Hastings vents on his Facebook page.

As Stop the Cap! has warned Netflix for years, Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, usage-based billing, and speed throttles represent an end run around Net Neutrality. If a provider cannot openly discriminate against the competition, slapping usage limits on them (while exempting favored services from that cap) can eventually accomplish the same thing.

Netflix founder Reed Hastings is finally getting the message after a frustrating weekend watching his Comcast usage allowance bleed away while streaming video.  He shared his views on his Facebook page:

Comcast [is] no longer following net neutrality principles.

Comcast should apply caps equally, or not at all.

I spent the weekend enjoying four good internet video apps on my Xbox: Netflix, HBO GO, Xfinity, and Hulu.

When I watch video on my Xbox from three of these four apps, it counts against my Comcast internet cap. When I watch through Comcast’s Xfinity app, however, it does not count against my Comcast internet cap.

For example, if I watch last night’s SNL episode on my Xbox through the Hulu app, it eats up about one gigabyte of my cap, but if I watch that same episode through the Xfinity Xbox app, it doesn’t use up my cap at all.

The same device, the same IP address, the same wifi, the same internet connection, but totally different cap treatment.

In what way is this neutral?

Comcast says it is “neutral” by framing its own Xbox-streamed video as a “set top box replacement,” even though the video that flows to the Xbox console travels down the same last-mile network Comcast says it needs to “protect” with its 250GB monthly usage cap.

Comcast doesn’t actually need a 250GB usage cap, particularly after the company upgraded its broadband facilities to DOCSIS 3 technology.  That vast improvement in capacity at a comparatively low cost (easily recouped by the company’s latest round of rate increases) should be shared with customers.  Instead of “applying caps equally,” Comcast should abandon them altogether.

[Thanks to Earl, one of our regular readers, for sharing the story.]

As AT&T joins Verizon selling off its Yellow Pages publishing unit and payphones keep disappearing from street corners, the media is writing the landline obituary once again.

CNN Money asks today whether we’re witnessing the death of the landline.

In as little as 20 years, the concept of a wired phone line may become the novelty a rotary-dial phone represents today.  Yes, traditional phone lines will still be found in businesses and in the homes of those uncomfortable dealing with a mobile phone, but America’s largest phone companies are well aware the traditional telephone line is in decline.

[flv width=”412″ height=”330″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Archives What is the Bell System.flv[/flv]

The Bell System, as it was known until the 1980s, used to comprise AT&T, Bell Labs, Western Electric, Long Lines, and two dozen local “operating companies” like New York Telephone, Mountain Bell, etc.  This AT&T documentary, from 1976, explores how “the phone company” used to function.  New innovations like “lightwave” are showcased, promising to deliver voice phone calls over glass fibers one day.  

Much of the technology seen in the documentary may be unfamiliar if you are under 30 (and check out how customer records were maintained back then), but those who remember renting telephones in garish colors from your local phone company will recognize the phones that occupied space in your home not that long ago.  The only part of the landline network that hasn’t changed much in the last 40 years is the wiring infrastructure itself, which has been allowed to deteriorate as customers continue to depart.

Why was the company so darn big back then?  Because it had to be, the documentary says, to serve a big America.  Hilariously, the company defends its then-status as a “regulated monopoly” telling viewers “[a] regulated monopoly works well in communications because you don’t duplicate facilities and you produce real economies over the long haul.”  (14 minutes)

CNN reports nearly one-third of all American homes no longer have landline service, double the rate from 2008, triple that of 2007.  Verizon is feeling the heat the most, with revenue down 19% over the last five years.  AT&T has seen their revenue drop 16.5% over the same period.

But things are not all bad for phone companies willing to spend money upgrading their networks.  Verizon’s top-rated FiOS fiber to the home service is a compelling competitor to Comcast and Time Warner Cable.  AT&T’s U-verse has gotten a respectable market share larger midwestern cities and draws customers who like its DVR box and the chance to stick it to the local cable company they’ve hated for years.

But where both companies have decided against investing in upgrades — notably in their rural service areas — the traditional phone line is trapped in time.  Only the network it depends on is changing, and not for the better.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT 1993-1994 You Will Ad Campaign Compilation.flv[/flv]

Back in 1993, AT&T produced seven advertisements dubbed the “You Will” series, showcasing future technologies AT&T would “deliver to you.”  Eerily, the vast majority of these predictions came true, but mostly from companies other than AT&T.  While the phone company predicted what would eventually become E-ZPass, Apple’s iPad, Apple’s Siri, the smartphone, Skype, Amazon’s Kindle, the cable industry’s home security apps, video on demand, and GPS navigation, most of those innovations were developed and sold by others.  

