Cable companies, including Time Warner Cable, are offering a mix of threats and financial incentives to keep popular cable programming away from online video competitors.

Bloomberg News today reported the private discussions primarily target upstart streaming video services from companies like Intel, Apple, and Google, which are all proposing multichannel streaming video services that could one day replace the local cable company.

All three would-be competitors have been stymied, some for years, from signing contracts with popular cable networks like HBO, USA, ESPN and Comedy Central. If a viewer wants to watch those networks, they usually have to authenticate themselves as existing cable, satellite, or telco-TV customers to get access to live and recorded programming. The cable industry prefers it that way as a customer retention tool.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt admitted to Wall Street analysts attending this week’s Cable Show his company probably insists on contract language that bars programmers from providing content to online video services.

“We may well have ones that have that prohibition,” Britt said at the conference in Washington. “This is not a cookie-cutter kind of business.”

Some cable company contracts are more benign, only requiring programmers to license content on the same terms offered to their online competitors. Britt said some of Time Warner Cable’s contracts fall into this category.

Britt

Britt has repeatedly emphasized Time Warner wants to license content more broadly to allow the company to include it in its TV Everywhere platform, which streams video content to wireless devices. The cable operator adopted a policy in 2009 that sought to deliver content to customers on any device they wish. Restrictive contracts have kept that policy from being fully implemented.

AT&T U-verse says it won’t pay full price for cable programming sold to its online competitors.

“If they’re going to go over-the-top, then that’s a very different conversation and a very different value for our customers,” Jeff Weber, president of content, said last month at an investor conference. “Exclusive versus non-exclusive has materially different value for our customers. And I think we would want that reflected.”

Restrictive contracts are all about protecting the existing pay television ecosystem, according to Charter’s chief financial officer, Chris Winfrey.

“It’s in everybody’s mutual interest that we are protecting the ecosystem in a way that continues to keep the value of that programming that we have and the way it’s delivered to our subscribers today,” Winfrey said added.

Consumer groups say restrictive contracts are the epitome of anticompetitive industry behavior that should be examined by the Justice Department.

“Is it anticompetitive generally? Of course it is, they are keeping programming from their competitors,” said Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge.

Satellite companies were originally in this same position, unable to carry popular cable networks on reasonable terms at fair prices until the 1992 Cable Act mandated reforms that required non-discriminatory access to cable programming. Online video providers have not yet been able to demand the same terms for their competing services.

Powell

You and I may think America can do better providing fast and inexpensive broadband service. But a former chairman of the FCC now representing industry interests waved shiny keys of distraction to explain away why cable companies are still delivering Internet speeds slower than those found in Romania, Latvia, South Korea and Japan.

Michael Powell, the poster child of D.C.’s “revolving door” problem gave a well-compensated, rousing (yet fact-lacking) defense of an industry he was supposed to oversee in the public interest as the Bush Administration’s FCC chairman from 2001-2005.

“America is home to the world’s very best Internet companies,” said Michael Powell, chief executive of the National Cable and Telecommunications Assn. at the annual Cable Show in Washington, D.C. “We have worked hard to reach everyone, and now offer service to 93% of American homes. Despite our success, many people like to denigrate U.S. broadband by painting false comparisons to other countries. There are some nations doing very well, but it is foolish to compare countries like Latvia and France to the United States of America.”

Powell’s response is hardly a fact-filled defense for cable company broadband that still delivers slow speeds at high prices. Instead of attempting to call the statistics inaccurate, he tried to explain away the discrepancy by complaining people are ignoring the size of the country and its population.

In denial

Powell’s arguments might have some merit if the cable industry did not make a point of bypassing vast rural areas that do not meet Return on Investment tests. It is difficult to claim cable companies cannot deliver comparatively fast service in rural Iowa when they don’t offer any service at all.

The People’s Republic of China’s population is far larger than our own and is now a vital market for fiber optics manufacturers and suppliers. While some of America’s cable industry CEOs repeatedly argue America does not need fiber broadband or gigabit broadband speeds, the Chinese government has insisted that every new housing development be pre-wired with fiber that will easily and inexpensively supply those speeds in the near future.

Powell is correct to say speeds are improving in the United States, but there is growing evidence they are improving even faster overseas, especially in countries that are basing their primary telecommunication infrastructure on fiber optics, which can support enormously fast Internet speeds. As those fiber networks are lit, America will fall even faster in broadband rankings as long as cable operators continue to insist there is no demand or interest in the next generation of high-speed service. At the prices they charge, they may just prove their own “no demand”-argument, at least in this country.

