Maitreyi Krishnaswamy, Verizon’s head of FiOS TV admits she practically never watches live television — she records everything on her DVR first.

Krishnaswamy has been responsible for many of the interactive video services offered on Verizon’s FiOS TV platform, including on-screen apps, the media program guide, and how customers connect various devices to the FiOS television experience.

Now she’s directing Verizon’s consumer video services — deciding which channels make the lineup on FiOS TV and the networks available for streaming to mobile devices.

Krishnaswamy told the Tampa Tribune she recognizes the way Americans watch television has changed over the past few years, and she admits it has led to the “growing” trend of customers’ cord-cutting their cable TV subscriptions in favor of online viewing.

Krishnaswamy

“The question is: Is it growing enough for us? For us, it’s a matter of cord-cutters versus cord-shavers — people who switch to smaller tiers,” Krishnaswamy said. “Is the migration to a-la-carte enough that we can go that route? It has a way more important impact that just on them. It impacts how we negotiate TV contracts with studios. It’s not something we can do overnight, but definitely something we’ve been looking at.”

Verizon has made it clear it intends to compete for customers regardless of how they watch television, but Krishnaswamy signals the company is also considering protecting their core video business model, and would only say Verizon had no announcements to make “just as yet” regarding an Internet Overcharging scheme including usage caps and overlimit fees. Critics of data caps argue that limiting broadband usage prevents customers from taking their viewing experience online because it threatens consuming the majority of their monthly data use allowance.

But Verizon does not mind offering customers a TV Everywhere experience — streaming video content over its broadband network, so long as a customer also subscribes to its TV package. The company already offers live streaming television of many channels on its lineup and wants to bolster that with on demand content. Verizon also is experimenting with non-traditional set top boxes, and although Krishnaswamy had nothing to say about supporting the forthcoming Apple TV, she is actively working on improving how Verizon’s television service works away from the traditional company-provided set top box.

Some highlights:

• Verizon’s partnership with Redbox will let the company offer a new streaming and DVD rental service for customers, regardless of whether they live in a Verizon FiOS area or not. Customers will be able to access the service over mobile broadband, Wi-Fi, or any home broadband connection;
• Verizon will introduce an online viewing app for forthcoming versions of Amazon’s Kindle;
• The company has thus far only managed to secure streaming rights for in-home viewing and has run into difficulty getting content providers to let customers watch shows while on the go;
• Google Fiber is “interesting,” but Krishnaswamy doesn’t believe they are “a real operator” when only offering service in one city. She thinks the project is a good idea, however, because it forces competing providers “to increase your speed;”
• Verizon is considering simplifying its family of apps to reduce customer confusion. They currently have different apps for home security, home media, the remote control, and the program guide. Verizon wants its MyFiOS app to become a “super-app” that manages everything.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TVnext Interview – Maitreyi Krishnaswamy Verizon FIOS 1-28-11.m4v[/flv]

Back in 2011, Maitreyi Krishnaswamy explained her thinking about where Verizon FiOS was taking the TV experience. Many of these applications have since been released, but Verizon — like most providers — still runs into brick walls with content providers getting licensing to allow more flexible viewing of content.  (12 minutes)

Sprint has launched a new ad series and accompanying web site to warn consumers that choosing Verizon’s new Share Everything data plans can give you a big headache and a higher monthly bill.

“The concept of sharing a monthly data allowance across a family or group of users increases the likelihood for a surprise monthly bill due to data overage charges,” said Caralene Robinson, vice president of brand strategy and marketing communications for Sprint. “Data usage continues to increase and consumers value Truly Unlimited data because it’s simple and straightforward.”

Sprint argues that customers have enough trouble differentiating the usage of the applications they run themselves. When sharing a data plan with other members of a family, it can quickly become impossible to know exactly who is consuming what. That makes it easy to exceed a monthly usage allowance, which results in costly overlimit fees. Tracking usage and the inevitable arguments that will result at the dinner table make Verizon’s new share plans a real headache in Sprint’s view.

