Netflix is coming to Canada.  Sort of.

Canadians will be able to sign up for Netflix’s on-demand video streaming service beginning this fall, but will Canadians be interested in using the unlimited service on their usage-limited broadband accounts?

Netflix is not planning on bringing its rental-by-mail service to Canada, instead relying exclusively on streaming its library on-demand over the Internet. Netflix currently licenses streaming rights for over 17,000 titles in its 100,000 plus library.  How many of those titles with be licensed for Canadian subscribers is not yet known, nor is an exact price for the service.  Netflix will launch for English-speaking Canadians at the outset, with French to come later.  This is the first time Netflix is making its service available outside of the United States.

But many Canadians are questioning the value of Netflix in their heavily-usage-limited country.  Most Canadian ISPs have either chosen or been forced to limit subscribers’ broadband usage.  Even ISPs that want to offer unlimited service find flat rate wholesale pricing nearly impossible to get because of Bell’s stranglehold on the market.  Cable providers like Rogers have implemented their own usage limits to boost revenue and keep costs down.

For Canadians living under an average usage cap of 40-60 gigabytes per month, adding streaming video will only eat their allowance that much faster.

“Netflix and the Canadian press covering this story have ignored the reality of bit-capped Canada,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Jeffrey from Calgary.  “I would be paying $75 a month for a broadband account and be limited in how I could use the service.  The CRTC (Canada’s equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission) has been in the providers’ pockets for years and this is why high bandwidth services bypass Canada or risk failure if offered here.”

Rogers, one of Canada's biggest cable companies, also happens to own one of the largest chains of video rental stores: Rogers Plus

Jeffrey believes Canada’s largest broadband providers, including Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Telus, and Vidéotron will never allow Netflix.ca to gain the kind of foothold it has in the United States.

“These companies all own or control Canada’s cable, IPTV, and satellite TV services, all of which are threatened by an American company like Netflix,” Jeffrey notes. “They’ve already got universal usage limits on their accounts, but these guys will also run to the CRTC and Canadian government to throw up roadblocks over everything from copyright and licensing issues to Canadian content rules and the initially ignored Québécois.”

Jeffrey believes more than anything else, Internet Overcharging schemes will serve their role in keeping would-be competitors under control.

“In Canada, we already had the debate about who gets to use our pipes for free,” he says. “Thanks to the CRTC, only the providers get to use them for free.  Everyone else pays a usage tax to them which fattens their bottom lines while stunting the growth of Canadian broadband.”

In Quebec, it’s much the same story.  Asperger notes Zip.ca, a Canadian rent-by-mail service, can get him 20 new DVD releases a month for around $25.  If he signed up for Netflix, anything beyond five DVD’s a month would put him over his limit forcing him to “pay and pay, and then pay some more.”  With Canadian ISP’s increasing their penalty rates for exceeding usage allowances, the overlimit fee could easily exceed the cost of just sticking with Zip.ca’s by-mail service.

Or, for many Quebecers, the next best alternative is Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, which offers an enormous collection of DVD’s that can be checked out for free.

Canadian press accounts of Netflix’s imminent entry into Canada have largely ignored the limits Canadian Internet providers impose on their subscribers, something readily noted by readers who comment on those stories.  Canadian consumers are well aware of their usage limits, and they avoid services that could expose them to even higher broadband bills.

Those who use their Internet service heavily, unaware of overlimit fees up to $5 per gigabyte, will be educated by bill shock when their next bill arrives in the mail.  After that, no more Netflix.ca for them.

Still, Netflix.ca will probably deliver a challenge to the already-stressed Canadian video rental market where Blockbuster and Rogers Plus duke it out for a dwindling number of renters.  Price cuts have not stopped the erosion of interest in DVD rentals, and Blockbuster is mired in more than $900 million in debt, trying to avoid bankruptcy.

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission's support of industry-promoted Internet Overcharging schemes may limit Netflix's success in Canada.

If Netflix’s streaming library, mostly of titles two or more years old, is deemed sufficient by many Canadians, it could also cause a wave of cancellations of premium movie channels and other cable services.