AT&T spun away Bell Labs and became preoccupied selling Internet access, cell phones and reassembling itself into its former ‘hugeness’ through mergers and buyouts. With limited investment in innovation, AT&T risks being left as a “dumb pipe” provider, selling the connectivity (among many others) to allow other companies’ devices to communicate. (Alert: Loud Volume at around 2 minutes) (4 minutes)

Verizon decided to ditch its rural service areas to FairPoint Communications in northern New England and Frontier Communications in 14 other states.  The results have not been good for the buyers (and often customers).  FairPoint went bankrupt in 2009, overwhelmed by the debt it incurred buying phone lines in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.  Frontier has watched its sales fall ever since its own landline acquisition, and the company has gotten scores of complaints from ex-Verizon customers about broken promises for improved broadband, billing errors, and poor service.

Analysts predict AT&T will start dumping its rural landline customers in the near future as well, letting the company focus on its U-verse service areas.  But who will buy these cast-offs?  CNN reports nobody knows.  CenturyLink and Windstream, two major independent phone companies, don’t appear to be in the mood to acquire neglected landline facilities they will need to spend millions to repair and upgrade.

One thing is certain — both AT&T and Verizon are tailoring business plans to favor Wall Street approval.  The companies’ decisions to temporarily boost revenue selling pieces of its operations has helped stock prices, but has also made the companies shadows of their former selves.  Nearly 30 years ago, customers still paid the phone company to rent their home telephones, relied extensively on the companies’ lucrative White and Yellow Pages for directory information, and discovered new technology innovations like digital switching thanks to Bell Labs, the research arm of AT&T — today independent and known as Alcatel-Lucent.  Today, people in some cities cannot even find a telephone company-owned payphone.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WJBK Detroit Quest to Find a Working Pay Phone 4-10-12.mp4[/flv]

WJBK in Detroit this week ventured out across Detroit to see if they could find a pay phone that actually works.  That old phone booth on the corner is long gone, and some admit they haven’t touched a pay phone in 20 years.  (2 minutes)

Other than the original “five families” that ruled New York’s underworld from the 1930s on, it is hard to find a level of collusion higher than in today’s telecommunications marketplace.  It’s a veritable No-Fight Club, and the first rule is cable companies don’t fight with other cable companies. (The second is phone companies don’t compete with other phone companies.)  Everyone has their respective territory, and only the bravest interlopers dare to intrude on the cozy duopoly territory most North Americans endure, at least until the boys can drop a dime with the feds and put the kibosh on them with anti-community broadband laws or buying them out and telling them to scram.

But Time Warner Cable does not have to rub it in.  But they do anyway, see.

One reader of the Consumerist was perturbed when Time Warner Cable sent him a letter congratulating him for his decision to move... and welcoming him to consider Comcast Cable as his new provider.

Do you think Ford would ever send you a letter suggesting you give Toyota a try? Or would McDonald’s ever shoot you an e-mail telling you to check out the lovely Burger Kings in your new neighborhood? Of course not. So why would the cable industry not care which company you choose?

Consumerist reader Mike recently moved out of an area where he had no choice for cable TV other than Time Warner Cable to a town where Comcast is the only option.

[…] “What makes me even angrier is that they spent money printing and mailing this letter that only serves to remind me that I don’t have any choice!”

That mailer came courtesy of something called, “The Cable Movers Hotline,” which sounds like a clearinghouse for consumers searching for a moving company.  Indeed, the website for the group even includes video moving tips courtesy of HGTV’s Lisa LaPorta, David Gregg, senior editor, Behindthebuy.com, and interior designer Libby Langdon.

What’s the real story, morning glory? Don’t blow your wig, sister.  It’s coming.

In fact, the “Hotline” is a creature of CTAM – the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing, a Maryland-based trade group that includes most of the nation’s largest cable operators as members.  CTAM’s “Hotline” is the cable industry’s attempt to make sure that fresh start in your new cave doesn’t include service from the dirty rat phone company or some grifter satellite TV provider with a flim-flam rebate scam.  With none of CTAM’s members willing to compete head-on with other cable operators, trading customers back and forth doesn’t hurt business, keeps the butter and egg man counting up those bills, and helps bleed you dry.

