Life's for sharing... just not on our wireless network.

British T-Mobile wireless broadband users got — how shall we put it — an “abrupt” and uncharacteristically rude notice about a change in the company’s “Fair Use” policy that takes effect in February (underlining ours):

Browsing means looking at websites and checking email, but not watching videos, downloading files or playing games. We’ve got a fair use policy but ours means that you’ll always be able to browse the internet, it’s only when you go over the fair use amount that you won’t be able to download, stream and watch video clips.

So what’s changing? – From 1st February 2011 we will be aligning our fair use policies so our mobile internet service will have fair use of 500MB.

What does this mean? – We’ll always let you email and browse the internet and you’ll never pay more than you agree to. We do have a fair use policy but ours is there to make sure we deliver the best service possible to all our customers.  This means that you’ll always be able to browse the internet.

So remember our Mobile Broadband and internet on your phone service is best used for browsing which means looking at your favorite websites like Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, BBC News and more, checking your email and looking for information, but not watching videos or downloading files.

If you want to download, stream and watch video clips, save that stuff for your home broadband.

T-Mobile's warning to customers to avoid watching videos on their network flies in the face of their own smartphone promotions.

As our regular reader “Jr” observes, broadband carriers want customers to use their broadband connections to browse web pages and read e-mail — and little else.  Rarely has a carrier come right out and said it, though.

Not only has T-Mobile “aligned” their fair use policies to deliver you less service (down from 1-3GB per month), but they’ve kept the same high price.  T-Mobile is the same company that routinely markets smartphones and other multimedia-equipped handsets specifically for the services they don’t want you to use on their network.

T-Mobile illustrates once again how Internet Overcharging schemes really work:

1. They implement a usage cap and suggest it is “generous” and that the majority of customers will never come close to hitting it;
2. They gradually reduce the usage allowance when revenue needs eclipse the needs of customers;
3. They still claim the new, lower limit is still “generous.”
4. They suggest almost nobody is likely going to hit the limit, no matter what it is.

Of course, had T-Mobile customers really come nowhere near the old limits, what problem was resolved lowering it?  T-Mobile claims the vast majority of customers don’t exceed 200MB of usage per month, an exceptionally low amount in comparison to other carriers.

The telecoms regulator Ofcom told ZDNet UK on Monday that, “if consumers are being notified of a change likely to cause them material detriment, the provider must give the customer one month’s notice of the change, and at the same time they must also inform the customer of their right to terminate their contract without penalty if the proposed change is not acceptable to the customer”.

As the changes take effect from 1 February, T-Mobile has given less than one month’s notice.

“We encourage unhappy consumers to speak with their provider about their concerns,” Ofcom’s spokesperson said. “If the problem relates to a particular term or condition that you feel is unfair, then you can log your complaint with Ofcom. We monitor complaints about the behaviour of communications providers and if there is a high volume of complaints about a particular issue, we do investigate and take action as required.”

(Thanks to our reader “PreventCAPS” for sharing the story with us.)

While Time Warner Cable and Sinclair Broadcasting duel to the Dec. 31 deadline, some Time Warner Cable customers are using the dispute to their advantage — demanding, and winning price concessions on their cable service.

Time Warner Cable has fielded so many calls about the dispute, it has added a message to its customer call-in lines to share its side of the dispute.

Listen to the announcements Time Warner Cable is using around the country on its customer service lines to address the Sinclair-Time Warner dispute. (7 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Some customers tired of being put in the middle have decided to take their business elsewhere.  Others are just threatening, which brings forth customer retention deals to keep customers from cutting Time Warner’s cord.

“I scored a one year extension of my new customer deal — $99 a month for every kind of service the cable company offers,” writes Scott from Syracuse, N.Y.  Time Warner Cable is expected to drop WSYT (Fox) and WNYS (MyNetwork TV) late Friday night.  “I told them their rate hike notice was bad enough, but dropping two stations from my lineup without offering me a refund was too much.”