Sprint proposes that customers switch to their Truly Unlimited data plan, which has no limits and also costs less than Verizon’s shared data plan. Sprint also continues to sell budget plans that offer a calling allowance in return for a reduced price. Verizon now only sells unlimited voice minutes bundled into their Share Everything plans.

Unlike most carriers who boast customers can send millions of e-mails or visit hundreds of thousands of web pages with a low allowance data plan, Sprint explains what a 1GB limit really means when customers use increasingly popular streaming services and apps. It turns out Verizon’s 1GB allowance plan does not deliver that much.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sprint Say No to Sharing – Family Meeting.flv[/flv]

Sprint launches its “Say No To Sharing” and “Say Yes To Sprint” campaign with this “Family Meeting” ad, which shows a family debating how to divide up their shared data plan and avoid overlimit fees.  (1 minute)

Phillip “The Company Paid by Suddenlink to Issue a Third Party Guarantee Makes All the Difference” Dampier

When Stop the Cap! and Broadband Reports reader Simon contacted us about Suddenlink’s fact-free usage measurement tool that managed to rack up nearly 23GB of usage for one West Virginia customer on the same day his service was out for most of the evening, he probably did not think one customer catching the cable company’s fingers in the usage cookie jar would make much difference.

But it did.

Suddenlink spokesman Pete Abel, initially responding to complaints about the usage tool’s accuracy, told Light Reading last week its meter was “consistently accurate, as was demonstrated in the tests we ran before we launched this program.”

Four days later, the company effectively disavowed that, put the meter’s built-in overlimit fee scheme on hold and plans to hire a third party company to “validate the accuracy of its system,” after finding it was faulty after all.

Suddenlink won’t say what is causing the inaccuracies, but blamed “unusual” circumstances for the problem. The company is now refunding customers billed overlimit fees of $10 per 50GB and waiving future charges until its system is reviewed and validated by “a trusted third party.”

Stop the Cap! believes that does not come close to satisfying the company’s responsibility to its customers for accurate billing.

Suddenlink has never demonstrated it actually needs an Internet Overcharging scheme with usage limits and overlimit fees. The company proves that when it claims only a “relatively small number of customers” were ever billed overlimit fees. With no demonstrable usage problem, the company’s need to implement its Project Imagine “Allowance Plan” is sorely lacking.

Easy as counting anyway we like.

Additionally, the accuracy of providers’ usage measurement tools has proven highly suspect, and not just with Suddenlink. All of the companies caught with inaccurate meters always strongly defend them, until overwhelming evidence suggests they should not. Even super-sized companies like Bell Canada (BCE) and AT&T have enforced usage limits with meters the companies later had to disavow. Suddenlink is only the latest.

The scale in your grocery store is checked and certified. So is the corner gas pump, your electric meter, water meter, and gas meter. Why should broadband usage be any different?

Consumers are right to suspect Suddenlink’s usage meter. No official regulatory body verifies the accuracy of usage measurement tools and whatever company Suddenlink chooses to “verify” its meter has a built in conflict of interest — it works for a company that depends on a certain result in its favor. Suddenlink clearly has no business in the usage measurement business when it insists on the accuracy of a meter it disavows just a few days later.

With only murky details available to consumers about what caused the problem and why Suddenlink did not see it until a customer managed to catch them in the act, there is little confidence the company will actually solve a problem it never realized it had. There is also nothing to assure us — “third party guarantee” or not — it cannot happen all over again.

Suddenlink customers need to reach out and tell Suddenlink its “Allowance Plan” is completely unacceptable. Tell the cable company you don’t want to worry about their unverifiable and proven-inaccurate metering program. Ask them why you should remain a customer when they spend time and money on a scheme that the company itself admits is not really needed — targeting just a small number of “heavy users.”

