Cable companies are starting to lay the groundwork to support the next generation of HD video — first with 4K, an improvement over today’s HD standard, and eventually 8K Ultra High Definition TV — delivering pictures 16 times better than the current 1080p HD standard and coming close to the level of detail supported by IMAX.

The 8K evolving standard, proposed by Japan’s public broadcaster NHK and dubbed Super Hi-Vision, remains years away, but cable operators are preparing their systems to support 4K UHDTV (3840 x 2160 – 8.3 megapixels)  much sooner.

By the time 8K comes into use, most cable operators will rely entirely on a single broadband pipe to deliver video, Internet access and telephone service. To handle that traffic, and the bandwidth UHDTV demands, providers will have to upgrade their systems to support much faster speeds. A single video channel transmitted in 8K UHDTV requires around 360Mbps.

That makes Google’s decision to construct a gigabit broadband network in Kansas City seem less revolutionary and almost evolutionary, considering how quickly bandwidth demand will increase in the next eight years.

The cable industry is now moving fast to finalize the next version of the DOCSIS standard which supports cable broadband. DOCSIS 3.1 is expected to be introduced Thursday at the Cable-Tec Expo. An initial preview seems to suggest the standard will be backwards-compatible with prior DOCSIS versions — good news for those buying their own cable modems — and will support multi-gigabit speeds, if the cable operator decides to dedicate more of its available bandwidth to broadband.

An essential goal of the cable industry is to match or beat 1Gbps, currently on offer from several fiber to the home service providers and Google. Some operators want even more — up to 10/2Gbps capacity, as they consider future speed needs.

But engineering advancements and innovation fly in the face of bean counters attempting to monetize broadband usage with usage caps and usage-based billing. The industry’s justification for usage caps becomes even more tenuous as it moves to a single pipeline for all of its services and treats its cable TV package differently from Internet traffic. AT&T and Bell are already doing that today with their U-verse and Fibe platforms. Both claim their TV channels move over a different network than traditional Internet, but as costs for both continue to decline, that is becoming a distinction with little difference.

Google and a handful of independent or community-owned broadband networks are largely the only ones calling out the cable industry’s bogus claims that consumers don’t need super fast broadband, usage caps are necessary, and broadband speed upgrades are difficult and too expensive. These new competitors have correctly predicted the exponential growth in bandwidth demand and are prepared for it, even as the industry continues to dismiss their competitors’ networks as unnecessary overkill.

But cable’s hurry to DOCSIS 3.1 tells a different story.

Jeff Baumgartner from Light Reading Cable observed cable executives at Tuesday’s annual Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing (CTAM) conference, where those attending beat the drum for faster and better networks:

[DOCSIS 3.1] will also focus on the quality of cable’s pipe, reduced latency and other smarts designed to help enable a new set of broadband-based services. Cable’s interest in offering 4K HD services, which offer four times the resolution of today’s HD, was an example that was brought up several times during the session.

The cable industry also hopes to shorten the process of creating the specs and having them turn into deployable products. An average generation of DOCSIS has typically taken three to four years.

“We can no longer do that,” said Phil McKinney, the new president and CEO of CableLabs, but didn’t offer a guess on the anticipated cycle for 3.1. “We have to deliver higher and higher performance.”

[…] And 3.1 is also about the almighty dollar as broadband usage continues to climb. Getting costs down “is a key part of Docsis 3.1,” said Cox Communications Inc. EVP and CTO Kevin Hart.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Light Reading NBCU Ultra-HD Demo 10-12.flv[/flv]

Jeff Baumgartner from Light Reading Cable was invited to a demonstration of 8K UHDTV, which will require much faster broadband networks to handle the super high quality video. (3 minutes)

Wants $4.95 a month in some states to keep your number out of their phone directories.

In a case of shooting itself in the proverbial foot, Verizon’s argument its $4.95 monthly fee to keep your landline number out of their directory is justified has revealed a way to avoid paying it at all, saving $60 a year in unnecessary fees.

The company acknowledged that customers who drop their landline in favor of a cell phone will have an unlisted number at no additional charge.

A Network World columnist asked Verizon why it costs so much to do so little.