Scott was prepared to switch to Verizon FiOS, but Time Warner offered a price he’ll take for some inconvenience.

“I threw my Time Warner rate hike notice in the trash — it doesn’t apply to me for a year,” Scott says.  “It took ten minutes on the phone with the cable company and now I’ll save hundreds a year.”

In Texas, Time Warner Cable customers trying to exit the cable company for a competitor found the cable company’s term contract harder to walk away from.

“They are playing hardball with me, telling me I’ll have to pay an early termination fee if I switch,” says Stop the Cap! reader Rod who lives in San Antonio.  He’s preparing to say goodbye to KABB (Fox) and KMYS (MyNetwork TV).”

“I told them with their attitude, it would be worth paying the fee to see the back of them,” Rod says.  “Besides, when you tell some of their competitors about the cable company’s exit fees, they sweeten the deal as a sign of goodwill, something I am not getting from the cable company.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sinclair TW Dispute 12-30-10.flv[/flv]

Sinclair stations across the country are airing various news reports about the upcoming signal blackout on both Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, which uses Time Warner to negotiate programming contracts.  Virtually all are biased towards Sinclair’s position, and ignore the fact Time Warner plans to import Fox network programming regardless of what happens.  (25 minutes)

In Rochester and Buffalo, the cable company is willing to extend their $99 triple play promotion to customers threatening to drop service over the Sinclair dispute, especially when customers also mention the company’s recently announced rate hike.

“If the first person you speak with doesn’t offer you a better deal, hang up and call back,” advises Susan, our reader in Amherst, N.Y.  Both she and her mother in Cheektowaga are saving $35 a month for the next year all thanks to Sinclair and Time Warner’s money fight.

One of the stations impacted in the dispute

“We would have never thought about doing this before we started reading Stop the Cap!,” she says. “We had no idea we could get these kind of deals.”

“We’d lose WUTV (Fox) and WNYO (MyNetwork TV), but Time Warner promises all of the Fox network shows will still be aired and losing MyNetwork TV is hardly a loss at all,” Susan shares.  “Just call them and use the word ‘cancel’ and see what they offer.”

Sinclair stations are notorious for running local news operations on the cheap, when they bother to run local news at all.  So many viewers remain blissfully unaware of the dispute because many of the affected Sinclair stations are low-rated afterthoughts.  Of the 35+ impacted stations, fewer than six have serious local news operations, and many of those are in last place in the local ratings.  That’s a point Time Warner Cable had reportedly raised in their negotiations, noting the stations are not worth Sinclair’s asking price.

But the cable operator is also not saying a whole lot about the dispute on their various local news channels.  The company has instead taken out full page advertisements in newspapers alerting viewers to the upcoming signal disruptions and pushing customers to visit the cable operator’s national carriage dispute website: RollOverOrGetTough.com.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner News Sinclair 12-30-10.flv[/flv]

Time Warner Cable briefly mentioned the dispute between the cable company and Sinclair Broadcasting on a few of their local news channels.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHAM Rochester TW Sinclair Dispute 12-30-10.flv[/flv]

WHAM-TV in Rochester took a third party look at the dispute and explained it to western New York viewers.  Special bonus: A brief interview with Scott Fybush, editor of Northeast Radio Watch who understands western New York media like few others.  (3 minutes)

While America’s largest cell phone companies battle over map coverage and work towards limiting wireless data usage, one super-regional wireless carrier is willing to pay customers to dump their old carrier and switch.

Privately owned Cellular South, which delivers home coverage over its own network in Memphis, the Florida Panhandle, Rome, Georgia, and parts of Mississippi and Alabama, is offering $100 to hand over your AT&T iPhone and get a brand new Android phone.  The company will even cover up to $200 of any early termination fees charged by AT&T or other carriers.

The company offers smartphone plans starting at $50 a month that includes unlimited mobile web access.  Customers with two or more smartphones on one account can get “unlimited everything” service for $59.99 per line.