Powell himself helped lay the foundation for America’s broadband duopoly by deregulating the industry with one hand while ignoring the need for competitive checks and balances with the other. At the end of Powell’s tenure, his greatest achievement was constructing an industry-friendly personal resumé to win lucrative employment as a telecommunications lobbyist.

Who better to speak with “authority” on telecommunications matters than a well-connected former FCC chairman that does the industry’s bidding? The NCTA hired him to deliver just the kind of defense cable operators hope Americans will believe.

Those that are aware of what broadband is like abroad don’t.

Optimum Wi-Fi is available from thousands of “hotspots” across New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. You can find them by starting your Wi-Fi device and viewing the available networks in range. The network name will be ‘optimumwifi’.

Cablevision broadband subscribers may soon get free Optimum Wi-Fi service on New Jersey commuter trains and inside railway stations, if the NJ Transit board approves an agreement with the cable company.

On Wednesday, the board will vote on a 20-year contract with Cablevision to build and maintain a wireless network entirely at the cable company’s expense and offer NJ Transit free use of its facilities to assist in its operations.

With more than two-thirds of all rail commuters using Internet service during their travels, the network will vastly improve Wi-Fi access and offload data traffic from nearby cellular towers.

Providing Wi-Fi on trains has proved more difficult than Cablevision and the transit group originally thought.

The NJ Transit system first issued a “request for proposals” from interested Wi-Fi vendors back in 2010. Three years later, the transportation agency finally chose Cablevision over Illinois-based RAILband Group.

Cablevision has also been dragging its feet installing Wi-Fi on the Long Island Railroad and Metro North, despite agreeing to offer service by 2011.

“Wi-Fi on the trains is complicated,” explained Tad Smith, Cablevision president of local media.

On a March 2013 conference call with Wall Street analysts, he admitted the service is still not up and running, but should be sometime in the future.

“We are in active, productive, very positive conversations with the trains,” said Smith. “I am optimistic for the future.”

The project in New Jersey is not anticipated to be complete until 2016. Wi-Fi will first be made available in railway stations. Individual railway cars will then gradually get the service.

Cablevision now provides its Optimum Wi-Fi service as a benefit exclusively for subscribers. Non-subscribers are limited to three 10-minute sessions per 30-day period, with a further limit of one 10-minute session per day.

The MTA required Cablevision to provide “reasonable” access to non-Cablevision subscribers, which may include daily, weekly, or monthly access passes at an additional cost. But no pricing or further details are now available.

NJ Transit is the nation’s largest statewide public transportation system providing more than 895,000 weekday trips on 240 bus routes, three light rail lines and 12 commuter rail lines. It is the third largest transit system in the country with 165 rail stations, 60 light rail stations and more than 18,000 bus stops linking major points in New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia.

Still waiting for Verizon FiOS in New York City? Are you annoyed that your neighbors have impressive broadband speeds from an all-fiber network while you suffer with DSL or cable broadband from Time Warner or Cablevision? Your landlord may be the problem.

While cities upstate clamor for Verizon’s fiber upgrades, FiOS has gone unappreciated and unwanted by more than 40 building owners either blocking the company from entering their properties or ignoring repeated letters from Verizon requesting permission to begin upgrades. In many instances, Verizon has tried to make contact since 2010 with no success. Some building owners want extra compensation (sometimes to the extreme) before they will grant permission. Others don’t want the phone company performing work inside their buildings, period.

Now Verizon is appealing to the New York State Public Service Commission to ask for their intervention.

Verizon has the right to install cable television facilities, regardless of the landlord’s objections, under Section 228 of the New York Public Service Law, which states: “No landlord shall interfere with the installation of cable television facilities upon his property or premises ….”

Verizon has promised it will bear the full cost of the installation of its equipment, wiring, and other facilities to offer the service, as well as indemnify the landlord for any damage caused by the installation work.

In April, Verizon was criticized by New York City public advocate Bill de Blasio for falling behind schedule providing access to FiOS in low-income communities.

“Five years into one of the biggest franchise agreements issued by the city, roughly half of homes still have no access to fiber network connections—most of them concentrated in low-income areas like Upper Manhattan, the South Bronx, Western Queens and Central Brooklyn,” said de Blasio.