“Why do you charge me $4.95 per month just so that I can keep my phone number unpublished? Please do not merely tell me that you are allowed to charge me this fee because I already know that. What I want to know is WHY do you do it? What cost are you passing along? … I would appreciate as much specificity in your reply as possible.”

Here’s the reply from a media relations spokesman, who first consulted with “a key member of product management with oversight for (unpublished) numbers”:

“The cost charged to offer unlisted phone numbers is chiefly systems and IT based. Specifically, the costs we incur and factor into the monthly charge involve three things: quality control, data integrity and the interface we have with other carriers and directory publishers. These activities help us protect the feed of customer information we have, and must protect, when customers request that their telephone number remains private when requested.”

Stop the Cap! decided to pose our own follow-up to Verizon’s customer service department:

“If we were to drop our landline and choose a cell phone instead, would our number be listed or unlisted?” we asked.

Verizon’s reply:

“Cell phone numbers are not listed in our directories and are not available from directory assistance unless you pay an additional fee for our listings service. The rates vary by state.”

Customers switching landline providers with the intent of keeping their currently listed phone number may, however, remain in the telephone directory if Verizon forgets to remove the listing after the customer disconnects service. But there should be no charge to remind Verizon you disconnected service and want the listing deleted.

As a consequence of deregulation, many states no longer keep tabs on ancillary fees charged by Verizon for these services, which are largely based on what the market will bear.

Phillip “I can see the duopoly from my house — why can’t the FCC?” Dampier

The New York Times is pondering whether Americans are paying too much for wireless broadband based on Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology. A new study now offers proof, noting U.S. customers pay three times as much, on average, for each gigabyte of data in contrast to European consumers.

The UK-based mobile industry group GSM Association offers evidence Americans are not getting the lower wireless broadband prices promised by the more advanced, cost-efficient LTE technology, although customers in other parts of the world are seeing savings.

According to the group’s findings, Verizon Wireless customers effectively pay $7.50 per gigabyte of data over the company’s 4G LTE network. That is three times more expensive than the European average of $2.50/GB, and more than 10 times higher than what Swedes pay: $0.63/GB, cheaper than many wired broadband providers’ overlimit fees.

Verizon Wireless’ Brenda Raney tried to defend the discrepancy, claiming that Verizon offers enhanced value bundles with unlimited voice, text, and mobile hotspot service. Having a data-only plan, Raney told the newspaper, would reduce the cost to $5.50/GB.

That is still more than twice as much as what Europeans pay.

So what is the real reason for the enormous price difference?

The wireless industry regularly claims that the vast expanse of the United States means a much larger investment in wireless technology and infrastructure, notably cell towers, to reach customers in suburban and rural areas. European countries, in contract, are much more compact and urban-focused, making infrastructure less costly.

But that has proven to be nonsense for Sweden’s Tele2, which not only operates a nationwide 4G cellular network in Sweden — a country with its own vast rural regions — but promises to deliver service to 99% of the country by the end of the year and already covers more than 100 Swedish municipalities. They deliver service at a fraction of the cost charged by Verizon. Tele2 remains undeterred by the “rural cost argument,” taking on the world’s largest country — the Russian Federation. It has already acquired 12 regional mobile operators in Russia, expanding service to more than 43 regions with over 22 million customers, and plans additional investments.

The real reason for the inflated price of service, unsurprisingly, is America’s lack of robust wireless competition, according to GSMA.

Europe has the largest number of competing providers — 38 of 88 operators with LTE technology are in Europe. Even the smallest countries have at least three major competitors. The U.S. has two major competitors, two smaller national carriers, and a dozen or more regional or prepaid operators totally dependent on the larger four to deliver national roaming service.

Until recently, Verizon Wireless had a veritable monopoly on LTE service as AT&T tries to catch up — one of the very rare moments Verizon directly challenged AT&T in advertising that distinguished the coverage differences between the two. These days, AT&T and Verizon mimic one another, often offering identically priced service plans. Customers who want to pay less have to reduce their expectations with smaller competitors that offer reduced coverage.

If you don’t want access to premium wireless broadband, American carriers will also gouge you for lesser 3G service.