Cellular South, virtually unknown outside of its service areas, has gained wider attention in recent days because of its stand against Verizon Wireless’ LTE network policies and an unrelated total meltdown of a Lauderdale County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors meeting that began with a debate about switching away from AT&T.

[flv width=”640″ height=”447″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cellular South Ad.flv[/flv]

An ad for Cellular South promotes the fact its smartphone data plan delivers unlimited usage.  (1 minute)

The company is planning its own LTE network for its local coverage areas and got into a major dispute with Verizon Wireless, a fellow CDMA carrier, over the LTE standard’s roaming capabilities.  Wireless providers who belong to the Rural Cellular Association are disturbed that without interoperability requirements from the FCC, big national carriers will be able to exclude small players from their networks.  Even worse, companies like Cellular South may have trouble finding affordable wireless equipment that works on the frequency bands they are allocated to use.  What this means for consumers is that equipment purchased for Cellular South’s LTE network may not function while roaming.  The carrier told the FCC:

Lack of interoperability in the 700 MHz band will impose significant costs and burdens upon A Block licensees, which will competitively disadvantage smaller and regional carriers and their consumers. By delaying a decision on interoperability, the FCC is denying rural America access to 4G service. Cellular South paid $192 million dollars for licenses in Auction No. 73 and for months has been prepared to immediately put available capital to work to deploy its 700 MHz network in compliance with the FCC’s build-out requirements and for the benefit of its rural and regional consumers. But, without the certainty of interoperability across the 700 MHz spectrum, Cellular South’s capital will remain on the sidelines – unable to create jobs or increase economic activity within its 700 MHz license area.

Collectively, the rural and regional carriers holding Lower A licenses do not have the scale or scope to attract equipment manufactures making Band Class 17 or Band Class 13 equipment to produce Band Class 12 equipment at reasonable costs. Even where Band 12 equipment can be made available, the costs are unnecessarily inflated by the limited scale resulting from the lack of interoperability across the 700 MHz bands. If such equipment were produced, it would not be technically capable of roaming outside of Band Class 12 deployed networks. Nevertheless, rural and regional carriers like Cellular South may have no choice but to reduce the speed and size of their 700 MHz deployment and pay the unnecessarily inflated costs of Band 12 equipment and devices if it wants to compete with Verizon Wireless and AT&T in the 4G market.

The Rural Cellular Association noted the FCC inquired whether or not rural carriers could simply rely on the good will of Verizon Wireless, which is running its own private interoperability initiative, the Rural American Partnership Program.  Verizon says it will work with rural carriers and sign roaming agreements with participants to help ensure equipment was standardized across multiple carriers.  But the Rural Cellular Association claims Verizon’s offer was akin to a digital Trojan Horse — a gift to rural operators on the outside, but one that benefits Verizon far more than rural carriers on the inside.

“Verizon’s Plan provides a limited number of rural carriers with nominal opportunity to add or extend their 4G coverage in a way that only fills Verizon’s coverage gaps. Additionally, Lower A licensees paid a significant amount of money for their spectrum, more than Verizon paid for the C block per MHz/pop, and have stringent geographic-based build-out requirements,” Rebecca Murphy Thompson, the rural carriers’ general counsel wrote the Commission. “Considering these strict build-out requirements, Cellular South will focus on building its own business, not helping Verizon expand its network.”

The Rural Cellular Association (RCA) also continued its campaign against what it sees as anti-competitive behavior on the part of AT&T and Verizon.

“In addition to interoperability, RCA described how its members have limited options to obtain nationwide data roaming, but their customers still expect nationwide coverage and comparable services to their urban counterparts. Larger carriers are blocking rural and regional carriers from obtaining data roaming with reasonable terms and conditions because there is no regulatory mandate. RCA plans to supplement the record to provide examples of how AT&T and Verizon have blocked rural and regional carriers from negotiating data roaming agreements with reasonable rates. After a year of negotiations, Cellular South now has a data roaming agreement with one of the larger carriers.”

