City by city, Comcast is continuing its quest to make the switch to digital cable for an increasing portion of  its cable programming lineup.  Although the majority of subscribers will encounter letters from Comcast switching only a portion of the analog cable lineup, it’s a safe bet Comcast is looking to an all-digital future sooner or later.

Coming less than a year after the switch to digital broadcast television, the march to digital cable is causing confusion for subscribers who don’t understand the difference.

Analog cable television has been around for more than 20 years in most American cities.  It’s the kind of cable television that doesn’t usually need a converter box on top of the TV.  Just plug the cable line into the back of your television set, let the TV find and map available channels, and you can use your standard TV remote to enjoy basic or enhanced basic cable television.  Of course, if you subscribe to premium channels like HBO or Showtime, a box is required to descramble the encrypted signal.

Cable operators began launching “digital cable” in the 1990s, expanding the lineup of programming with hundreds of new channels that are compressed into a digital format, with a half dozen or more digital channels fitting in the same space used by just one analog channel.  Space on the cable line is getting increasingly crowded as cable systems launch new HD channels, support telephone service, and expand broadband service and speeds.

To make room, several of those old school analog channels have to go… digital.  If you already have a set top cable box — you probably won’t even notice the changeover.  But if you don’t have one of those boxes in your home, and your television doesn’t support CableCARD technology, Comcast has some bad news for you.  Sooner or later, you’ll either have to get a set top box or lose an increasing number of channels on your cable dial.

Comcast's digital adapter doesn't support HD channels

Comcast’s digital cable expansion is their solution to the traffic jam on their cable lines.  Some other cable companies take a different approach.  Knowing that many customers hate cable boxes, they’ve left analog channels alone, instead transmitting digital channels only to those homes actually watching them.  If nobody in your neighborhood is watching Current or Fox Business News, why waste the space to send those signals down the line to… nobody.  Time Warner Cable doesn’t for many of their digital channels.  If one lives in an eclectic viewing neighborhood, there are problems with this approach.  Potentially, if enough homes want to watch these lesser-viewed networks, and Time Warner runs out of the space it sets aside to carry a certain number of these channels, the subscriber will see a video busy signal — a message stating the channel is temporarily not available, at least until someone nearby changes channels, making room for the network you want to watch.

Comcast's digital solution is a problem for those who hate "the box" for weaving a rat's nest of cables behind one's television.

In most communities, Comcast will provide up to three digital adapter boxes at no charge, if you install them yourself on each television in your home.  Additional boxes are usually $1.99 per month.  That’s fine if you are still using an older television set and don’t care about HDTV programming — the digital adapters Comcast provides don’t support HD.  If you do want HD channels, you’ll need Comcast’s traditional converter box, which runs about $7 a month per television, or a CableCARD, if your television supports it.  Comcast also has elaborate instructions for customers with multiple TV inputs to support both standard and high definition signals, some through the digital adapter, others not, but it requires a lot of cables.

Customers who loathe boxes and don’t want to pay for them are upset by all of the changes, and either must cope with the new box, or gradually lose more and more analog channels as the conversion continues.  Broadcast basic customers getting only local channels from Comcast are unaffected by all of this, at least for now.  Owners of modern HD television sets aren’t impressed either — their sets, capable of receiving QAM digital cable channels without a box are no help because Comcast encrypts its digital cable lineup in many areas.

But the company still thinks of the project as a service upgrade for its customers, even dubbing it Project Cavalry on their company blog. When one customer wondered why the new equipment wasn’t available in his area yet, a company blogger responded, “We will not be “cherry picking” … all our systems will get the benefits. The Comcast Cavalry just hasn’t swept through your area yet, stay tuned.”