U.S. consumers on two year contract plans spend an average of $115 a month for 3G service, according to a survey conducted by Ernst & Young. In the Netherlands, the average was $51; in Britain, $59 — about half the price.

The growing mobile phone bill has now reached the point where Ernst & Young’s Jonathan Dharmapalan suggests it is literally interfering with smartphone adoption and causing others to shut off the devices permanently after an experience with bill shock.

“The No. 1 reason for customers’ discontinuing their use of a smartphone service or not taking the option is the fear of overspending,” Dharmapalan said.

A former FCC senior Internet technology adviser attempted to explain away the vast discrepancies in pricing, offering this bit of analysis: Europeans talk and surf  less.

Verizon Wireless is proud of its new “business intelligence” initiative that will collect your browsing habits and online behavior, aggregate it with other customers similar to you, and then package and sell it to anyone willing to pay.

For your convenience, Verizon has automatically opted you in to their Precision initiative, and it is up to you to make the effort to opt out.

“Companies are always seeking opportunities to understand and act on their customers’ preferences, and Verizon is in a unique position to offer information and insight in a format that can help,” said Colson Hillier, vice president, Precision Market Insights, Verizon Wireless.  “At the same time, protecting customer data and safeguarding privacy have always been high priorities at Verizon, and we give our customers choice and control over their privacy preferences.”

The first set of services from Precision will help brands and companies such as outdoor media companies, sport venues, and other marketers, to understand the characteristics of the audiences for their products and services so that they can better reach and serve those customers.  Business and marketing insights use information from Verizon’s mobile network that is gathered and combined with demographic data, then aggregated to provide real insights into consumer behavior.  Data associated with the preparation of business and marketing reports is anonymous and secure and will not allow the identification of an individual.

Precision plans to introduce additional services including one that will help brands tailor the type of advertising customers see on their mobile phones, also known as relevant mobile advertising, and others that will help marketers create opportunities to better address their consumers and their consumers’ needs.

Still, Verizon’s lucrative new program delivers all of the benefits to themselves, while sticking you with an ever-increasing mobile phone bill. If Verizon Wireless wants to collect your browsing data and other “aggregated” information to sell to advertisers, then the company ought to be paying customers to participate. As usual, they keep all of the money for themselves.

Verizon Wireless obfuscates this privacy invasion with technobabble. They call it: Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI), ironic for a program that sells “precision” information to Verizon’s clients. In fact, Verizon tracks your location, collects ongoing statistics that can be used to predict where you will be at any given time, and offers that information up to mobile advertisers. They in turn deliver you “relevant advertising,” that eats your limited data allowance. It represents a win-win for the company and advertisers. Sell your data and then collect even more revenue as advertisers pelt you with unwanted ads.

But customers do not have to be the losers. You can deny Verizon their latest Money Party until they share some of the proceeds with you:

1. Login to your account at Verizon Wireless.
2. Scroll to “I want to…” and find “profile.”
3. Choose “Manage privacy settings.”
4. Note the section: “Customer Proprietary Network Information”.
5. Choose “Don’t Share My CPNI” for each relevant cellular number.
6. Make sure to click the “Save Changes” button when finished or your choices will not be saved.

You may want to also block Verizon from cashing in on your data for their Business and Marketing Reports and Relevant Mobile Advertising. Those settings appear just below the CPNI section. Make sure you “Save Changes” for each section.

Not a Verizon Wireless customer? Look out. Your carrier may be packaging and reselling your browsing habits as well.

• Sprint: Collects and markets subscriber data. Login to your Sprint account and select “My Choices” to opt out or call 1-855-596-2397 from each of your mobile devices.
• AT&T: Collects and markets subscriber data. Visit AT&T’s privacy options after logging into your account and opt out as needed.
• T-Mobile: Legalese overload. Would the average customer understand this: “We may obtain your consent in several ways, such as in writing; online, through ‘click-through’ agreements; orally, including through interactive voice response; or when your consent is part of this policy or the terms and conditions pursuant to which we provide you service. Your consent is sometimes implicit.”

