rodriguez, who lives in building 8, can only pick up a signal in his living room and sometimes can’t even log on to use it.

“Frequently, the access points are broadcasting but aren’t routing traffic anywhere,” Rodriguez said.

Once a student finds a place in his apartments where a signal can be received, the speed of the connection becomes a problem because the more students who share the available bandwidth the slower the speed becomes.

“It was decently fast at the beginning of this school year, then when everyone came back for fall it crawled to like a tenth or a fifth of a MB per second,” Stettler said.

Waterview’s management has been forced to issue refunds of up to $30 to affected students for poor or non-existent service, but the complex won’t waive the ongoing monthly fee, despite the fact the service can’t deliver much more than 1Mbps on a good day.

Several residents opted to sign up with other providers instead, paying $30 a month or more for service they can actually use.  Stettler and his three roommates decided it was worth it and signed up with Time Warner Cable for 15Mbps service.

The student newspaper took note of another bulletin issued by Waterview management issued August 31 that claimed every resident would have reliable internet within the next 7-14 days or else a non-specific contingency plan would be implemented.

“Nobody has actually stated what will happen if AT&’T doesn’t make their service reliable,” Rodriguez told the paper.” They’ve just vaguely implied that something will happen.”

Twenty-two days later, students report no verifiable improvements have been made in the reliability of the network or the service.