The Ottawa Citizen reports some analysts believe Netflix.ca will cause an earthquake in the Canadian entertainment marketplace.

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst based in London, Ont., believes Canadians can expect a major entertainment industry shakeup this fall.

Levy says Netflix will sound the death knell for movie-rental services such as Blockbuster and Rogers Video and will force a pricing war among traditional cable and satellite TV providers who will be forced to scramble to keep customers.

“Netflix is not some Johnny-Come-Lately to the market. Even though they are new to Canada, they have been so successful in the U.S. that only a Canadian living underneath a rock wouldn’t be aware of their brand,” Levy said. “It’s the most seismic change to the content distribution system landscape that we have seen. It forces the incumbents to change their business model.”

Levy said the arrival of Netflix will allow casual TV watchers to cut their satellite and cable TV bills in favour of Netflix’s all-you-can-eat monthly offering. He said the $9 U.S. a month charged by the company was carefully thought out and he expects to see a similar price on the service later this year.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Netflix Comes to Canada 7-19-10.flv[/flv]

CBC News discussed the introduction of Netflix Canada and how it will work with Netflix vice president Steve Swasey.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV News Netflix Canada 7-19-10.flv[/flv]

CTV News and its Business News Network ran four reports on the impact usage caps might have on the service, what kinds of titles will be available, and what it means for Canada’s entertainment businesses.  (12 minutes)

Lee, Massachusetts is located in broadband sparse western Massachusetts

Mark Williams is the kind of customer Time Warner Cable would normally love to have.  He wants the complete, super deluxe Time Warner triple play — cable, digital phone, and especially broadband service for his home-based business.

Time Warner wants Williams to have their service, too — but for a price.  Instead of charging the regular $35 installation fee, the cable company wants him to pay $12,000 to install his service, because, they claim, Williams’ driveway is 100 feet too long.  Time Warner says the $35 dollar installation fee is only for homes within 200 feet of the nearest utility pole.  Williams home is 300 feet away.  He doesn’t mind paying something extra to cover the additional 100 feet, but not $12,000.

The town of Lee, Berkshire County, in western Massachusetts, managed to wrangle a franchise agreement from Time Warner Cable that entitles every home and business to cable service if electric and telephone service are already available.  That’s unique for many smaller communities, who routinely have cable service available in town, but not in outlying areas.  Cable companies hate wiring rural density neighborhoods, where the costs to wire comparatively few homes takes too long to earn back from the few subscribers they can reach.

But Time Warner found themselves a loophole — a “long driveway” clause in the franchise agreement that allows them to charge more for installing service to homes set far back from the road.

Now, according to the Berkshire Eagle, Lee’s representative to the Five Town Cable Television Advisory Committee is calling out Time Warner, claiming they are misinterpreting the town’s franchise agreement and wants the Lee Board of Selectman to start imposing fines against the cable company if they don’t relent within 30 days.

Malcolm Chisholm says the real reason Time Warner wants to charge $12,000 is because Williams’ home is roughly a half-mile away from the closest Time Warner Cable subscriber, not because his driveway is too long.

“We just want to put pressure on them,” Chisholm said. “We’re just trying to get them to follow the agreement.”

Chisholm said Time Warner Cable “won’t talk to us” about Williams’ situation. The Eagle was also unable to get a response from officials at the company’s regional office in Albany, N.Y.

The newspaper decided that since Time Warner Cable wasn’t responding to its private inquiries, it would air its views on the editorial page.

If a Lee resident moved into a cave in October Mountain State Forest, Time Warner Cable might be justified in charging him $12,000 to run cable there so he watch the Red Sox on NESN and keep up with the Kardashians on VH-1. But the $12,000 the cable giant wants to charge a resident who lives near the Tyringham line is preposterous, and beyond that provides the latest evidence of the desperate need for expanded broadband service throughout the rural Berkshires.