A 21st century clip joint?  You said it!

Don't thank us, it was nothing!

Back in December, Verizon Wireless lit a firestorm over a new $2 “convenience fee” for those paying their bills online or using the company’s pay-by-phone service.  Days after being announced, Verizon canceled the fee.

Now the company is back with a new one, following other wireless carriers who impose fees when existing customers upgrade their phones, often when renewing their contracts.

Brenda Raney, a Verizon spokesperson, broke the news earlier today:

On April 22, Verizon Wireless is implementing a $30 upgrade fee for existing customers purchasing new mobile equipment at a discounted price with a two-year contract. This fee will help us continue to provide customers with the level of service and support they have come to expect which includes Wireless Workshops, online educational tools, and consultations with experts who provide advice and guidance on devices that are more sophisticated than ever.

While the upgrade fee is not unique to Verizon Wireless, most devices can be traded in with our green friendly trade-in program at www.verizonwireless.com/tradein as a way to save money or potentially offset the fee completely.

Among other carriers, AT&T matched Sprint, having recently doubled their upgrade fee to $36.  Sprint and T-Mobile often waive their fees on request, especially for good customers.  Sprint charges $36 and T-Mobile charges a comparatively cheap $18.

Wireless carriers, especially Verizon and AT&T, typically follow one-another when new fees and surcharges are introduced.  If accepted by customers at one carrier, the others often follow with similar fees of their own.  Only Verizon’s “convenience fee,” charged to customers trying to pay their Verizon bill, seemed to generate enough outrage to force the company to back down.

If you thought paying an average of $86 a month for basic pay television and premium movie channels in 2011 was out of line, just wait.  A new report predicts you could pay $123 by the year 2015 and $200 by 2020 — and that only includes the TV portion of your bill.

That is in keeping with typical annual rate increases, typically blamed on “increased programming costs,” which currently run an average of six percent a year.

The NPD Group, who published the findings, predicts consumers may not sit still for that kind of monthly cable television bill, especially as household incomes for the middle class continue to remain stagnant, even as high fuel and health care prices continue to march higher.

The pay television industry isn’t entirely responsible for the annual rate hikes that nearly always outpace the rate of inflation.  The real money is in programming production and distribution, which is why giant companies like Comcast, Bell, Rogers, and Viacom are buying up programming studios, distributors, and networks at a rapid pace.

With new players like Netflix, Amazon, and Redbox joining traditional pay television and broadcast network bidders, auctions for exclusive licensing agreements bring higher and higher bids.  Ultimately, consumers pay the price in the form of higher bills.  Even cable networks, sensing an increase in the value of their programming, are extracting higher monthly fees at contract renewal time.

The last to arrive at the programming money party?  Local over-the-air broadcasters that used to beg cable companies to carry their channels on the local lineup.  Now some are demanding as much as $5 or more per month per subscriber to allow the cable operator to keep carrying the stations.

“As pay-TV costs rise and consumers’ spending power stays flat, the traditional affiliate-fee business model for pay-TV companies appears to be unsustainable in the long term,” said Keith Nissen, research director for The NPD Group. “Much needed structural changes to the pay-TV industry will not happen quickly or easily; however, the emerging competition between video on demand and premium-TV suppliers might be the spark that ignites the necessary business-model transformation of the pay-TV industry.”

In other words, the more consumers cut cable’s cord and go find other ways to watch their favorite shows, the more unsustainable the traditional pay television business model will become.  Some industry watchers believe cord-cutting is not a major issue.  Others believe continued rate increases will drive customers to cancel service, particularly when alternatives are available. But NPD believes economic factors are the biggest reason for cable cord-cutting.  Those ex-customers are switching back to free “over the air” television, which now delivers better picture quality and often includes additional channels that increase the number of viewing options.

NPD Group research shows most consumers don’t want to exert too much effort to hunt down online programming. Most will put up with their current provider as long as they deliver the shows they want at a price they can afford.  What could change that?  Easy-to-access to a-la-carte programming, perhaps available from services that may soon come built-in with the newest television sets.

“Pay-TV providers offer a convenient, one-stop shop for subscribers, and the majority of customers like it that way,” said Russ Crupnick, senior vice president of industry analysis for The NPD Group. “There is an open window for the industry to meet consumer needs and become to television what iTunes is to music; however, there is also a definite risk if pay-TV providers don’t capitalize on the opportunity — and soon.”