Comcast's touch control panel delivers alarm functions, home automation, and even weather updates.

Verizon Communications, Bright House Networks, Comcast/Xfinity, and Time Warner Cable are all on the verge of making a major new push to get customers to consider signing up for home security through their respective bundled offerings.  It’s just the latest new way telecommunications companies are responding to Wall Street’s insatiable quest for growth in the average revenue earned from each customer.  But how good are these services, and how much are they going to cost?

Time Warner Cable has offered security monitoring in a number of legacy markets inherited from their former owners.  But now the company is beta testing an entirely new suite of home security applications in cities like Rochester, N.Y., with the hope of introducing the service later this year in additional markets.

Time Warner Cable and Bright House seem to be jointly testing a similar system, designed to compete with 24/7 home alarm monitoring providers like ADT or GE Home Security.  Although price points have not yet been announced, Stop the Cap! has learned the cable company intends to test a basic package of home monitoring including a limited number of monitored doors and windows for between $25-30 a month, not including upfront costs and installation.

Like other alarm providers, additional services and protected points of entry will cost extra.  The next generation of home security from Time Warner Cable will be controllable from apps for iPad and smartphones, in addition to a touchscreen control panel supplied with the system.  By integrating the system with your home broadband connection, you can stream video from security webcams and configure alerts for any number of events.

Bright House’s proposed system, for example, would let you set a text message alert when the kids got home from school.  Want to know if someone sneaked out of the house in the middle of the night?  The security system can alert you to that as well.

Comcast/Xfinity has been rolling out a similar system in some of their markets. XFINITY^® Home Security also delivers monitoring services, and provides remote access over the Internet.  It will also let you remotely control home appliances, lighting, and any installed web cameras.  Away from home and want to see if your spouse is up to no good?  Now you can quietly spy on anyone in your home while you are away.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast Home Security.flv[/flv]

XFINITY Home Security System from Comcast is explained in this promotional video from Comcast.  (3 minutes)

Comcast’s basic monitoring package doesn’t include many of the coolest add-ons like video monitoring and access to a modern touch-based control panel that also serves up weather forecasts and even sports scores.  Many customers end up with the “Preferred Package” because it delivers a much wider range of protective services.  The service tested successfully in Houston and is now also available in Philadelphia, Portland, Jacksonville, Sarasota/Naples, Chattanooga and Nashville.

Comcast didn’t reinvent the wheel with their security system.  They rebranded iControl Networks’ Open Home automation and security platform.  Pricing?  $199 for the “basic package” that didn’t impress us, or $299 for the “preferred” package which comes with the bells and whistles.  Installation is sometimes included in those prices, but a $50 “activation fee” also applies.  Expect to pay $30 for basic monitoring, $40 for “preferred” monitoring each month for a minimum of three years — an early termination fee applies if you cancel early.  Also expect to pay more for any optional extras you add.

Verizon's alarm system was promoted at this year's Consumers Electronics Show.

Verizon Communications’ new ominously-named “Home Monitoring and Control” system is powered by its fiber to the home FiOS service.  Introduced at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show, Verizon has teamed up with lock-maker Schlage, who manufactures the “smart door locks,” and Motorola, which throws in 4Home, their home automation platform.  Trane even includes a smart-thermostat, remotely controllable.

Unlike systems sold by cable competitors, Verizon’s is budget-minded, priced at just $9.99 per month.  But the system package at that price is not remotely monitored and was designed to be sold to the do-it-yourself type. For ten bucks, you get to control everything through your television set top box, smartphone, or tablet computer.  If you want more, you pay more.  An upgraded package includes remote door locking/unlocking and remote controllable webcams that you can pan and zoom.

The deluxe package throws in the remote monitoring service and a smart-home energy use suite that let’s you monitor and control energy consumption of your home appliances.

“The more services they can get someone to sign up for, the stickier that customer is to them,” said Bill Ablondi, director of home systems research for the Parks Associates market research firm.

Most systems will come with a term contract of 12-36 months, and many could fetch discounts for heavily-bundled customers.  Most insurance companies also provide up to a 15 percent discount on homeowner policies for remotely monitored burglar and fire detection systems.

For the cable and phone companies, home security could easily bring another $40 a month in revenue and put many cable bills north of $200 a month in combined services.  Since virtually all of the systems were developed by third parties, development costs are low, and since existing broadband service in most homes provides ready connectivity to an alarm monitoring center, the costs to provide the service are minimal.

For existing security companies, the pending threat of big cable and phone companies eating their business for breakfast isn’t one they are taking lying down.

ADT is developing its own suite of home automation and security monitoring, and didn’t waste anytime taking a swipe at the cable companies.

