Cable's Fear Factor: the Online Video Threat

[Updated 12:11pm EDT: Scott McNulty from Comcast notes in our comment section that the TV Everywhere concept will count against the 250GB usage allowance Comcast grants residential broadband customers, and suggests the concept is non-exclusive and voluntary.  We debate Scott on that point — see the Comments below the article to follow along and add your thoughts.]

The best kept secret in the broadband industry is now out.  Stop the Cap! reader Lou dropped us a note to say the New York Times has decided to let cable’s big secret out of the bag in an article published today entitled, “Cable TV’s Big Worry: Taming the Web.”  Lou writes, “finally, the mainstream media is pointing out that the real threat to Time Warner Cable and others is Hulu.”

In addition to the obsession to “monetize” content that is currently given away for free online, many in the cable industry believe the best way to tame the web is to control the content and method of distribution.  If you subscribe to a cable TV package, you’re approved.  If you don’t, no online video for you!  Once accessibility is limited to those “authenticated” to access the content, a handful of companies can determine exactly who can obtain their video programming, for how long, and at what price.  For everyone else not going along, discouraging ‘unauthorized’ viewing and disrupting underground distribution are powerful tools for providers to protect their video business model.

What is the best way to do that?  Internet Overcharging schemes of course.  By raising the alarm that online video growth will create a tsunami-like wave of Internet brownouts and traffic jams, and by trying to pit subscribers against one another based on perceptions of their usage, the message that will be part of any cable industry “education” campaign is that limits, tiers, fees, and penalties are the answer to all of these problems.  Watching Hulu every night?  Naughty. With this 20GB monthly limit, we’ll put a stop to that.  Netflix movie tonight?  Do you really want to risk going over your allowance and incurring “necessary” overlimit fees and penalties that represent more than 1,000% markup over our actual costs?  Wouldn’t it be fairer to your neighbors to watch HBO on your cable package instead?

Is it Fair for Big Trucks to Pay More On the Information Superhighway Because They’ll Wear It Out Faster?

In cities across the country, those interested in Internet Overcharging schemes are already engaged in focus group testing.  We know, because some of our readers have been stealth participants, informing us about all of their pretzel-like logic twisting games designed to convince the public that cable and telephone companies are not going to gouge you again with a higher bill.  Some want to use toll road analogies, others are using gas and electric comparisons, and one had the novel idea of putting a plate of food in the middle of the conference table and asking if it would be fair for just one person to eat 75% of it while the rest “go hungry.”

Unfortunately for them, by the end of the session, two of our readers attending two different panels derailed their efforts and had panels eating out of their hands in opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes, and collected a nice $75 (and uncapped lunch) for their efforts.

The Times piece only adds more evidence to help make the case that Internet Overcharging schemes aren’t about broadband fairness — they are part of a protection racket to protect fat profits earned from selling video packages to consumers.

Aware of how print, music and broadcast television have suffered severe business erosion, the chief executives of the major media conglomerates like Time Warner, Viacom and NBC Universal have made protecting cable TV from the ravages of the Internet perhaps their top priority.

“The majority of profits for the big entertainment companies is from cable programming,” said Stephen B. Burke, the president of Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company.

The major worry is that if cable networks do not protect the fees from paying subscribers, and offer most programming online at no cost — as newspapers have done — then customers may eventually cancel their cable subscriptions.

It’s My Cousin’s Fault

In other words, you and I are probably not the biggest threat the industry faces from the ultimate nightmare of eroding profits.  It’s really my cousin’s fault.  He, like many in their 20s, moved into his new home and didn’t do what many of us routinely did when we moved — start the newspaper service, connect the telephone line, and get the cable TV hooked up.

He did call Time Warner Cable — to only install Road Runner broadband Internet service.  He reads the news online, relies exclusively on a cell phone, and watches DVD’s and online video on his giant flat panel television.

The cable industry is horrified my cousin represents their future.