Because Mark Williams lives roughly a half-mile away from the closest Time Warner subscriber, his installation fee escalates from the standard $35 to $12,000, which may as well be $120,000 it is so devoid of logic. Mr. Williams appears to be an eager customer too, one who wants the entire cable/Internet package Time Warner is regularly flogging.

A major owner of apartment complexes in 13 states in the southeast and south-central United States has a deal for you, whether you like it or not.

Mid America Apartment Communities, which maintains a portfolio of 42,252 apartments, is requiring its residents to purchase cable television from providers like Comcast or they’ll find the $40 month cable fee tacked on their rent, water, or refuse collection bill.  They call it a wonderful savings opportunity for their residents.  But a Stop the Cap! investigation followed the money and discovered the real benefits are in kickbacks paid to Mid America by participating cable companies.

Mid America is extending the policy to all of its apartment complexes over the coming months, notifying residents about its new CableSaver program through flyers.  Enrollment in the program is automatic for new residents, and will take effect for existing residents upon the renewal of their annual lease agreement.

Known as “bulk buying,” apartment complexes can receive preferential discounts for their residents if they commit to mandatory cable service for each apartment.  In Chattanooga, residents of Mid America’s Hamilton Pointe, Hidden Creek, Steeplechase, and Windridge Apartments were notified this month they’ll be compelled to spend $40 a month for Comcast’s Digital Starter Package.

Mid America owns apartment complexes in 13 states. All of them will find the CableSaver program coming their way sooner or later.

The mandating of cable service is not going down well with every resident, particularly those who purchased satellite TV equipment or who have service with other providers like AT&T’s U-verse or Verizon FiOS.  While Mid America isn’t banning competing cable services from serving its complexes, residents will still be forced to pay for cable service in addition to whatever their current provider charges.

Lydia Ramirez of Chattanooga lives in a Mid America Apartment Communities property.  She told WDEF-TV News, “We told them that we are not interested in this but they say it’s mandatory. And so here we are.”

Ramirez just had Dish Network installed but says she’s been told she will have to pay for Comcast cable, too, if she renews her lease.  She said, “We don’t want Comcast and we feel that should be our choice instead of them making it mandatory.”

Instead of being allowed to choose satellite or other cable providers, Ramirez says being forced to go with Comcast is kind of like being told you can only grocery shop at Food Lion.  Ramirez adds, “I don’t see how they can do that. I think we as tenants have an option to choose what cable company we want to go with.”

Some renters in Houston, Texas have been there and done that.  Late last year, KPRC-TV reported residents at The Reserve at Woodwind Lakes got a deal they couldn’t refuse.  A letter from the front office promoted an exciting new offer: It reads the complex “has teamed up with a cable company to bring you an exclusive offer that will allow you to enjoy expanded basic service at a greatly reduced rate.”  Sounds great until you get to the second line of the letter, which uses language only a credit card company could love:

“If you have not yet chosen to opt in, the reduced rate of $40 will be added to your water and trash bill once your renewal takes effect.”

Text of a flyer delivered to Houston-area renters at a Mid America complex

In other words, your “choice” to “opt in” is neither.

Mid America is selling this mandatory cable program as a real money-saver.  But we discovered it’s actually a real moneymaker for Mid America, who earns compensation from kickbacks paid by cable companies in return for cramming cable service down renters’ throats.

Kickbacks for cable is nothing new in the rental business.  Complex owners used to routinely make exclusive deals with providers to deliver service to residents, often through contracts that kept competitors out.  But a 2007 FCC ruling made such exclusive arrangements illegal.  A Federal Court of Appeals agreed: cable companies cannot have exclusive rights to provide service in apartment buildings that they wire.  But complex owners and cable operators discovered an enormous loophole — complex owners can force residents to pay mandatory cable fees as part of their rent so long as they did not bar would-be competitors from also providing service.  But given that renters would already be paying for service, it is unlikely they’d choose another and pay double or more for duplicated cable service.