“We’ve been in this business for 135 years,” said ADT spokesman Bob Tucker, starting with telegraphs and personal security. As for Bright House and Verizon, he said, “Would you really want to trust the security of your home and family to the same people that install HBO?”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Makes a Connected Home a Reality.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s forthcoming home security and automation system is promoted in this company-supplied video.  (1 minute)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOMO Seattle Man Loses Internet for a Year 7-14-11.mp4[/flv]

Last week, Stop the Cap! shared the story of Andre Vrignaud, a 39-year-old gaming consultant in Seattle who found his Comcast Internet service shut off for a year for twice exceeding the company’s arbitrary 250GB usage cap.  The story continues to draw media attention, including this TV news report from Seattle station KOMO-TV.  Cloud computing is implicated, but Vrignaud’s cure — paying more for additional usage, strikes us as the wrong answer.  Monetizing broadband usage is a provider’s dream come true.  The better solution would be to fight to remove the cap or at least ensure residential customers can upgrade to business service, if they choose, without the year-long “ban” in place.  (3 minutes)

Andre Vrignaud of Seattle has been benched for a year by Comcast for using too much of its Internet service.

From time to time, we get reports from Comcast customers victimized by the company’s 250GB usage cap.  The nation’s largest cable broadband provider implemented that arbitrary limit back in 2008 after the Federal Communications Commission told the company they could not throttle the speeds of customers using applications like peer-to-peer file sharing software — then pegged as the usual suspect for turning “ordinary” broadband users into “data hogs.”

For at least 18 months, Comcast’s usage cap came with no measurement tools or real explanation most customers could find about what a “gigabyte” was, much less how many of them they “used” that month.  Only last year, Comcast finally rolled out usage measurement tools for customers who bother to find them on their website.  New customers signing up for service never even realize there is a usage cap until a thick brochure of legalize comes with the installer outlining the company’s Acceptable Use Policy.

Still, compared to some of the usage cap battles Stop the Cap! was fighting three years ago, Comcast was the least of our problems.  Frontier’s infamous 5GB usage allowance was the worst we’d ever seen, Cable One’s IRS-like usage policies required an academic to explain them, and Time Warner Cable’s ‘lil experiment in broadband rationing with a 40GB usage cap experiment crashed and burned soon after being announced in the lucky test cities scheduled to endure it.  That doesn’t make Comcast’s cap fair or right, but protecting consumers from these schemes requires triage.

But we remember well Comcast’s promise that it would regularly revisit and adjust its usage cap to reflect the dynamic usage of its customers.  That’s just one more broken promise from a broadband provider with an Internet Overcharging scheme.  In fact, Comcast has not moved its cap one inch since the day it was announced, although they have increased their rates.  The only thing going for the cable giant is that it doesn’t treat “250GB” as a guillotine.  In fact, the cable company only sends the usage police after the top few percent of users that exceed it, issuing a warning not to exceed the cap again during the next six months, or face a year without having the service.

This punitive policy is what Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt loves to rail against.  For him, broadband usage should never be penalized — it should be exploited for all the money the provider can possibly get from customers.  That’s why Britt favors a consumption billing system that starts off with a high monthly price for everyone, than goes much higher the more you use.  Would the neighborhood crack dealer cut you off for using too much?  Of course not.  Feeding your broadband usage habits can mean fat profits, and investors love it.

Andre Vrignaud, a 39-year-old gaming consultant in Seattle, wrote us (and many others) about his own experience with Comcast’s usage ban.  He’s a victim of it, having been warned once about usage and then ultimately told his cable modem was disabled for a year.  For Vrignaud, it was a case of using a cloud storage file backup provider, moving very high resolution images around, and having roommates.  Since Comcast counts upload and download traffic towards its usage limit, it’s not hard to see what can happen to anyone trying to back up today’s supersized hard drives.  What’s especially ironic is that Comcast itself sells online file backup services — which also counts towards your cap.

Comcast’s attitude about its decision to ban Vrignaud from its broadband service for a year was simple enough: it’s a clear cut case of violating their usage caps.  In their view, heavy users slow down broadband service for everyone else in the neighborhood.  So they set a policy that cuts them off when they use too much.

To add insult to injury, broadband-disabled Comcast customers have to call Comcast’s Retentions & Cancellations Department to get the billing stopped on his disabled service.  Vrignaud had to negotiate with a representative whose instinct is to keep you a Comcast customer at all costs, even when the company won’t allow you to be one!

But is Comcast really facing a congestion issue?  Not if you happen to be a business customer at the same address, using the exact same infrastructure that residential customers in the neighborhood use.  Business Class service has no usage limits at all — “congested neighborhood” or not.  And that is where Comcast’s argument simply starts to fall apart.