There is no sign of that happening anytime soon, but a recent poll by the Sanford C. Bernstein research group found that about 35 percent of people who watch videos online might cut their cable subscription within five years.

“We don’t think that it’s a problem now, but we do feel a sense of urgency,” Mr. Burke said.

An Urgency to Overcharge

Like most industries that have grown fat and happy on their traditional business models, the most common first response to a challenge to that model is to resist it.  The cable industry in particular has enjoyed a largesse of profits earned from years of de facto monopoly status in most communities, with the majority of its services being largely unregulated.  Cable rate increases have almost always exceeded the rate of inflation, and the public relations talking points for those rate increases has always been, “due to increased programming costs, which represent the increasing diversity and excellence of the cable channels we provide you….”

With prices for “basic/standard service” cable now approaching $60 a month, many younger customers just aren’t interested anymore.

Watching consumers abandon cable television packages for access through broadband gives executives and Wall Street analysts like Sanford C. Bernstein heartburn.  Until recently, many customers never contemplated the idea of getting rid of video packages and just keeping the broadband service they already have.  Not until Hulu.  That one website now represents a considerable amount of online video traffic from subscribers, and the cable industry isn’t in control of it, much less profiting from it.

Hulu represents a threat to be resisted.

You Use Too Much Internet, So We’ll Create Something That Will Make You Use More

To be fair to everyone, we have to get rid of the flat rate plan you’ve enjoyed for more than a decade and replace it with tiered pricing to be “fair” to subscribers because of enormous traffic growth. That what Time Warner Cable customers heard during a planned nonsensical trial of an Internet Overcharging scheme in four American cities, rapidly shelved when consumers rebelled and New York Congressman Eric Massa and Senator Charles Schumer got interested (Rochester, NY was a selected trial city).

It becomes all the more ludicrous as subscribers learn Time Warner Cable’s answer to the traffic jam is to add even more traffic… their traffic… onto their broadband lines.

Evidently online video is only a crisis requiring urgent action when it isn’t their online video.

One idea, advanced most vocally by Jeffrey L. Bewkes, the chairman of Time Warner, and embraced by many executives, would be to offer cable shows online for no extra charge, provided a viewer is first authenticated as a cable or satellite subscriber.

Mr. Bewkes has called the idea “TV Everywhere,” but others in the industry refer to it by other names: “authentication,” “entitlement,” and Comcast has called its coming service “OnDemand Online.”

“If you look at TV viewing, it’s up, even though the questions and stories are all about the role of video games and Internet usage and other uses of time,” Mr. Bewkes said.

The first test of the new system, which will authenticate cable subscribers online and make available programs on the Web for no additional charge, will be announced Wednesday, between Comcast and Time Warner. The trial will involve about 5,000 Comcast subscribers, and television shows from the Time Warner networks TNT and TBS.

It will be interesting to watch whether or not “no additional charge” means such content will be exempted from Comcast’s 250GB monthly usage limit, and whether Time Warner Cable will change their Subscriber Agreement to exempt their TV Everywhere service from the existing language in their agreement permitting Internet Overcharging schemes.  Time Warner Cable already exempts their “Digital Phone” product.

Ixnay on the Coin Chatter Already

The Times piece also raises eyebrows about the potential for collusion and antitrust violations in secretive meetings among industry executives, although they deny it.

The electronic media chiefs, including Mr. Bewkes, Jeff Zucker of NBC Universal and Philippe P. Dauman of Viacom, among others, have been more careful, so as to avoid being accused of collusion: much of the discussions have been on the telephone and in private, one-on-one chats during industry events. Pricing is rarely, if ever, discussed, according to executives involved in the discussions.

“We can’t get together and talk about business terms, but we can get together to work on setting open technology standards,” said Mr. Dauman, the chief executive at Viacom, which owns cable networks like MTV, VH1, Comedy Central and BET.