“We know where you live, where your office is and who you owe money to. We are having your house watched and we are going to use this information to destroy you. You made a big mistake messing with TCI. We are the largest cable company around. We are going to see that you are ruined professionally.” — Paul Alden, TCI’s vice president and national director of franchising to an independent consultant hired to review competing cable operators for Jefferson City, Mo., in a historical example of cable industry abuse

The Federal Communications Commission last week voted unanimously to expire rules that required cable operators to make their programming available on fair and reasonable terms to competitors. Big mistake.

We have been here before. Let us turn back the clock to the days before the FCC and Congress mildly reined in the cable television industry with the types of pro-consumer regulations Chairman Genachowski and others have now let expire. Why were these rules introduced in the first place? Because years of industry abuse heaped on consumers and local communities took their toll, with high prices for poor service, outrageous corporate bullying tactics, and endless litigation to hamper or stop consumer relief.

How long will it take for the industry to resume the same abusive practices that forced the FCC and Congress to finally act once before?

The Central Telecommunications. v. Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI): The Poster Child for Cable Industry Abuse

Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) was the nation’s largest cable operator. Later known as AT&T Cable, the company was eventually sold to Comcast.

Back in the 1980s, before the days of direct broadcast satellite competition like DirecTV and Dish, and years before telco-TV was allowed by law, the cable industry totally dominated the video marketplace. The only challenges came from incredibly rare competing cable TV providers or three million home satellite dish owners or wireless cable subscribers.

The industry’s only check on unhampered monopoly growth came from local authority over cable operations through the cable franchising process. If a cable company got out of control or did not offer the programming or service a community found adequate, it could offer a franchise to another company, effectively kicking bad actors out of town.

In Jefferson City, Mo., the local cable operator during the 1980s was Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI). It had acquired the franchise in the city by buying out the original provider in the late 1970s. TCI had been buying a lot of smaller cable operators around the country under the direction of then CEO John Malone. By 1981, it had grown to the largest cable operator in the country, and few dared confront the well-heeled operator, which had a legal budget greater than the operating budgets of some communities TCI served. TCI was later acquired by AT&T Cable, which in turn sold its cable systems to Comcast, which continues to operate them to this day.

In 1980, Jefferson City officials decided it would be prudent to make sure they were getting the best cable service possible, so as TCI’s franchise agreement reached expiration, the city issued a “request for proposals” offering other cable companies a chance to bid for the right to serve the community of around 38,000. For TCI, this was tantamount to a declaration of war, and the cable company meant business. Malone equated anything threatening a permanent cable franchise for TCI as something like an act of government theft. In books later written about the events in Jefferson City, even some TCI executives admitted they were “horrified by the sleaziness” of the kind of hardball tactics involved, comparing them to a “B-movie.”

TCI revealed it would stop at nothing to keep competitors away from their territories and drag out years of litigation. Central Telecommunications, Inc., v. TCI Cablevision, Inc., revealed exactly how far TCI was willing to go:

From: Cutthroat: High Stakes & Killer Moves on the Electronic Frontier, By Stephen Keating

Cajole the mayor into canceling competitive bidding. In early 1980, after Jefferson City made it known TCI might get some competition, the company quickly met with the mayor hoping to persuade him to renew TCI’s franchise without a competitive bid process, so as to avoid a “frontal attack” by competitors.

Threaten the independent consultant. In December, 1980 the city hired Elmer Smalling, an industry consultant, to independently evaluate various bids from cable operators willing to serve Jefferson City. TCI immediately began publicly attacking his qualifications in a way the court later found to be defamatory. The court case documents Paul Alden, TCI’s vice president and national director of franchising, making personal threats against Smalling.  A sample:

“We know where you live, where your office is and who you owe money to. We are having your house watched and we are going to use this information to destroy you. You made a big mistake messing with T.C.I. We are the largest cable company around[.] We are going to see that you are ruined professionally.”

It got worse for Smalling. At this same time, Warner-Amex (another large cable company now known as Time Warner Cable) was a client of Smalling’s. Alden contacted Warner-Amex about Smalling. Following the threats, Smalling lost Warner-Amex as a client.

City Attorney Thomas Utterback later wrote a memo to the City Council in which he described TCI as a “relentless corporate bully.”