We’ve been in touch with Vrignaud privately in an effort to help him find a way back to his broadband service.  The alternative is DSL from Qwest/CenturyLink, and unless you live in an area where the phone company has upgraded their networks to support ADSL 2+ or other advanced flavors of DSL, that represents quite a speed downgrade.

Our readers have told us Comcast representatives have several unofficial ways of dealing with heavy users who have gotten their first warning from the company.  Some have told customers to sign up for a second residential account under the name of someone else in the home to allot themselves an additional 250GB of usage.  Others recommend signing up for a business account, which means no usage cap at all.  For those who have been cut off, signing up as a new customer under the name of someone else in the household usually gets you back in the door, albeit facing the same usage cap issue all over again.

The problem Vrignaud encountered is Comcast’s clumsy way of dealing with customers, like himself, who have been sentenced to a year without broadband service (from them).

Vrignaud explored the route we recommended — Business Class service — and found he couldn’t sign up.  Evidently Comcast’s ban is tied to his personal Social Security number, and when he tried to enroll in Business Class service using it, he was stopped dead in his tracks.

Turns out that once Comcast has cut your broadband account for violating their data cap policy you are verboten from being a Comcast customer for 1 year. That’s right:

After being cut off from Comcast’s consumer internet plan due to using too much data, I’m told I’m ineligible to use Comcast’s recommended solution, their business internet plan that allows the unlimited use of data — solely because I made the mistake of actually using “too much” data in the first place.

As the sales rep said in my Google Voicemail message, “what’s interesting is that if you would have started off on the business side of the house, since we don’t have a cap limitations [sic] you would’ve been fine.”

Vrignaud also mentioned he was unsure if Comcast required a business Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) in order to sign up for Business Class service.  In fact, for our readers who have gone this route, it turned out not to be necessary.  They just put their Social Security number in the space reserved for a TIN and had no problems.  Vrignaud would have a problem, however, because his Social Security number is effectively “poisoned” for the year.  He would need to obtain a specific kind of TIN — an Employer Identification Number (EIN) to proceed.  Luckily, it takes less than five minutes to apply for one online and is free.  The number displayed at the end of the process would be the one to use with Comcast.  An alternative suggestion would be to sign up for service under the name of someone else in the household.

For those on Comcast’s bad side, there is more hoop-jumping to get your service back than at the Ringling Bros. circus.

Should all this even be necessary?

Broadband service carries up to a 90% profit margin.

Stop the Cap! thinks not.  While Comcast may have endured last-mile congestion on its shared cable broadband network in days past, the company’s aggressive upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology makes congestion-based usage limits more of an excuse than a reality.  Comcast is pitching faster broadband speeds than ever, all hampered by the same 250GB usage limit.  While residential and business class customers share the same physical cable lines strung across neighborhoods, one faces a usage cap and the other does not.  It’s simply not credible.  Comcast’s punitive usage cap scheme throws away their own customers and the revenue they bring.

Vrignaud wants the option of getting his service back, perhaps by buying additional usage.  That’s Time Warner Cable’s dream-come-true, and one we are concerned about.  Once broadband usage is limited and monetized, it becomes a commodity that can be priced to earn enormous additional revenue for cable operators, regardless of the actual cost of providing the service.  That’s a dangerous precedent in today’s duopolistic broadband marketplace, because the cost per gigabyte will likely be on the order of a thousand times or more the actual cost, with no competitive pressure to keep that cost down.  That’s how Canada ended up in its Internet Overcharging pickle, where providers call $1.50-$5 per gigabyte “reasonable,” even though it costs them only pennies (and dropping) to deliver.  Some providers are even raising those prices, even as their costs plummet.  That’s not a road we want the cable or telephone industry walking down, or else we’ll find today’s enormous cable TV bills pale in comparison to the outrageous broadband service bills of the future.  Time Warner Cable provided a helpful preview in 2009 when they proposed unlimited 15/1Mbps residential service at the low, low price of $150 a month.

Vrignaud is just one more example of why Internet Overcharging risks America’s broadband future.  It’s an end run around Net Neutrality, its arbitrary, and unjustified.  The rest of the world is racing to discard what they called congestion pricing almost as fast as America’s providers (and their Wall Street cheerleaders) are racing towards Internet Overcharging.  The United States should be following Canada’s lead and hold providers to account for this kind of Internet pricing and force them to prove its warranted, or be rid of it.  With virtually every provider earning enormous profits off Internet service at today’s speed-based pricing, there remains no justification to overcharge customers for their broadband usage.

Cox alienates their customers.

Six of the 19 ‘Most Hated Companies in America’ are big cable, satellite and phone companies.  The list, published this month by The Atlantic magazine, call out the perpetrators of bad customer service, high prices, and in the case of Time Warner Cable (#3) — Internet Overcharging.