Although the representations from the industry seem benign, the potential for something far worse is always there.  Control the keys to unlock the door to online video (and the tools to lock out or limit the “other guy”), and you’ve got a plan to make sure people don’t dare drop their cable video package.  Where did the online video go from your favorite cable channel website?  It’s on TV Everywhere, and you don’t get in without an invitation.

One holdout among the major chief executives appears to be Robert A. Iger of the Walt Disney Company. At an industry conference this year he warned that gambits like TV Everywhere could be “anti-consumer and anti-technology” because such a plan would place cable programming behind a pay wall.

So much for “no extra charge.”

It’s Time to Investigate

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), is the House of Representatives’ watchdog on this issue.  He’s already connected the dots and realizes they lead in only one direction — to consumers’ pocketbooks.  Massa has introduced HR 2902, the Broadband Internet Fairness Act, specifically to prevent broadband providers from falling all over themselves to engage in anti-competitive, anti-consumer price gouging, all to cover their bottom lines.

This legislation, and Rep. Massa, needs your immediate support.  Call Congress and ask your representative to co-sponsor this vitally important bill.  The New York congressman is protecting consumers nationwide, and deserves your thanks and support.

Stop the Cap! also now calls on Congress and the appropriate regulatory bodies to begin an immediate investigation into the industry’s “cooperation” to launch TV Everywhere, and other similar projects. Specifically, we ask that an appropriate and thorough review be conducted to ensure that no collusion or antitrust violations have, are, or will take place as a result of this project.  We also call for a review of the “authentication” model proposed by the cable industry to ensure it does not exclude any consumer that subscribes to a competing video provider (satellite, telephone company, competing independent cable company, municipally owned provider, etc.), and that no “free pass” language be permitted that exempts their project from the terms and conditions that they seek to impose on others not affiliated with this project.

Senator Schumer’s long history of consumer protection would make him an excellent choice to lead such an investigation.

Once again, Net Neutrality must be the law of America’s online land.  Only with the assurance of a level playing field can we be certain no provider will attempt to exert influence or special favor over content they own, control, or distribute.

The NoChokePoints Coalition has a point.  They are a coalition of public interest groups and providers like British Telecom and Sprint-Nextel that are upset with monopolistic pricing for high speed broadband lines.  Verizon and AT&T “control the broadband lines of almost every business in the United States” the coalition states, and “generates a profit margin of more than 100% for the controlling phone companies.”

“Releasing the broadband economy from the chokehold these huge phone companies have on the special access market will be a catalyst for innovation and investment in the broadband marketplace, something we desperately need,” said Maura Corbett, spokeswoman for the NoChokePoints coalition.

“Every time you send an email, withdraw money from an ATM, or use your wireless phone, your information travels on these high-capacity lines. Excessive pricing and other market abuses by these companies have long been an issue of concern at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Nearly five years ago, after many complaints by broadband customers in several FCC proceedings, the Commission began a review of the high-capacity broadband market to determine the changes needed to ensure reasonable prices. Despite ample evidence of excessive pricing, the Commission inexplicably has yet to take any action.”

“The Obama administration, Congress, and the FCC repeatedly emphasize the importance of broadband to our economic recovery and, frankly, it defies explanation that we are still fighting this market abuse,” Corbett continued. “Huge companies like Verizon and AT&T control the broadband lines of almost every business in the United States. The virtually unchallenged, exclusive control of these lines costs businesses and consumers more than $10 billion annually and generates a profit margin of more than 100 percent for the controlling phone companies, according to their own data provided to the FCC. This hidden broadband tax results in enormous losses for consumers and the economy, and this country cannot afford it; especially now.”

NoChokePoints cited four central principles of its campaign to reform the special access market: (1) the special access market is broken; (2) the outgoing Federal Communications Commission made a bad situation worse by failing to address obvious market abuse by these huge phone companies; (3) this unchecked market control continues to slow broadband deployment, compromise innovation and harm our national information economy; and (4) the resulting market failure must be corrected now.