The public advocate added:

Under Verizon’s 2008 franchise agreement, all New York City residents are supposed to have access to fiber optic networks by June 2014. As a benchmark, the contract required the company to reach more than three-quarters of City residents by the end of 2012, but according to data released through the New York State Office of Information Technology Services, only half of New York City’s 3.4 million housing units had access to fiber broadband services at year’s end—putting the company far behind schedule. Brooklyn and the Bronx lagged furthest behind, with only 40 percent and 46 percent of household having access to fiber, respectively.

de Blasio

Verizon and the Bloomberg Administration dispute de Blasio’s findings, noting fiber upgrades often depend on surrounding infrastructure. Where overhead wiring predominates, Verizon FiOS is available nearly everywhere in New York City. In other areas, Verizon says it is meeting its obligations and points to landlord impediments for slowing down FiOS expansion.

But de Blasio’s maps of FiOS availability do depict a pattern of preference for FiOS service in areas where higher income residents live. In areas where average annual income is below $20,000 annually, there are obvious service gaps. Neighborhoods like Washington Heights, High Bridge, Astoria, Woodside, Bedford-Stuyvesant and Bushwick have been largely excluded from FiOS to date, according to de Blasio.

Verizon’s franchise agreement with the city only requires the company to make service available to buildings, not necessarily within them. A landlord can delay Verizon’s entry into a building or the company could choose to prioritize some buildings over others for service.

With large sections of New York covered by multiple dwelling units like apartments and condos, some could find themselves without FiOS service for several years, particularly if a property owner decides to make life difficult for the phone company.

Among the latest who have:

On May 24, Verizon notified the PSC the following property owners had complied with their request to conduct a site survey inside their buildings and were requested to be dropped from the list republished above:

• Sama Los Tres LLC – c/o Metropolitan Realty Group
• Lenoxville Associates – c/o Metropolitan Realty Group
• 2816 Roebling Avenue LLC
• East Village Gardens
• 194 Bleecker Street Owners Corp.
• US Manhattan II Housing Corp.
• 40 Renwick Street LLC

Canadian telecom regulators have announced new rules that will limit “gotcha” fees for mobile customers caught exceeding their data allowance, push for an end to the ubiquitous three-year service contract, and force carriers to unlock cell phones after 90 days.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) this week unveiled a new consumer’s Wireless Code governing wireless service. The new rules were introduced in response to more than 5,000 consumer comments received by the regulator over service pricing, opaque wireless contract language, and policies that kept customers locked into long service contracts with expensive exit penalties.

On the surface, the new rules seem to aggressively rein in Bell, Rogers, and Telus — Canada’s three dominant carriers. Among the new provisions taking effect Dec. 2:

• cancel your contract at no cost after a maximum of two years;
• cancel your contract and return your phone at no cost, within 15 days and specific usage limits, if you are unhappy with your service;
• have your phone unlocked after 90 days, or immediately if you paid in full for your phone;
• have your service suspended at no cost if your phone is lost or stolen;
• receive a Critical Information Summary, which explains your contract in under two pages;
• receive a notification when you are roaming in a different country, telling you what the rates are for voice services, text messages, and data usage;
• limit your data overage charges to $50 a month and your data roaming charges to $100 a month;
• pay no extra charges for a service described as “unlimited”;
• you can refuse a change to the key terms and conditions of your contract, including the services in your contract, the price for those services, and the duration of your contract; and
• all cell contracts must use plain language and clearly describe the services customers receive and include information on when and why customers may be charged extra.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC New CRTC wireless rules ban contract break fees after 2 years 6-3-13.flv[/flv]

CBC Television’s “The National” explains the CRTC’s new Wireless Code and how it will impact Canadian cell phone customers. Many are skeptical the CRTC will outwit the wireless industry.  (4 minutes)

“Every day, Canadians rely on wireless devices while in their homes, at their jobs, at school or traveling abroad,” said Jean-Pierre Blais, chairman of the CRTC. “The wireless code will contribute to a more dynamic marketplace by making it possible for Canadians to discuss their needs with service providers at least every two years.  The code is a tool that will empower consumers and help them make informed choices about the service options that best meet their needs. To make the most of this tool, consumers also have a responsibility to educate themselves.”

Canadians pay among the world’s highest wireless charges and most are offered contracts lasting three years. In the United States, two-year contracts are standard. But in both countries, once the contract is fulfilled customers do not receive a discount on services going forward.