The American Customer Satisfaction Index rates companies based on thousands of surveys. In the latest index, the most-hated companies include large banks, airlines, power and telecom companies.  Especially called out this year was Time Warner Cable, celebrating a decade of public relations blunders ranging from gouging experiments on Internet service pricing, showing pornography on children’s channels, high rates, and downright lousy service in some areas.  And with CEO Glenn Britt entertaining a return to Internet rate gouging, the company’s 59/100 score still has plenty of room to fall.

#3 — Time Warner Cable (59/100) — All of the above, plus sexually harassing a North Carolina customer.

#4 — Comcast (59/100) –Dreadful customer service and poor communications left consumers with dozens of channels gone missing, outrageous rate hikes, their phone service implicated in a Florida woman’s death, and who could forget the technician that set a customer’s house on fire. This one actually lost two score points since last year.

#5 — Charter Communications (59/100) — The usual rate increases were bad enough, but Charter also told their customers they were on the hook for cable boxes lost in fires that were not their fault, was held accountable for faulty billing practices, went bankrupt, introduced its own Internet Overcharging scheme, and worst of all — their infamous PR disaster telling tornado victims in Alabama to go and find their lost cable boxes scattered somewhere in the neighborhood.  The representative on the line will wait.

#14 — AT&T (66/100) — Limited coverage and the introduction of usage pricing for data pl    …   oh sorry, AT&T dropped the call.  All reasons why AT&T wins the ‘you suck’ award among mobile providers this year.

#17 — Cox Cable (67/100) — The home of the $480 early termination fee, Cox alienates customers like few others.  They even use spacemen to harass their customers.  Bemusingly, Cox is considered a customer service success compared with our other bad boys.

#18 — Dish Network (67/100) — Trending downwards, Dish is still giving their customers a bath in bad billing and worse customer service.  They are lovers of big ad splashes with a terrifying excess of fine print which ruins the deal, if you read it.

Stop the Cap! readers Tom and Scott both sent word that the music industry, Hollywood studios, and your Internet Service Provider have teamed up to begin inspecting your downloading activity looking for evidence you are grabbing illegal, copyrighted content from the Internet.

ISPs ranging from Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, and AT&T are installing the “Copyright Alert System,” an industry-approved “solution” to copyright theft of online content.  Your ISP will receive word if either the music or movie industry suspects you are trying to download an episode of your favorite TV show or latest Hollywood film from an “unauthorized” download site.  Then, the ISP will start sending you warnings or redirect your web browsing to Alert Purgatory, the place where you learn you are suspected of copyright theft, but haven’t yet been convicted for it.

If you don’t contact your ISP straight away to protest your innocence, your provider may then begin redirecting all of your web journeys to the copyright theft warning website and leave you there until you convince your ISP you are not doing anything wrong.

The voluntary agreement between service providers and copyright owners delivers very little to consumers, despite protestations to the contrary by the cable industry lobbying group — the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

“Consumers have a right to know if their broadband account is being used for illegal online content theft, or if their own online activity infringes on copyright rules—inadvertently or otherwise—so that they can correct that activity,” said James Assey, executive vice president of the NCTA.

Innocent or not, consumers who wish to seek an independent review before their ISP redirects every web address to the enforcement page, can get one — for the low, low price of $35.

Where that money ultimately goes is anybody’s guess, and nobody yet understands the exact mechanism of how consumers can prove their innocence.

Stop the Cap! believes this system does not serve consumers well.  Copyright enforcement measures taken by the music and movie industry in the past have proven to be far from well-targeted, using a “sue first, ask questions later” approach that has cost some consumers thousands of dollars to settle threatened litigation that would have cost far more to defend in court — guilty or not.

YouTube videos cited for copyright enforcement claims may irritate those who uploaded them, but never put YouTube visitors at risk of the Copyright Alert System just for landing on one that a studio executive deemed copyright theft.  Forcing a consumer to pay $35 to defend themselves from watching that New Order music video from the 1980s is simply unacceptable.

Copyright theft is a serious problem, and we don’t blame content owners for seeking to protect what is rightfully theirs.  But as we have learned over the last 20 years, overzealous protection measures have always backfired.  Openly available, legally accessed content from sites like Hulu have put a major dent in illegal downloading of entertainment from torrent sites and file hosting providers.  It’s more convenient, and the studios sell well-tolerated advertising to help pay for the costs.

Solutions like that are far superior than spying on web traffic looking for “illegal downloads” using unknown mechanisms which could prove as unreliable as earlier copyright enforcement efforts.  In the past, profit-making companies with an incentive to identify “theft” have been hired to ferret out those suspected to stealing online movies and music.  With a financial motive to lean towards guilt before innocence, subscribers confront the very real possibility they’ll have to pay $35 to try and prove a negative – that they didn’t engage in illegal downloading.