Yes, when one or two providers get together and establish pricing for a product that is way out of line for what it costs to provide, and uses that control to further squeeze every last penny they can from customers, something should be done.

As consumers, we should agree to join the NoChokePoints coalition struggle.  There are several very credible pro-consumer organizations that support the Coalition and its goals.  And consumers like myself shall, mere seconds after:

Member BT (British Telecom) stops throttling UK customer’s broadband connections, and imposing Internet Overcharging schemes on customers through limits on their data consumption.

Member Sprint-Nextel agrees that consumers should be able to request temporary suspension of their wireless data account, currently limited to 5GB of consumption per month, the moment the limit is reached to avoid the potential of paying overlimit fees, if/when applicable.

TW Telecom gets a pass here as they are entirely independent from Time Warner Cable.

Internet Overcharging schemes, monopolistic control, abuse of market pricing, and other anti-competitive behavior should be confronted.  But companies engaged in problematic behavior themselves should not anticipate a great deal of consumer compassion towards their plight, when those consumers often are on the receiving end of that problematic behavior themselves.

Verizon FiOS, the fiber to the home service from “the phone company” in many areas around the country, today formally announced it was increasing broadband speeds for customers to provide them with better service.  FiOS often provides the fastest Internet speeds in the markets they serve, prompting speed, service, and occasionally even price wars wherever Verizon competes with cable companies.

Verizon’s strong competition makes cable think twice about conducting Internet Overcharging experiments with talk of limits, tiers, and other anti-competitive, anti-consumer pricing.

“From its inception just five years ago, Verizon FiOS has transformed the American broadband and home-entertainment experience by delivering innovative services that our competitors can’t match,” said Mike Ritter, chief marketing officer for Verizon Telecom. “Today FiOS leaps forward again with faster two-way broadband speed options that free customers to fully participate in today’s interactive, multimedia Web.”

Verizon is doubling-to-quadrupling the upstream connection speeds and increasing the downstream connection speeds of its most popular FiOS Internet offerings. The company has raised the connection speed of its entry-level FiOS Internet service from 10/2 megabits per second (Mbps) to 15/5 Mbps, and has raised the connection speed of its flagship, mid-tier offering from 20/5 Mbps to 25/15 Mbps. In New York City, on Long Island and in other New York City suburbs, FiOS Internet is even faster with a new entry-level connection speed of 25/15 Mbps, and a new mid-tier offering of 35/20 Mbps, available only in bundles.

According to a survey of residential broadband users in the U.S. by the market intelligence firm In-Stat (“US Broadband Speeds on the Rise,” In-Stat, Feb. 2009), the average upstream connection speed used by cable broadband customers is 2.68 Mbps. Verizon is offering speeds two-to-seven times faster than this typical cable upload speed.

Verizon’s standard service plan offers new customers in many areas some dramatic improvements, leaving services like Time Warner Cable and Comcast in less competitive areas in the dust:

Verizon FiOS Standard Service (outside of NYC/Long Island) (was 10Mbps/2Mbps) is now 15Mbps/5Mbps
Time Warner Rochester Standard Service remains 10Mbps/384kbps
Price per month $45 (TWC charges $5 less if you are a cable customer)

Verizon FiOS (‘Faster’ Plan) (outside of NYC/Long Island) (was 20Mbps/5Mbps) is now 25Mbps/15Mbps
Time Warner Rochester Turbo Plan remains 15Mbps/1Mbps
Verizon plan is $65 per month, Time Warner Turbo is cheaper but has much slower upload speeds, and runs around $50 a month.

The new speeds are available to new customers or those existing customers who wish to upgrade to a new contract with Verizon (one year term commitments are common for FiOS).  But customers who sign up for a bundle package of telephone, broadband, and video service will also receive a free Flip Ultra Camcorder or Compaq Mini Netbook.

Of course, where Verizon FiOS does not compete, expect more of the same from incumbent providers, who continue to contemplate ways to extract more money from customer’s wallets for the exact same, comparatively slow service.