Suddenlink’s customer service team does not think much of customers who use their broadband service a lot, as this recent “Who’s On First” exchange illustrates:

Lisa (Suddenlink): “Well, you show heavy OVERUSAGE of the Internet, you drew 14GB of data yesterday.”

Customer: “Okay, let’s back up, explain to me how I drew 12GB of data when my power was off and I wasn’t home on June 30.”

Lisa: “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “If you have sooo much faith in your meter, explain to me how I drew 12GBs of data on June 30, while I didn’t have power, and wasn’t home.”

Lisa:  “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “I’m asking, how did I draw 12GB of data without power to my house?”

If Suddenlink has a problem with a handful of users creating problems for other subscribers on its broadband network, it has always reserved the right to contact those customers directly and work out the problem one on one. That is a far better solution than inconveniencing all of their customers with endless rounds of “usage roulette,” where the big winner could find themselves with Bill Shock from overlimit fees, whether they actually deserve them or not.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Internet v. Cable 8-20-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC interviewed Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent in August 2010 on how his company intends to deal with “invasive online video,” threatening to erode cable-TV profits. Kent proved Suddenlink doesn’t really need any extra money from overlimit fees — the days of big spending on capacity are over, but the money is nice to have anyway.  (8 minutes)

THE Internet Overcharger

Cable One, one of the nation’s most notorious, usage-capped broadband providers, has left thousands of Columbus, Miss. subscribers without phone, Internet, and cable television service since 6pm Sunday night, unable to repair the problem until a part arrives at the local cable office.

The Dispatch reports a steady stream of people, unable to get answers from Cable One over the phone, have been showing up at the company’s local cable office from the time it opened for business this morning, all looking for answers.

Cable One General Manager David Lusby said he had no idea how many customers were affected by the outage or when the cable system would be back up and running. Those are not the answers customers want to hear, particularly for customers depending on Cable One for their local businesses. Local shops have been unable to process credit card transactions, cannot make or receive calls, and are relying on personal cell phones for basic connectivity with the outside world.

New Hope resident Walter Worthy is fed up with Cable One’s bad service, calling the company’s broadband service “spotty” for more than a month.  Worthy told the newspaper he would rather have AT&T’s DSL service if he could, but AT&T has shown no interest extending service in his neighborhood.

One ex-customer named Matt told the newspaper he finally dropped Cable One Internet service that cost $65 a month for the same reason.

Cable One maintains one of the most arcane Internet “Fair Use” policies in the country, with broadband usage limits that apply to both daily and monthly usage:

Another limit applies to monthly usage:

The combination of poor service and a confusing Internet Overcharging scheme resulted in the cable operator experiencing a loss in broadband customers, almost unprecedented for cable companies. Cable One said goodbye to 1,017 high-speed Internet and 9,610 basic video subscribers during the second quarter, according to its owner, The Washington Post.

Communities like Natchez, Miss. are responding by attempting to shorten its franchise renewal with the company, which typically runs 10 years.

Ward 3 Alderwoman Sarah Smith foresees the contract being renewed but isn’t certain she wants the city’s digital future tied to Cable One for the next decade.

“Technology is changing so fast, I just don’t see us having any contract for as long as 10 years,” Smith told the Natchez Democrat.

Smith notes local residents have regularly complained about Cable One’s service, and the city has considered the possibility of letting another operator take over in the area, but has found no takers.

“We’re not going to be on the top of the radar for every service to be here,” Smith said.

More importantly, it is unprecedented for another major cable provider to displace a current operator, no matter how poorly they provide service.

Phillip “At Least They Are Transparent About Robbing You” Dampier

The unassailable truth is that if there is a right way for a company to treat its customers and a wrong way, AT&T will always choose the wrong way. It’s the primary reason I refuse to do business with them.

The company’s recent decision to block Apple FaceTime for customers who refuse to be herded to one of AT&T’s new Mobile Share plans is another shot across the bow of Net Neutrality, which declares customers should be able to use the applications and services of their choosing — particularly on networks where they pay for those choices.