When asked why the devices don’t support HD channels, the response:

The DTA was designed as a low-end, basic device to do one thing and one thing only … convert digital signals back to analog for display on an analog TV. That’s all, no higher end outputs, no VOD, no HD, no interactive guide. Keeping the device simple as described is what kept the price down enough that we can provide so much free equipment to our customers. Also, the RF output makes it compatible with the absolute maximum number of TVs, which is critical to the program. As a digital device, however, it does offer dramatically-improved picture quality over analog even through the RF output.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast DTA Tutorial.flv[/flv]

Watch Comcast’s tutorial on installing their Digital Adapter. (4 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast Digital Migration.flv[/flv]

Watch a coast-to-coast series of news reports detailing the Comcast transition to digital, starting with the message customers see on their now-missing favorite channels. (15 minutes)

The elusive Dell 10v Netbook promised to new Comcast customers back in August is MIA for hundreds who took advantage of the promotion

Five months after Comcast ran a promotion for new customers including a free Dell 10v netbook, many customers across the country are still waiting to receive the computer.

Back in August, Comcast matched a Verizon FiOS promotion promising a netbook to new customers signing a two-year service contract for a $99 monthly “triple play” package of telephone, broadband, and cable programming.

Visitors to Comcast’s website were offered:

HD Starter Triple Play

NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Get a free Dell 10v Netbook with the HD Starter Triple Play for only $99 a month for 12 months and a 2-year minimum term agreement. Plus, you’ll continue the savings the following year with a price of just $10 more per month.

• Free HD – no HD access fees or equipment fees.
• Over 80 digital cable channels.
• Thousands of On Demand movies and shows.
• Internet downloads up to 15 Mbps, uploads up to 3 Mbps with PowerBoost®.
• Unlimited local and long-distance nationwide calling – rated #1 in call clarity.
• Voice Mail and 12 popular calling features including Caller ID, Call Waiting and more.

The campaign apparently shared something else in common with Verizon’s promotions — customers left high and dry wondering when the promised bonus will arrive.

Customer attempts to contact Comcast have met with a wall of excuses and broken promises, and often still no netbook.  Other customers were told they failed to “qualify” for the promotion for not precisely following the terms and conditions that were never explained to them.

Comcast representatives have told customers they lost out because:

• They failed to return a copy of the signed contract committing to two years’ of service, despite insistence from customers who claimed they had;
• Comcast had two promotions running at the same time that were nearly identical, though one offer did not include a netbook. Customers were told they were signed up for the promotion that didn’t include the netbook.
• Customers had to make three or four consistent payments for service, before the due date, or they would forfeit participation in the netbook promotion.
• The customer waited too long to complain about the missing netbook.
• The customer was now a TV customer, and therefore didn’t qualify for the promotion.
• Tri-Star/Checkmyrebate.com, the third party fulfillment center handling the promotion didn’t receive/rejected the customer’s promotion request.
• They lost the paperwork.

Although some customers began receiving the promised promotion more than 120 days after signing up for Comcast, hundreds more are still waiting, and complaining.  A few managed to obtain service credits up to $299 (the retail cost of the Dell 10v) and told to “go buy your own.”   One Seattle television station intervened to help a Kenmore resident finally secure one in January, despite hopes it would have arrived before Christmas for re-gifting.

Escalating the matter to executive customer service is usually the best way to cut through Comcast’s red tape and secure the promotion customers are entitled to receive.

Darren, a Comcast customer who waited months for the cable company to make good on their offer gave some advice:

I started posting on Facebook and Twitter and immediately received a twitter from @ComcastMelissa and @ComcastBonnie. They told me to email: [email protected] and provide my account information so they can get me my netbook. I received an email from Sherri Carson, ([email protected]) at the corporate office – national customer service. On January 7th, 2010 she said “This is going to take about 2 weeks at the most. Sorry, I know you should have received some follow up, but I’m on it.”

The kicker: I emailed her yesterday to say hey, two weeks is almost up and I haven’t heard anything. Here is her response: “You should be receiving your netbook no later than 2/19 at the latest. I will get you a tracking number as soon as I get one. You can check this site in about two weeks.

