More than a year ago, Comcast temporarily suspended its nationwide 250GB usage cap to study its impact and consider what to do about increasing broadband traffic.

For the majority of Comcast customers, this means the provider has ditched its usage cap altogether, allowing customers to use their broadband service without limits.

“This is the way it should have been all along, especially considering how much I spend every month for Comcast broadband,” says Comcast customer Geoff Cox. “I think usage caps at these prices are unacceptable. If Comcast stops antagonizing me, I will reward them with more of my business.”

For Cox, that meant one week after the cap was lifted, he upgraded his service from Performance to Blast. His usage did not immediately increase that much and Comcast now gets more of his money.

“We do about 280GB a month today between me, my wife and our four kids,” Cox tells Stop the Cap! “When the third one becomes a teenager, we will probably upgrade again to Extreme because of all the streamed media being used in this house.”

But if Comcast brings back the cap, Cox will downgrade his service back to where he started.

“AT&T U-verse isn’t much competition for Comcast broadband because U-verse is slower and their 250GB cap I can see getting enforced when AT&T smells money,” Cox tells us. “As I have told my family, usage caps are not acceptable and we have to take a stand somewhere and let them know caps will cost them business, not earn them more money.”

Whether Comcast will listen remains unknown. The company has said little about its usage cap program since suspending it May 17, 2012. At that time, Comcast did say they had not given up on usage caps in principle — they just wanted a more flexible approach while managing those caps.

Last May, the company announced two trials to test which direction Comcast would take with respect to limiting broadband usage.

In Nashville, Comcast increased the usage allowance for all tiers to 300GB per month and planned to sell additional gigabytes in increments of $10 per 50GB;

In Tucson, Comcast adopted variable usage allowances depending on the type of service a customer selected:

• Economy 300GB
• Economy Plus 300GB
• Internet Essentials 300GB
• Performance Starter 300GB
• Performance 300GB
• Blast 350GB
• Extreme 50 450GB
• Extreme 105 600GB

The rest of Comcast customers get to test unlimited service, at least until the company determines whether it actually needs caps at all. Cox does not think the company does.

“Cable broadband upgrades have really made neighborhood congestion a non-issue and while the company keeps raising the price of broadband service, their costs keep dropping.”

Rogers customers may now have to pay to read their monthly bills.

Eastern Canada’s biggest cable company wants you to use your broadband service to check your balance, unless you are willing to pay a $2 monthly “paper bill fee.”

Rogers had charged new wireless customers (along with anyone making changes to their account) a $2 paper billing fee since 2011, but now everyone will pay if they want a hard copy.

At the same time the company is adding a new billing fee, it is taking away two popular cable channels in a move the company describes as part of “our ongoing commitment at Rogers to deliver a superior television experience.”

Fewer channels might bring better value if the company reduced the cost of your cable package, but don’t worry about that:

“Please be assured that there will be no change to your Rogers cable TV rates and all other aspects of your service(s) will remain the same,” a company letter said. “We apologize for any inconvenience these changes may cause.”

The inconvenience will be greatest for fans of BBC World who will now have to upgrade to a high-end package to keep watching the popular global news channel. It was stripped out of the basic lineup.

Spike is also getting the spike, kicked into a higher-end package at the same time existing customers see no corresponding decrease in their rates.

The sneaky price increase is not going over well with many Rogers customers, according to the Toronto Star.

Back in the fall of 2010, British billionaire Alki David fired a salvo against major broadcast networks in the United States and United Kingdom with the introduction of FilmOn, an online cable system offering unlimited viewing of broadcast networks from both countries for around $10 a month. By early 2011, lawsuits from various networks forced the removal of the most-watched channels, and most of the incentive for subscribers to keep paying for the service.

But David has never given up on FilmOn, and borrowing a page from Aereo’s business plan, he has brought back most of the major American networks on his relaunched platform, dubbed AereoKiller.