Time Warner Cable’s Rochester, New York division has been playing hardball in Frontier Communications’ largest metropolitan service area for years, running ads that attack Frontier’s term contracts, inconsistent broadband speeds, hidden “extras”, and the fact customers might sign a contract today and be dissatisfied with the service tomorrow.

This morning, Time Warner Cable upped the ante with new ads, telling Frontier’s Rochester area customers who would prefer phone or broadband service from the cable company that they’ll cover up to $200 in fees Frontier charges for exiting a term contract early.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TW-Frontier Ad War 6-22-09.flv[/flv]

There is, of course, the fine print:

Offer expires 6/26/09.  Up to $200 one-time credit available to current Frontier phone and/or DSL customers in a contract with a disconnect penalty who provide their Frontier bill evidencing early disconnect charge.  Credit will be applied to Time Warner Cable account after customer is installed with Digital Phone Nationwide and/or Road Runner Standard Service and within two weeks after customer supplies copy of Frontier bill to TWC showing the applicable cancellation penalty.  Credit will be equal to the amount of the early disconnect charge, not to exceed $200.  One credit per qualified household.  Customer must keep TWC services for a minimum of 12 months or the up to $200 credit will be charged back to their TWC account.

What Time Warner Cable has just effectively done is to get the subscriber out of one term contract with Frontier, and into another… with them.

AT&T’s pushback on Rep. Massa’s consumer protection legislation brought quite a reaction when it invoked the vision of “grandma” overpaying for her broadband account.  The Contact form here got a workout well into this afternoon, from upset grandmothers who attack AT&T for presuming they couldn’t spot a raw deal when they saw one:

Irene from Austin:

AT&T thinks they are so smart about getting us to believe them.  I’ve got five grandkids and raised four daughters and one son.  If they couldn’t pull a fast one on me, AT&T sure can’t. God didn’t put me on this earth to be stupid or He wouldn’t have given me a brain.  I don’t use that much Internet myself, but when the kids come over, the computer is the first thing they head for, and they’re doing everything on it. Heaven help people who don’t know about this hot air meter they want to stick us with, because they’ll be blown over when the bill comes. I’m not buying this one bit.

Dee from Thomasville, North Carolina:

I told Time Warner Cable they could come get their boxes and wires out of my house the minute they wanted to run this plan on us. Who do they think they are fooling. We grandmothers know a ripoff when we see one. I’d tell AT&T the same darn thing. Come and get your things out of my house. I’d rather not have it at all than pay even more than I do now.

“AT&T Granny” from Kernersville, North Carolina:

If Ma Bell were still alive, she’d take these greedy people out to the woodshed and set things right.

Ann from Perinton, New York:

I have their economy plan from Time Warner already.  It works just fine.  I don’t believe a word cable companies say. All they know is “price increase” and we just paid them another rate increase in February. I’m insulted by AT&T [that] thinks grandmothers like myself would be dumb enough to fall for their scams.  Now grandfathers might be something else, which is why I pay the bills in this house. When these cable companies want to let me choose what channels I want then tell me about their “fair” plan.  When cable companies and governments come to you with something called a fair plan, you know what to do. We live in New York and know better! Keep doing the right thing.

Nancy in Oklahoma:

I’m 77 years old. I’ve hated the darn phone company for 50 years. It’s always one lie after another with these people. It’s all about the money. How do they expect people to pay the bills they already get? Now these same companies want to get our tax dollars for Obama’s broadband, and then overbill us for more money? Never trust phone companies. They are almost as bad as those crooks in Washington. Not one of my children or grandchildren would work for AT&T. Where are the honest American companies that used to give you a good service at a fair price? I’ve learned a lot of things since my son gave me a computer and brought the Internet to me. But if they start telling me I have to worry about extra fees and meters to watch, I am getting rid of it. The Internet is not a credit card company.