Just don’t get your hopes too high for a Dell netbook.  Many finally receiving their promotional gift report an Asus Eee PC arrived instead.  Comcast put that in the fine print as well  — it reserved the right to make substitutions.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KING Seattle Comcast called out in Triple Play promotion 1-7-10.mp4[/flv]

KING-TV Seattle helped this Kenmore, Washington viewer finally get her promised netbook after signing up for service in August, 2009.  A Comcast executive personally pleaded for her to stay with Comcast, despite the promotion problem, in this report.  (2 minutes)

DC Circuit Court

Once again, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is proving to be the best friend corporations have to unravel regulatory policy and consumer protection laws that might violate corporate free-speech or trade rights.  It has become a favored venue for telecommunications providers who want to be rid of pesky prohibitions or reasonable regulation.

After a series of arguments, universally considered disastrous for the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to regulate broadband, the cable operator may want to send flowers to the Court… a lot of them.

Earlier this month, attorneys for the FCC defended their right to tell Comcast it cannot throttle its customers’ broadband speeds.  The FCC maintains it has regulatory authority over broadband service, claiming such power could be inferred from Title I, Section 230(b) of the Communications Act, which states that it is the policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet” and “to promote the continued development of the Internet.”  From that the FCC wrote a policy statement stating it was, “necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner.”  That was the basis for their crackdown against Comcast’s speed throttle.

After the arguments between Comcast and the FCC concluded, court-watchers believe the Commission’s days of broadband oversight are numbered.

Ars-Technica’s Matthew Lasar documented the probable train wreck for those who seek to rein in provider abuses.

At issue is whether the FCC has been granted direct legal authority for Internet regulation by Congress. Comcast, and as it turned out many on the Court, believe the FCC is relying on policy statements, not written law, for their regulatory authority over Internet Service Providers.  The Court transcript says it all:

Randolph

“In looking this over I found a good many situations in which Congress has instructed the FCC to study the Internet,” said Justice A. Raymond Randolph, [appointed to the Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990], “and taxation of transit sales transactions on the Internet, and this, and that, and the other thing. But what I don’t find is any congressional directive to the FCC to regulate the Internet.”

It wasn’t hard for [Comcast attorney Helgi G.] Walker to summon a response to this observation. “That’s right,” she declared.

And with that, Comcast had won. Even before the FCC’s attorney got to the bench, the judges were doing Walker’s job, swatting aside arguments on behalf of the agency’s Order sanctioning the ISP. Pro-FCC briefs to the court had noted that the Supreme Court recognized the Commission’s ancillary authority in its Brand X decision, a crucial ISP access case. Randolph threw this bullet point into the trash icon, referring to the “offhand statement” in Brand X. “And the Supreme Court has moved so far away from that kind of an analysis in today’s modern jurisprudence,” he added, “it seems antiquated.”

By the time Commission lawyer Austin C. Schlick began his rebuttal, Randolph moved in for the kill.

“May it please the Court,” Schlick began. “Ms. Walker hasn’t attempted to defend the actual network practices that were employed here, and so I won’t spend time just… ”

Sentelle

[Justice David] Sentelle cut him off. “Well, her position is that she doesn’t have to,” he tersely noted. “She’s here to say that you don’t have any business inquiring into those practices, ergo we don’t either.”

That’s true, Schlick conceded. “Right,” Sentelle warned. “So you may want to move on to something that’s at issue then, Counsel.”

And that was largely that.  The Court is very likely to hand down a ruling that strips the FCC of its ability to regulate or oversee broadband service in the United States.  Even Schlick knew what has forthcoming:

By the end of the discussion Schlick was bargaining with the judges. “If I’m going to lose I would like to lose more narrowly,” he confided. “But above all, we want guidance from this Court so that when we do this rule-making, if we decide rules are appropriate we’d like to know what we need to do to establish jurisdiction.”

“We don’t give guidance,” Randolph grumbled, “we decide cases.”

Comcast should have bought lunch for everyone.