The company claims it is now using individual over-the-air antennas to receive broadcast stations from the New York or Washington, D.C. area, selling 24/7 streaming access for $9.99 per month or $99 a year. DVR service is sold at prices ranging from $2.95 a month to $190 a year, depending on the number of hours recorded.

Among the stations included:

New York

• WCBS (CBS)
• WNBC (NBC)
• WNYW (FOX)
• WABC (ABC)
• Bounce TV (via WWOR subchannel)
• WPIX (CW)
• WNET (PBS)/WNET-Kids
• WNJU (Telemundo)

Washington, D.C.

• WRC (NBC)
• WTTG (FOX)
• WJLA (ABC)
• WUSA (CBS)

There seem to be no geographic restrictions to prevent out of area viewers from subscribing, and FilmOn offers viewing on the desktop, as well as through iOS and Android apps.

David

FilmOn may have avoided streaming west coast stations because a California court found in favor of broadcasters who sued to shut down the operation three years earlier. But it ultimately will not keep David’s upstart service out of the courts in the east.

Last week, three major television networks and Washington, D.C. station owner Allbritton Communications filed suit against FilmOn for streaming signals from the nation’s capital without permission.

Based on the track record of earlier ventures, customers may want to avoid subscribing at the annual package price. Historically, broadcasters have fought and won temporary restraining orders that block the streaming services until the case makes its way through legal proceedings. Aereo, which streams New York area television stations exclusively to New York City customers has proven the exception and continues to run, at least for now.

Broadcasters consider stopping “dime-sized” antenna farm streaming services like Aereo and AereoKiller a top priority, because networks and local stations earn lucrative retransmission consent rights fees from cable, satellite, and telco-TV providers used by at least 90 percent of the viewing audience. Should these alternative technologies be found legal and not in violation of copyright, pay television providers could potentially license and incorporate similar technology into their respective set-top boxes and avoid paying license fees to station and network owners.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FilmOn Introduction 5-13.mp4[/flv]

FilmOn’s introductory promotional video features some boastful claims from founder Alki David that are perhaps more wishful thinking than reality, but PlayOn has persisted despite broadcaster lawsuits by creating and distributing original live and recorded programming.  (8 minutes)

All Arcadia, N.Y. town supervisor Dick Colacino wanted was for Time Warner Cable to consider using some of their profits to expand their cable system by one or two roads a year to offer service where it has earlier refused to go.

Time Warner Cable’s response? No.

But Time Warner might turn that “no” into “yes” if customers offer to cover the cable company’s estimated cost of $22,000 per overhead mile to extend cable service down ignored rural roads. Underground wiring costs much more.

Every year, elected officials in just about every small town and village get an earful of complaints from bypassed residents who cannot get cable broadband service.

Arcadia (pop. 14,900) is a small community in Wayne County, east of Rochester. Time Warner Cable dominates western and central New York, with cable service from Albany west to Buffalo. In Wayne County alone, Time Warner is the only cable provider in the 23 largest municipalities. But the company has routinely skipped over potential service areas it considers not worth a wiring investment. That leaves bypassed residents with one choice for broadband — Verizon Communications, which has not expanded DSL service in the area for some time.

The New York Public Service Commission has mandated that cable service must be available to any area where 35 homes per mile are located within 150 feet of the road.

Time Warner representative Chris Mueller says the cable operator has already cut that benchmark to 20 miles per home, but areas remain that do not meet even that reduced standard. Without an appropriate return on investment within a certain time frame, Time Warner Cable won’t wire those areas for service.

Colacino told Mueller he was very unhappy with that decision and intended to pursue the matter at franchise renewal time, possibly in coordination with other communities that also have a number of bypassed residents. A community can negotiate for changes during franchise renewal talks, but in almost every case, the incumbent cable operator holds the strongest position, knowing a community looking for another provider will be unlikely to find one willing to serve.