Cable companies like Comcast enter into these agreements because they provide guaranteed revenue for minimal cost, thanks to “install it once” cable wiring and bulk billing.  Since many renters are also young — renting their first apartment after leaving home — establishing a relationship with those customers may make them customers for life.  Cable companies can also use the program as an opportunity to sell add-on services to renters, such as broadband, digital phone, and premium channel packages.

But why would a company like Mid America want to alienate at least some of their renters who do not want to be forced to pay for cable service?  The answer is easily found in Mid America’s publicly disclosed financial reports — Mid America makes a healthy profit from the CableSaver program.

Mid America owns apartment complexes in these states

Mid America’s quarterly 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission shows the company is earning so much money from cable companies like Comcast, it has broken the revenue out into a new section of its financial report.

In the first quarter of 2010, as Mid America introduced its CableSaver program, the company reported earning $1.3 million dollars in revenue from cable kickbacks.  The company tells investors its new mandatory cable program will become an important source of new revenue for the complex owner:

“We continue to develop improved products, operating systems and procedures that enable us to capture more revenues. The continued roll-out of ancillary services (such as re-selling cable television), improved collections, and utility reimbursements enable us to capture increased revenue dollars.”

It’s all a part of a profit-making strategy to increase shareholder value and stick residents with increasing costs to deliver fatter profits.  Renters might be interested to know the company has more in store for them in the coming months:

Our goal is to maximize our return on investment collectively and in each apartment community by increasing revenues, tightly controlling operating expenses, maintaining high occupancy levels and reinvesting as appropriate. The steps taken to meet these objectives include:

• […] developing new ancillary income programs aimed at offering new services to residents, including telephone, cable, and internet access, on which we generate revenue;
• implementing programs to control expenses through investment in cost-saving initiatives, including measuring and passing on to residents the cost of various expenses, including water and other utility costs.

Unfortunately for residents, short of moving, there is no escaping these fees. Some residents have contacted their member of Congress or the FCC to complain about the loophole that allows a complex owner to charge for cable service residents don’t always want. Another way to send a message is to tell Mid America you will not do business with them until they make the CableSaver program truly optional. If the company stands to lose more money than it receives from cable company kickbacks, it may choose to amend its policies.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Mandatory Cable 7-19-10.flv[/flv]

We have four reports on this story, courtesy of WDEF-TV Chattanooga, Tenn., and KPRC-TV in Houston, Texas  (10 minutes):

1. The FCC bans exclusive cable contracts forcing renters to buy service from one provider.  (KPRC-TV 10/31/2007)
2. Can Complex Choose Your Cable Company? In Houston, Mid America Forcing Renters to Buy Comcast Cable.  (KPRC-TV 1/7/2010)
3. Four Chattanooga Area Apartment Complexes Make Comcast Cable Mandatory for Renters. (WDEF-TV 7/12/2010)
4. AT&T U-verse Arrives in Chattanooga (But Won’t Be Too Attractive to Mid America Residents). (WDEF-TV 4/30/2010)

Craig E. Moffett joined Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. as the Senior Analyst for U.S. Cable and Satellite Broadcasting in 2002.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst with Sanford Bernstein, is sounding the warning bells that if AT&T and Verizon assign usage caps to their forthcoming LTE wireless broadband services, they will never provide suitable competition for American consumers.

The implications of Internet Overcharging schemes in wireless broadband go well beyond the two companies’ broadband offerings.  Investors expect either AT&T or Verizon to attempt a buyout of DirecTV in the coming months, hoping to pair the satellite service with broadband packages delivered by DSL, fiber, or wireless broadband.  Because many DirecTV subscribers are located in rural areas where even DSL service is often not available, wireless broadband networks would be the most likely means of reaching customers, but not with onerous usage caps.

“If LTE networks are going to be usage-capped, then the last pretense that LTE networks can be positioned as a substitute for terrestrial broadband would seem to be gone,” Bernstein told his clients. “And if LTE can’t be offered as a replacement for wired broadband, then the notion of an out-of-region bundle of DirecTV and LTE is no more.”