So now public policy groups and advocates of FCC oversight over broadband, particularly as it relates to Net Neutrality, are scrambling to figure out what to do next.

It comes down to four possible outcomes:

1. One of the parties appeals the case;
2. Corporate control of broadband without oversight is assured, as the FCC is stripped of any regulatory authority;
3. The FCC manages to find some other wording from laws Congress passed that justifies lawmakers wanted the agency to oversee and regulate broadband services;
4. Congress passes new laws specifically enacting broadband regulatory authority for the FCC.

Of course, today’s bland authority over broadband comes as a result of legislative compromise from the great regulatory battles over telecommunications during the Clinton Administration.  Providers argued less is more, and have grudgingly accepted limited FCC authority over some of their services, except when a challenge threatens to cost them control or a lot of money.

With a hostile reception at the Court, and the FCC’s “surrender first, fight later” legal argument, an appeal may only delay the inevitable.  The FCC does have plenty of Congressional directives to review which may permit it to enact Net Neutrality protection, but another provider lawsuit opposing Net Neutrality is inevitable.  In fact, without the passage of a clear, concise federal law providing the Commission with explicit broadband regulatory authority enacting Net Neutrality and other protections, the aptly-numbered “2” is the likely outcome for consumers.

Thankfully, Rep. Edward Markey’s (D-MA) Internet Freedom Preservation Act would solve much of this problem, by forbidding Internet service providers from doing anything to “block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade” access to any lawful content from any lawful application or device.

Getting it passed in a Congress mired in division is another matter.  The best way to overcome that is a strong showing of support for Markey’s legislation in calls and letters to your members of Congress, and that you are carefully watching their votes on this issue.

Consumers are increasingly cutting down their cable packages to keep their monthly bill down

Cable television customers have finally reached their limit.  For years, annual rate increases well in excess of inflation have annoyed customers, but beyond complaining, few actually dropped service.  That has begun to change as the economy, consumer debt, job fears, and other expenses have finally provoked customers to begin paring back on their cable package.

According to research from Centris, a consumer research organization, a virtual ceiling of tolerance for cable rate increases appears to have been reached for many subscribers.  Although consumers are not dropping cable en masse, they are not simply accepting a higher bill either.  They are dropping services from their cable package.  In 2008 and 2009, premium movie channels and pay per view suffered most from customer downgrades.  Consumers with multiple premium movie channels started by dropping one or two of them, and their use of pay per view service also dropped.  As the financial impact of the recession wore on, the next round of rate increases caused additional erosion — by late 2009 many consumers discontinued all of their premium services.

The goal?  To reduce or at least maintain a consistent monthly bill.  The average amount consumers are paying for digital cable dropped from $79 a month in the third quarter of 2008 to $70 in the third quarter of 2009.  That decline didn’t come from discounts from the industry — it came from dropping channels and services. In 2010, consumers are still pruning away, now impacting digital basic cable and smaller add-ons like sports and movie tiers.  They are also phoning their provider threatening to cancel service altogether if additional discounts cannot be found.  Cable operators, not surprisingly, have managed to find plenty of savings for consumers who ask and stand their ground, ready to walk away from cable.

The cable industry has sought to promote bundled services as an anti-erosion measure.  It’s much harder to walk away from a provider supplying your television, Internet, and phone service, especially if they lock you into a multi-year service agreement with a cancellation fee.  The savings promoted from bundled services come largely as a result of steeper price increases on standalone products and services, manufacturing “added value” for so-called “triple play” packages.

Some customers have divorced from pay television service altogether, deciding relentless price increases and the 500 channel universe shoveled in their direction just isn’t worth the price.  For many American families, however, such drastic cord cutting would border on traumatic, and they haven’t managed such a drastic step.

Luckily, a growing number of consumers have discovered taking the Luddite approach to television entertainment isn’t a requirement any longer.