Colacino has battled with the cable company since at least 2010 because of complaints from area residents and businesses who cannot get service.

That year, a Time Warner Cable government affairs representative offered Colacino a novel solution to the problem — agree to refund collected franchise fees to Time Warner Cable, after which the company would consider using the money to expand service to more roads in Arcadia.

The only problem with that solution is that it is illegal.

“You can’t do that,” town attorney David Saracino responded. “It’s an unconstitutional gift of public monies.”

Despite findings from an independent consultant that reported West Virginia wasted millions on a broadband expansion effort that effectively built a private, taxpayer-funded fiber network for Frontier Communications, the governor’s office abruptly canceled a 2011 follow-up state audit of the $126.3 million project.

The Charleston Gazette reports Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s office said it dropped the audit because Frontier “answered or addressed” issues raised in a memo produced by an out-of-state independent consulting firm.

ICF’s document was so scathing of the state government’s handling of federal broadband stimulus funds, the governor’s office kept it secret until a copy was independently leaked to the Charleston newspaper. The governor’s office said it initially withheld the “internal memorandum” produced by Vienna, Va.-based ICF International because it proved “embarrassing to some people.”

Among ICF’s findings:

• Taxpayers underwrote the construction of a Frontier Communications’ owned and operated fiber broadband network so fragmented in its construction, the only entity likely to benefit is Frontier Communications;
• ICF found West Virginia’s broadband grant program created an “unintended monopoly” for Frontier Communications, and an unusable ‘open access’ network except for Frontier;”
• Frontier’s documentation and expense reports, submitted for reimbursement by taxpayers were inadequate and could have resulted in double billing;
• Frontier overbuilt its network with excessive numbers of fiber strands three to six times above industry standards, driving up construction costs.

Frontier’s called the ICF report “worthless” and accused the consultant of using inaccurate and stale comments that repeat “previously repudiated allegations.”

Frontier also produced its own company-sponsored “external audit” of its work on the $126.3 million broadband project that found “no material deficiencies.”

But ICF says it is standing by its report, and documented instances where the state authorized Frontier to spend significant sums to build fiber connections to community institutions that were later scaled back by the company. Whether Frontier was paid for the originally scheduled work, or for the scaled back construction eventually completed, is unknown.

At this point, ICF reports it is resigned to the fact Frontier will be a major beneficiary of the taxpayer-funded fiber infrastructure and the state has few options to fix the problems they created. The consultant firm says the only workable option would be a joint effort by Frontier’s competitors to build, at their own expense, a “middle-mile, open-access network” that can interconnect with Frontier’s taxpayer-funded network, assuming Frontier will allow it.

A major critic of the broadband stimulus program in West Virginia, Citynet President Jim Martin, has long said the broadband project was primarily going to benefit Frontier.

In September 2010, Martin told the Gazette, “Frontier is going to have the state’s business forever. No other company will have the money to come in and build the network.”

Two months later, Martin was back ringing the alarm bell before more than $126 million in taxpayer funds were spent.

“The state represented it would build a ‘middle-mile’ network reaching 700,000 homes and 100,000 businesses, and it would be this great new superhighway and do all the things the federal government is seeking,” Martin told the Gazette. “But afterward, Citynet and others got to look and it looks like it is a windfall for Frontier Communications only.”

“We’ll ultimately prove this was a complete sham and didn’t benefit anybody,” Martin said. “We’re here. We’re not going anywhere. We totally recognize this is going to be a long battle unless the Broadband Council or the new governor or the next governor does something. We’re going to be on this for however many years it takes. We’re going to hold the state accountable for every single dollar they’re spending. At the end of the day we will show that no jobs were created, there’s no benefit to the citizens of West Virginia. Hopefully we’ll show this was all about Frontier.”

Three years later, Martin is still trying to get accurate broadband maps that depict exactly where Frontier has laid its publicly funded fiber infrastructure. Apparently they are secret, too.