Lauderdale County, Miss.

For rural America, unaccustomed to getting good cellular coverage, the presence of rural carriers specifically targeting underserved communities as their main business function is a welcome change from “extended service” provided by larger carriers, mostly for travelers, as an afterthought.  These smaller carriers also often deliver savings in the communities they serve.

In Lauderdale County, Mississippi, the Board of Supervisors met earlier this week to review potential savings of at least $10,000 a year for the county sheriff’s department, just by ditching AT&T for Cellular South.  While Sheriff Billy Sollie had no objections to that, a follow up discussion about what to do with the savings started an on-camera debate that quickly descended into personal attacks and traded accusations.

District 5 supervisor Ray Boswell and Sheriff Sollie turned the meeting into a spectacle with allegations of drug and alcohol abuse, illegal use of county property, culminating in claims the sheriff was a “crybaby” and “a disgrace.”  A sheriff’s deputy even joined in at one point, yelling at Boswell for making unsubstantiated allegations and suggesting Boswell was arrested on felony charges but had his record expunged.

While other members of the board, including its president, sat stunned into silence, no one bothered to gavel the shouting match out of order.  The resulting 15 minutes of fame has created a sensation, and many area residents are embarrassed and upset.

Cellular South will probably win the county’s business, but heaven help the customer service representative that takes a call from Ray Boswell about a service problem.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Lauderdale County Meltdown 12-6-10.flv[/flv]

Watch for yourself as a county meeting descends into chaos.  As it goes from bad to worse, nobody bothered to intervene to stop the escalating accusations and counter-accusations that have since become an embarrassment for residents of Lauderdale County, Miss.  (18 minutes)

Chase Carey (courtesy: Forbes)

Chase Carey, President, Chief Operating Officer of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., has blamed the federal government and politicians for giving aid and comfort to Cablevision, the cable system serving most of suburban New York City, forcing Fox to cut off the World Series for millions of subscribers in the recent contract dispute between the two providers.

Carey told Bloomberg News that the standoff with Cablevision would have been resolved much more quickly if lawmakers hadn’t threatened to weigh in, leading the cable provider to hold out in hopes of getting better terms.

“This process would have been resolved more easily, more quickly,” Carey said. “I would actually contend we wouldn’t have gone off the air at all.”

Carey said Fox needs the feeds that it collects from cable companies because even with advertising revenue, the broadcast network loses a “few hundred million dollars” every year. Carey said he came to Washington to explain to lawmakers why Fox needed two streams of revenue and explain why public declarations of support for Cablevision from more than 50 lawmakers only helped to prolong the standoff.

“We’re not running a nonprofit,” Carey said.

Was John Kerry responsible...

If Fox is unprofitable, you wouldn’t know it from Carey’s compensation package.  The COO will earn $8.1 million this year, plus a $15 million bonus and additional compensation totaling more than 26 million dollars.

Carey is upset with Democrats for inserting themselves in private corporate matters, despite the fact the resulting dispute left millions of cable subscribers without the networks they were paying for (and forced to fight for refunds from Cablevision.)

“You’re going to bastardize every negotiation because you’re going to have this specter of arbitration,” he said.

At least 50 members of Congress, many from the northeastern United States where cable blackouts have been the most prevalent, support binding arbitration for such disputes, and criticized Fox for demanding increasing amounts of money for formerly free television signals.  Cablevision contends it was forced to pay an “unfair amount” to get the signals back on cable.

Carey especially targeted Democratic senator John Kerry from Massachusetts, who was among the most vocal opponents of cable systems and programmers putting viewers in the middle of disputes.

...or Rupert Murdoch?

Kerry intends to introduce legislation during the lame duck session of Congress to force both parties to keep programming on while negotiations are underway, especially because consumers have already paid, often in advance, for such programming.  Analysts say Republicans in the Senate will likely filibuster any such measure.  Most Republicans are inclined to share Carey’s view and let the companies duel it out amongst themselves, according to Andrew D. Lipman, a Washington-based partner with the law firm Bingham McCutchen.