Threaten would-be competitors. On several occasions, from January of 1981 to the summer of 1981, Alden repeatedly telephoned Robert Brooks, chief operating officer of Teltran, a company which submitted a bid for the city’s franchise, and threatened him that unless Teltran withdrew from the bidding process, TCI would make trouble for Teltran in Columbia, Missouri, where it operated a cable television franchise. Teltran subsequently dropped out of the bidding process on the ground there was a “distasteful environment” in Jefferson City.

Another competitor, Central Telecommunications, became a defendant in a TCI lawsuit challenging the city’s right to request proposals from other cable companies. TCI argued it now had a 1st Amendment right of free speech to serve Jefferson City residents regardless of the wishes of city officials. In a wide ranging series of subpoenas, TCI demanded the bank handling Central’s financing turn over a “very wide range of potentially confidential records,” which according to Central was an effort to destroy its financing agreement with the bank.

Malone

Threaten customers. TCI warned customers that unless it won the cable franchise for Jefferson City, it would immediately shut off its cable system and leave customers without service, potentially for years, until Central built its own system from scratch. TCI officials said “it would not sell ‘one bolt’ of its system to whoever received the new franchise and that it would ‘rather have [its system] rot on the pole’ than sell it to a competitor at any cost.”

TCI’s system manager in Jefferson City told elderly residents of a senior citizens’ home that TCI would cut off service if denied a franchise, and the residents would be without television for two years pending construction of a new system because the concrete walls of their residence would not allow reception of over-the-air stations.

Lie, Lie, and Lie Some More. In one City Council meeting, Alden wildly claimed that TCI was the nation’s largest distributor of satellite dish antennas, with “an exclusive” right to sell in the state of Missouri. TCI promised that if the city renewed its franchise agreement, it would keep satellite dishes out of Jefferson City. If the franchise was not renewed, Alden promised to “flood the city with satellite dishes,” denying the city franchise fees. Alden later admitted both statements were untrue.

Threaten the mayor’s office. Although the mayor has never disclosed exactly what TCI threatened him with, the public record shows in March 1981, Alden called the mayor and threatened to turn the system off unless TCI’s franchise was renewed. TCI also filed an expensive lawsuit against Jefferson City regarding the way it handled its request for proposals.

By the fall of that year, TCI was meeting with city attorney Utterback in secret negotiations to renew its cable franchise, in direct violation of the city’s request for proposals  which required all negotiations to be open, as well as Missouri’s “sunshine laws.” By next spring, the mayor had privately notified council members he would veto any franchise renewal awarded to anyone other than TCI, which he later admitted was a condition imposed by TCI during its secret negotiations.

On January 25, 1982, the City Council provisionally awarded the franchise to… Central Telecommunications. TCI immediately refused to pay the city the prior year’s franchise fees, in excess of $60,000. It also reminded the mayor of his obligations to TCI as part of the secret franchise renewal negotiations held the prior fall. On April 20, 1982, the City Council passed the ordinance awarding a franchise to Central. The vote was six in favor and four against. The mayor vetoed the ordinance. The council then deadlocked five-to-five on awarding a franchise to TCI and the mayor cast the deciding vote in favor of that company. The next day, TCI dismissed its lawsuit against the city and paid the withheld franchise fees.

In the end, several courts upheld tens of millions in damages for Central Telecommunications, TCI’s lawsuit was dismissed at the company’s request, Mr. Alden was summarily dismissed by TCI after Malone referred to him as a “loose cannon,” and Jefferson City was stuck with several additional years of lousy service from TCI.

But TCI’s “bad corporate citizen” practices would come back to haunt the cable juggernaut, eventually failing to win assignments for two $800 million orbital slots for a direct broadcast satellite service the company proposed. After the Jefferson City experience, even the FCC could not, in good conscience, reward TCI with satellite slots it wanted for a “competing satellite service” it would sell through its own cable companies.

The memories of FCC officials are evidently short. Giving cable operators an inch has historically bought them a mile, paid for by consumers. Mandating easy to understand rules requiring cable operators sell programming to competitors on fair and reasonable terms is sound policy whether there is competition or not. Removing those rules or watering them down only promotes the kind of mischief that, when unchecked, leads to these kinds of horror stories. History need not repeat itself.