Principal #1 of Net Neutrality: Companies should not be playing favorites with applications or services by blocking or restricting those a provider does not favor.

AT&T’s response: ‘Whatever.’

The predictable outrage of customers should have come as no surprise to AT&T, but somehow it did.

The company picked testy senior vice president for regulatory affairs Bob Quinn to mount a rapid defense against the pitchfork-and-torch-yielding throngs on AT&T’s Public Policy Blog. That was their second mistake.

Quinn, who spent last December valiantly defending AT&T against its too-precious CupcakeGate mini-scandal, conjured up this pretzel-twisted logic tap dance to explain away its latest boorish behavior:

Providers of mobile broadband Internet access service are subject to two net neutrality requirements: (1) a transparency requirement pursuant to which they must disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of their broadband Internet access services; and (2) a no-blocking requirement under which they are prohibited, subject to reasonable network management, from blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services.

AT&T’s plans for FaceTime will not violate either requirement.  Our policies regarding FaceTime will be fully transparent to all consumers, and no one has argued to the contrary.  There is no transparency issue here.

Nor is there a blocking issue.  The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones.  Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps.  Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services.   AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps.  But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”)  Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.

A company lecturing its customers for daring to question its decisions is always a good way to enhance those warm and fuzzy feelings people have about America’s least-liked wireless phone company. Quinn first scolds customers and consumer groups about their “knee jerk reaction,” for being upset about the issue. Then he declares they have “rushed to judgment,” using a turn of phrase not heard since O.J. Simpson’s defense team pounded it to death, and look where that ultimately got us.

The crux of AT&T’s argument is they get a free pass to “block and herd” because Apple FaceTime was pre-installed on customer phones. Therefore, since AT&T didn’t block you from downloading an app you already had, it cannot possibly be a Net Neutrality violation. Because as we all know, Net Neutrality is only about download blocking.

At least AT&T is keeping their promise to be transparent. They have, indeed, fully informed you they are mugging you while in the process of mugging you. Full disclosure… matters.

Somehow, I missed the “preinstalled does not count” section in the Federal Communications Commission’s December 2010 order to providers telling them to preserve the free and open Internet. So I spent last night with this legalese page-turner (194 pages to be exact) to refresh my memory.

Nope, it isn’t in there. You can read it for yourself from the link above.

So it isn’t me. It is them, making up the rules as they go, again.

Quinn graciously offers customers one concession: AT&T will allow you to use Apple FaceTime over your own home Wi-Fi network. Gosh thanks!

For customers addicted to FaceTime, AT&T’s solution is an expensive plan change. An average customer currently paying $70 for 450-barely used voice minutes and 3GB of data will find FaceTime off-limits on AT&T’s network unless they “upgrade” to AT&T’s $95 Mobile Share plan, which gets you only 1GB of data, but endless voice minutes you don’t want and unlimited texting you don’t need.

Result: Pay $25 more a month and get your data allowance slashed by 2/3rds. That’s a deal — AT&T-style.

But it is one some customers are through taking. Nalin Kuachusri:

The new FaceTime restrictions will usher in the end of my 12+ year relationship with AT&T. I’m tired of the consistent manipulation of plans and features to extract more and more money for services I don’t need. For example: there used to be several text-message options (200, 1000, 1500, unlimited) so I could choose and pay for the one that fit my usage best. Then there was the option to move from unlimited data to 2GB/month to save $5. That was great for me and fit my usage. Then I was forced to move back to $30/month if I wanted to add tethering where I’ll get an extra GB that I’ll never use. Finally, after 12 years as a customer with an account in good standing, I was not allowed to unlock my phone for my 10-day trip to Europe so I could get a local SIM. I couldn’t be happier to give you one final $200 payment as an early-termination fee so I can move to Verizon.

Unfortunately for Kuachusri, the bosses at Verizon Wireless are likely slapping themselves silly because they did not come up with the idea first.