Cutting the Cord With Online Viewing

With the growing penetration of fast broadband service in homes across the country, online video has rapidly become one of the most popular online services, particularly when it’s available for free.  The benefits don’t stop at the cost — programming catalogs are becoming increasingly deep and diverse allowing fans to watch entire seasons of shows on-demand, with a limited commercial load.  A consumer looking for something to watch might easily find more entertainment online than wading through hundreds of cable channels of niche and re-purposed programming (and program length commercials).

Cable companies are well aware of the trend towards online video.  First considered part-curiosity, part-piracy, today online video is provided by the major American networks, cable programmers, independent filmmakers, YouTube, and of course, Hulu.  It isn’t just for those torrent sites anymore.  And there is plenty of room for online video to grow.

The industry uses research companies like Centris to carefully track subscriber trends.  They want to be out in front of any sea change in viewing practices that could impact their business model and their revenue, and avoid repeating the mistakes others made in ignoring a potential threat for too long.

Wall Street is well aware of the potential threat as well.

Craig Moffett, a cable industry analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein is among the most prominent trend-watchers for the cable industry.  He sees some warning signs for the future.

“Still no evidence of cord-cutting, but as prices spiral higher, the stresses on the system are unquestionably growing,” Moffett said.

So far, the cable industry has decided the best way to fight potential losses is to get into the game themselves on their terms.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the nation’s largest cable operators, are launching their TV Everywhere concepts, which provide their broadband customers with online access to a myriad of cable programming, on demand, and currently for free.  The catch?  You must be a verified, current pay television customer.  If you want to watch a basic cable show, you need a basic cable subscription.  Want to watch Bill Maher online?  You can, assuming you are a verified HBO premium television subscriber.

Comcast’s system is already up and running.  Time Warner Cable is expected to roll out their system sometime this year.

The industry is even selling the public they applaud the online video experience as a win for customers.  Time Warner Cable president and CEO Glenn Britt said, “TV Everywhere is an all-around win for those of us who love television. It will give our customers more control over content and allow them greater access to programs they are already paying for, while enhancing the distributors’ and networks’ robust business model that encourages the creation of great content.”

He didn’t say it also protects Time Warner Cable’s flank from cord-cutting.  Lose the cable subscription and your access to online cable programming goes with it.

But the question remains, is that enough to protect cable television revenue?

The answer might be no.

[flv width=”400″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Invasion of the Cable Killers 9-15-09.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reported on ‘The Invasion of the Cable Killers’ — new hardware that lets you bypass cable, back on September 15, 2009.  (2 minutes)

The Coming Online Viewing War: The Players Assemble

Who owns and controls programming ultimately controls the distribution of it.  Time Warner Cable took several shots at Fox a few weeks ago when threatened with the loss of Fox programming over a contract dispute.  Alex Dudley, spokesman for Time Warner Cable, told NY1 viewers much of Fox’s programming is available online for the taking, so even if the network was thrown off the cable company’s lineup, viewers could simply bypass the dispute and watch online… for free.  His message – the dollar value Fox places on its programming is diminished when it gives it away for free online.

The fact so much of network programming is available online for free is part of the dispute over how much cable operators should pay to carry networks on their cable systems.  When the industry passes along those carriage fees to consumers, will that be the last straw for some who will drop their cable subscription and simply watch everything online?

“They’re the ones who are going to resist these price increases that the programmers are trying to push,” said Dudley. “One need look no further than the music industry for an example of what happens when consumers feel taken advantage of by an entire industry.”

Dudley’s remark is more telling than he realizes.  The cable industry is well aware of what happened when the music and newspaper industry ignored nascent challenges to their business models like piracy or free access to their content.  To cable operators, the music and newspaper industries’ online experiences are lessons to be learned and not repeated.  The music industry waited too long to crack down on piracy and lost pricing power as consumers simply stole what they rationalized was overpriced.  The newspaper industry failed to erect pay walls to control access to their content, and newspaper subscribers dropped print subscriptions to read everything online for free.  Cable industry control of content and distribution is key to protecting their business model for pay television.  More on that in a moment.