“The biggest scam of all is still allowed under the new rules: wireless companies don’t lower your bill if you buy your own phone or fulfill your contract, so you are still paying their subsidy-recovery phone rates either way,” complains Thomas Harcourt in Toronto. “Once again, the wireless companies got the ears of the commissioners and despite thousands of angry Canadians, they watered down our ‘Bill of Rights’ into more bait and switch. You can almost see where the wireless lobbyists had their way with the language.”

Most Canadian wireless carriers welcomed the new rules and the industry participated in hearings contemplating their creation. The new federal rules will supersede conflicting, sometimes stronger provincial regulations, which some observers suggest is a decision in the carriers’ favor.

A closer review of the new regulations exposes several that were tempered, perhaps after industry objections.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BNN Wireless Code of Conduct CWTA 2-11-13.flv[/flv]

Back in February, BNN talked with Bernard Lord, a representative of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association about what policies they hoped to see in a national wireless “code of conduct.” The industry got most of what it wanted in the final Wireless Code. (8 minutes)

The CRTC did not ban 3-year contracts outright. Instead, they tied contract termination policies and fees to the device subsidy phone companies give customers to cheapen the upfront cost of equipment.

Blais

In Canada, a new smartphone selling for $699 might be discounted to $99 with a three-year contract. For the next 36 months, customers gradually pay back that discount, called a device subsidy, in the form of an artificially inflated rate plan. Most companies amortize that payback rate over the life of the contract. Under the new CRTC rules, companies must recoup their device subsidy within 24 months.

“We didn’t focus on the length of the contract, we focused on the economic relation,” CRTC chairman Blais said. “So, in effect, it’s equivalent to those asking for a ban of a three-year contract without us actually banning three-year contracts, because what we’re saying is the contract’s amortization period can only be for a maximum period of 24 months.”

Carriers can still charge early termination fees during the first two years and can also recoup any remaining unpaid subsidy during the third year as the regulations begin to cover more customers already under three year contracts. Customers who bring or buy their own device can also be charged an early termination fee up to $50 during the first two years of the contract.

Since the rules will apply only to new cellular contracts signed after Dec. 2, 2013, current customers will have to wait before the new Wireless Code fully applies to them. That means wireless carriers can lock you to the old rules if you buy a new phone before December until your contract ends or is amended.

“I think a lot of consumers, if they were thinking of going to the mall and picking up a new phone and signing a contract, they should think twice about doing so,” Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, told CTV News.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC 3-year contracts to end 6-3-13.flv[/flv]

The CBC tells you when you can rip up your three-year contract. But be careful. The new rules don’t take effect until December. Many complain cell phone service is far too expensive in Canada. (4 minutes)

Wireless carriers claim consumers may eventually pay the price for the rules changes, with some hinting they will increase the upfront price for devices or raise rates to cover the shortened window of time they can recoup a device subsidy.

“This requirement does limit consumer choice in the marketplace, and could make a customer’s up-front purchase price of a smartphone more expensive than current offerings,” said Bernard Lord, head of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA).

The CWTA also hinted rates may also increase to cover the “major technology development and costs associated with implementing and complying with the new code.”

Ken Engelhart, senior vice president for regulatory affairs at Rogers told BNN a new smartphone under the old three-year contract was typically priced at around $100. Under a two-year contract, that smartphone might cost $300 upfront.

The CRTC’s language banning overage charges for “unlimited” service does not offer consumers any relief from speed throttling. The CRTC says speed limits are acceptable as long as they are “clearly explained” in what the regulator calls a “fair use” policy.

Language that covers contract changes also leaves some wiggle room for carriers to make changes and in certain cases, even increase customer rates while the contract is in effect. The new rules specify customers must make “informed and express consent” to approve a contract change. But the rules might allow a carrier to consider those changes as accepted if a customer does not expressly complain and/or continues to use the phone after a specified deadline. Carriers can also make changes without consumer consent if they involve reducing the rate for a single service or increasing the customer’s usage allowance for a single service.

The limit of data overage charges ($50) and international data roaming charges ($100) are welcomed by most Canadians to avoid bill shock. But most wireless carriers will likely impose usage “toll booths” to avoid uncollectable customer overages. When a customer reaches their limit, they will be given a choice of having their service cut off, opting to cover the overlimit fees, or upgrade their plan.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BNN Wireless Code of Conduct PIAC 2-11-13.flv[/flv]

BNN talked with John Lawford, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre about the things Canadians hate most about their wireless phone companies.  (February 11, 2013) (4 minutes)