Unlike earlier broadband technologies, WiMax, LTE, and other 4G broadband platforms can deliver far more data to subscribers at reduced costs.  With the increased efficiencies offered by the faster networks, carriers can provide customers with considerably more wireless broadband service, unlike heavily capped 3G networks, most of which are limited to 2-5GB of monthly usage before the penalty rates or speed throttles kick in.  While completely unlimited service is unlikely until capacity increases, there is plenty of room to allow customers to access 4G networks without thinking twice about everything they do on them.

Sprint is betting its comeback on its virtually-unlimited Clear WiMax 4G service, now becoming available in an increasing number of cities across the country.  Marketed as a replacement for wired broadband, Sprint is hoping customers will flock back to the carrier, especially if AT&T and Verizon’s 4G LTE offerings are capped.

But AT&T and Verizon have both made noises about usage capping their LTE offerings, if only to increase revenue.  These profit raising Internet Overcharging schemes come despite efforts by the Obama Administration to dramatically increase wireless spectrum available for wireless broadband services.  Dave Burstein from DSL Prime says Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski is betting the farm on wireless broadband being the best chance for increased broadband competition.

“The heart of the U.S. broadband plan is to release more spectrum – enough for 10-20 networks like Verizon’s LTE now building – and pray that will be enough competition in five to seven years to check price increases,” Burstein writes.

Making wireless an important substitute for DSL requires raising bandwidth caps from today’s typical 5-10 gigabytes to several times as high as LTE makes the cost reasonable. If Verizon follows AT&T with an abusively low cap of 2-5 gigabytes and Sprint etc. don’t clobber them, the whole broadband plan falls apart because that’s not enough for competition in the future.

I doubt Julius understands this, because he would be doing everything in his power to avoid low caps. It’s just one more strike against “affordable” broadband, like the recent Comcast and Verizon price increases. People need to laugh out loud when Genachowski says “affordable” while tolerating continuous price increases.

Dave Burstein, DSL Prime

While wireless broadband can deliver access to many Americans who have never had broadband service before, it’s not well-positioned to compete for customers seeking to use the next generation of high bandwidth Internet applications.

None of the current wireless services are suitable for high quality video streaming of HD TV shows and movies, a crucial application for many broadband users. Burstein also notes large uploads are painfully slow on Clear’s WiMax network because of limited upstream speeds, but he expects improvements in time, assuming carriers expand with demand.  If not, as more users pile on the next generation wireless networks, their suitability for high bandwidth services becomes even more questionable.

“How much wireless could compete with landlines, especially as all cable connections are moving to 50 meg, was a crucial question for the broadband plan,” Burstein writes. “The consensus of several good engineers is that 4G competes fine with DSL if not many people expect video or other high-bandwidth apps. Wireless certainly can’t keep up if many people want to watch their TV over the net, so it’s only a partial substitute.”

As for AT&T and Verizon, Moffett suspects both may have to take a pass on DirecTV, consumed with fighting against broadband reclassification and Net Neutrality policies in Washington.  Taking on a second battle to run another dog and pony circus to gain regulatory approval for a buyout of DirecTV may be more than they’re willing to deal with at the moment.

Your Friendly Internet traffic cops Time Warner Cable and Comcast paid for research that suggests those Internet speed slowdowns are your fault (or at least not theirs).

A study from MIT suggests that broadband speed test results that show “real world” broadband speeds far below what your provider promises are actually better than you think, and if they’re not — it’s not your provider’s fault.  The paper, Understanding Broadband Speed Measurements, finds slow Internet speeds are often your problem, because you run too many applications on your computer, visit inaccurate speed measurement sites, use a wireless router, or have run into an Internet traffic jam outside of the control of your ISP.

The research comes courtesy of MIT’s Internet Traffic Analysis Study (MITAS) project, financially backed by some of North America’s largest cable and phone companies — Clearwire, Comcast, Liberty Global (Dr. John Malone, CEO), and Time Warner Cable in the United States, Rogers Communications and Telus in Canada.  Those providers also deliver much of the broadband speed data MITAS relies on as part of its research.  Additional assistance came from MIT’s Communications Futures Program which counts among its members Cisco, an equipment manufacturer and promoter of the “zettabyte” theory of broadband traffic overload and cable giant Comcast.