Now two other parties want to be heard on this matter — consumer electronics manufacturers and advertisers.

The Roku box is popular among Netflix subscribers who want to stream TV shows and movies to their television sets

This week, Advertising Age is running a story on the implications of cord-cutting.

The magazine takes note that online viewing doesn’t require a computer any longer.  Samsung, Boxee, Apple TV, and even Microsoft, manufacturer of the XBox, are now selling devices that bypass cable television and grab online video for users, often for free.

Netflix has already managed that for a monthly fee, and is rolling out service on all sorts of devices, from a set top box that streams content from the web to your television to video game consoles, and now even builds-in the service to some televisions and Blu-Ray DVD players.  Microsoft’s XBox Live service could be germinating a cable television service of its own, as it seeks to license content from programmers starting with Disney’s ESPN.

All of these services, along with traditional laptop or home computer viewing, could evolve into formidable challengers for the pay television industry.  Oh, and some new televisions on offer at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show build in support for Skype, a Voice Over IP telephone service, so phone revenue could be at risk as well.

Advertising Age believes this could be one of the entertainment industry’s biggest business battles of the next few years as millions, if not billions of dollars are at stake.

For the moment, the public face of the debate is a combination of downplaying its potential impact while the players quietly position themselves and their assets for the fight certain to come.

Both Dudley and Britt at Time Warner Cable call the potential trend towards online viewing interesting, but not much of a threat at the moment.

“We see some interesting stuff out there, but right now people are watching more TV than ever; cable-cutting is largely on the fringe,” said Dudley.

“A lot of manufacturers have come out and made announcements, but I don’t think they really are in a position to erode the pay-TV subscriptions that the cable industry has today,” said Park Associates research analyst Jayant Dafari.

“For many people, cable works just fine; the quality is great; the DVR functionality is great; the only gripe they have is that they’re paying for it,” Boxee’s founder and CEO Avner Ronen told Advertising Age. But “there is a growing generation out there where the whole definition of entertainment is changing, and their main source of entertainment is the internet.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Wii At the Movies 1-13-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC covered last week’s announcement of a partnership between Nintendo and Netflix to provide Netflix on the popular Nintendo Wii, in this exclusive interview with Reed Hastings, chairman and CEO of Netflix and Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo of America president & COO (January 13, 2010 – 5 minutes)

‘If It Becomes A Problem, We’ll Just Cut Them Off‘

The cable industry is in a comfortable position to leverage its control over programming and distribution to ultimately limit any competitive threat from online viewing.  In addition to mega-deals like Comcast’s acquisition of content-rich NBC-Universal (a partner in Hulu), the cable industry owns, controls, or can leverage carriage of its cable lineup contingent on programmers not giving away too much for free.  Advertising Age:

One tech exec, who asked not to be named, predicted that the minute cable operators start to feel the disruption, they will clamp down and use their market power to keep TV and films from seeping into next-generation devices. They’re already putting the squeeze on networks; any free distribution is an argument for lower cable distribution fees.

Stop the Cap! is also a player in this struggle, because a key component of the cable industry’s control of programming is the means it is distributed to consumers, and cable modem service representss one half of the duopoly most Americans find when shopping for broadband.  One potential strategy to eliminating the cord-cutting option is to enact Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits and consumption billing that effectively makes it impractical for a consumer to “switch” to broadband for all of their online viewing.  Switching to the other half of the duopoly may not be an alternative. As online video projects like TV Everywhere will also be available to telco TV partners who wish to participate, there is every incentive to also limit video consumption on Verizon’s FiOS or AT&T’s U-verse systems.

Effective competition against entrenched players in the marketplace is impossible if those players control the content, the means of its distribution, and the ability to cut you off if you watch too much or switch to an independent competitor.

But this is history repeating itself.  Many of the same players and interests followed the same protectionist path against another competitor – satellite television.  It took strong regulatory policy from Washington to force a fair and level playing ground for an industry that didn’t want to sell content to its competitors, overcharged for access, and kept effective competition at bay for years, all while happily increasing rates for beleaguered consumers.

Here we go again.

Comcast's new usage gauge

Broadband Reports noticed Comcast’s usage meter has broken out of its limited trial in Portland, Oregon and customers are receiving notices across the Pacific Northwest noting the company’s usage meter is now available for their ‘convenience.’  But remarkably, Comcast has told 99 percent of their customers they “do not need to check the usage meter” because they won’t be close to the company’s 250GB limit:

We are pleased to announce the pilot launch of the Comcast Usage Meter in your area. This new feature is available to Comcast High-Speed Internet customers and provides an easy way to check total monthly household high-speed Internet data usage at any time. Monthly data usage is the amount of data, such as images, movies, photos, videos, and other files that customers send, receive, download or upload each month.

Comcast measures total data usage and does not monitor specific customer activities to determine data usage. The current data usage allowance for the Comcast High-Speed Internet service is 250GB per month. This means that the vast majority of our customers – around 99% currently – will not come close to using 250GB of data in a month, and do not need to check the usage meter.

That leads to two questions: Why would a company make an effort to produce a meter that is irrelevant to the vast majority of customers, and why institute a usage cap at all if only one percent of customers come close to exceeding it?

The answer, of course, is that most customers won’t need to worry about the limit today, but tomorrow is another matter.

As more broadband users begin watching video over Comcast’s broadband service, they will come perilously closer to the fixed limit Comcast offers — a limit that protects Comcast’s cable television package from customers switching to broadband-based viewing.

Bandwidth Hog? One customer consumed 897GB last November... using a backup method Comcast itself recommends to customers

Once Internet Overcharging schemes get their foot in your door, it’s usually only a matter of time before they force their way in and start looking for your checkbook.

Would Comcast seek to eventually lower today’s 250GB limit?  Perhaps, but there is no evidence of anything imminent.  It has been done before in Canada and sold as a “money-saver,” offered with an “insurance policy” Bell had the chutzpah to suggest “protected” customers from overlimit fees.  Monetizing broadband use is a hot topic for providers seeking enhanced revenue from their broadband divisions.  Time Warner Cable tried to convince customers it would tie revenue earned from its own Internet Overcharging experiment into expansion of their local broadband networks.  That was proven blatantly false when upgrades commenced in areas never part of “the experiment,” while those that were have been bypassed for DOCSIS 3 upgrades.

Some might believe such limits protect providers from dreaded hordes of malicious “bandwidth abusers,” a broadband urban legend comparable to the Cadillac-driving welfare queens we heard about in the 1980s.  In truth, the handful of so-called “abusers” have quietly been dealt with under the terms of existing Acceptable Use Policies for years without inconveniencing the vast majority of customers with arbitrary usage limits.  But the industry-sponsored narrative persists, usually in the form of some neighborhood hacking teenager sucking your bandwidth dry and costing you money.

What constitutes “excessive” or “fair” use ludicrously ranges from Frontier’s infamous 5GB usage allowance to Comcast’s 250GB limit.  Every company insists their limit is the fairest and that 99 percent of customers won’t exceed it, no matter what it is.

Are there consumers moving a lot of data across Comcast’s network?  Yes.  One Broadband Reports reader in Spokane posted a usage report showing a whopping 897GB of consumption in November.  Was he running a torrent client swapping an illicit copy of Avatar with people all over the world?  Was he downloading lots of illegally obtained music and movies?  Was he running a commercial business on a residential connection?  No.  It turns out he was retrieving a backup to restore data from a failed hard drive.  In fact, Comcast recommends customers use online backup services, and even provides customers with a free, limited version of Mozy, which includes an easy path to upgrade to much larger storage plans.

Even Comcast doesn’t believe in the usage-limits-solve-congestion meme. In response to a query from IP Democracy back in February, 2008:

“Most [ISPs] recognize that a metered approach doesn’t solve peak-hour usage pressures.”

But it will do wonders for a provider’s bottom line.