The study was commissioned to consider whether broadband speed is a suitable metric to determine whether an ISP provides good or bad service to its customers and if speed testing websites accurately depict actual broadband speeds.  Because Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have set minimum speed goals and have expressed concerns about providers actually delivering the speeds they promise, the issue of broadband speed is among the top priorities of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.

“If you are doing measurements, and you want to look at data to support whatever your policy position is, these are the things that you need to be careful of,” Steve Bauer, technical lead on the MIT Analysis Study (MITAS) told TG Daily. “For me, the point of the paper is to improve the understanding of the data that’s informing those processes.”

Bauer’s 39 page study indicts nearly everyone except service providers for underwhelming broadband speeds:

While a principal motivation for many in looking at speed measurements is to assess whether a broadband access ISP is meeting its commitment to provide an advertised data service (e.g. “up to 20 megabits per second”), we conclude that most of the popular speed data sources fail to provide sufficiently accurate data for this purpose. In many cases, the reason a user measures a data rate below the advertised rate is due to bottlenecks on the user-side, at the destination server, or elsewhere in the network (beyond the access ISP’s control). A particularly common non-ISP bottleneck is the receive window (rwnd) advertised by the user’s transport protocol (TCP).

In the NDT dataset we examine later in this paper, 38% of the tests never made use of all the available network capacity.

Other non-ISP bottlenecks also exist that constrain the data rate well below the rate supported by broadband access connections. Local bottlenecks often arise in home wireless networks. The maximum rate of an 802.11b WiFi router (still a very common wireless router) is 11mbps. If wireless signal quality is an issue, the 802.11b router will drop back to 5.5mbps, 2mbps, and then 1 mbps. Newer wireless routers (e.g. 802.11g/n) have higher maximum speeds (e.g. 54 mbps) but will similarly adapt the link speed to improve the signal quality.

End-users also can self-congest when other applications or family members share the broadband connection. Their measured speed will be diminished as the number of competing flows increase.

The study also criticizes the FCC for relying on raw speed data that does not take into account the level of service being chosen by a broadband customer, claiming many service providers actually deliver higher speed service than their “lite” plans advertise.

In short, it’s everyone else’s fault (including yours) for those Internet speed slowdowns.

Ultimately, the report’s conclusion can be summed up in three words: change the subject.  It’s not slow broadband speeds that are the problem — it’s the lack of understanding about what you can accomplish with the speeds you do get from your ISP:

In the next few years, as the average speed of broadband increases, and the markets become more sophisticated, we expect that attention may shift towards a more nuanced characterization of what matters for evaluating the quality of broadband services. Issues such as availability (reliability) and latencies to popular content and services may become more important in how services are advertised and measured. We welcome such a more nuanced view and believe it is important even in so far as one’s principal focus is on broadband speeds.

One thing the paper does effectively deliver at top speed are industry talking points, particularly the one that says less regulation is better (underlining ours):

Our hope is that progress may be made via a market-mediated process that engages users, academics, the technical standards community, ISPs, and policymakers in an open debate; one that will not require strong regulatory mandates. Market efficiency and competition will be best served if there is more and better understood data available on broadband speeds and other performance metrics of merit (e.g., pricing, availability, and other technical characteristics).

These kinds of research reports are often tainted by the industry money that pays for them.  Researchers and universities routinely deliver industry-pleasing, sober-sounding studies in return for considerable financial contributions, grants, and other forms of underwriting.  This report lacks full disclosure about who is helping to pay for it — North America’s largest cable operators, who also deliver much of the data MITAS relies on for their research.

Ask yourself how much longer these companies would be writing checks to MIT had they delivered a report implicating them in false advertising of speeds they do not deliver or for relying on inadequate upstream providers to handle their Internet traffic?  The report pulls any and all punches delivered to the companies who finance it — a clear sign of bought-and-paid-for research in action.