Carey himself has been on both sides of the issue.  His former job was chief executive of DirecTV, the largest U.S. satellite-television provider.  Carey at the time thought the television networks and local stations were responsible for their own failing business models and were late to the table demanding payments for cable carriage.  When the Great Recession caused advertising revenue to plummet, both networks and local stations decided the concept of free, ad-supported television was no longer a viable business model.  Now stations want dual revenue streams — ad revenue and payments from the majority of Americans who watch those stations on cable, satellite, or telco-TV.

More importantly, Carey wants the government to butt out, even when consumer dollars are at stake.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Man Who Blacked Out World Series Blames Politicians 11-9-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reflects on the dispute between News Corp.’s Chase Carey and Cablevision.  (3 minutes)

AT&T's "Fair Deal" website claims the company is fighting for lower programming costs.

Programmers trying to play hardball over fees paid by cable, satellite, and phone company providers occasionally get the ball thrown back at them, which is precisely what happened Friday when Scripps-Howard found their popular networks thrown off of AT&T’s U-verse, even though the companies had agreed on financial terms.

At issue — AT&T wants to distribute programming it pays for over new mediums, ranging from video on demand, online viewing, and even wireless watching through smartphone applications.  If programmers want more money, AT&T argues, they’d better also be willing to deal on how that programming gets watched.

When Scripps’ officials demurred Friday morning, AT&T simply pulled the plug on Food TV, HGTV, the Cooking Channel, as well as lesser-watched Great American Country and DIY Networks.

Scripps’ officials hurried out a statement:

“Let me start by saying this impasse is not about money,” said John Lansing, president of Scripps Networks. “We reached an agreement in principle with AT&T U-verse on the distribution fees we would receive for these networks well in advance of last month’s contract deadline.”

“AT&T U-verse demanded unreasonably broad video rights for emerging media where business models have not even been established,” Lansing said. “Accepting their demands would have restrained our ability to deliver our content to our viewers in new and innovative ways.”

Food Network President Brooke Johnson threw a HissyFit, claiming AT&T yanked the channels while the two sides were still at the negotiating table.

As Friday wore on, both sides defended their respective positions.  Scripps’ saw AT&T’s actions as nothing short of a Pearl Harbor sneak attack.  AT&T claimed Scripps was pulling a flim-flam — trying to stick the phone company with an inferior deal that restricted how they can use the basic cable networks, all at prices higher than their cable competitors were paying.

But when Lansing claimed the dispute was not about money, reality was also yanked from the lineup.  When a cable company or programmer tells you it is not about the money, it is all about the money.

Scripps reactivated their "Keepmynetworks.com" website to fight another programming fee battle

Johnson told the Chicago Tribune AT&T was trying to negotiate for broad usage rights of their programming for services that don’t even exist yet.

“They are asking for broad, unlimited distribution on non-linear platforms that go well beyond emerging media technologies. It’s anticipatory and it’s without a business model,” Johnson said.

Such agreements could end up haunting Scripps if a new money-making distribution scheme evolves that AT&T can use -and- get to keep all of the profits.

Cable companies might also be unhappy if AT&T won concessions they themselves don’t have.

Re-purposing video content into on-demand or portable viewing could evolve into a multi-million dollar business, especially if consumers begin deserting cable TV packages that include dozens of unwatched channels.  Cable cord-cutters could end up watching Food TV shows online, and who benefits financially from that is ultimately the issue here.

A weekend without the networks on U-verse was apparently enough for both sides, who pounded out an agreement announced yesterday evening, restoring the networks.

It was all-smiles for both sides:

Brian Shay, senior vice president of AT&T U-verse, said, “It was important to us on behalf of our customers to come to a positive resolution as quickly as possible. We appreciate everyone’s willingness to make that happen, working diligently over the weekend, so the situation wasn’t prolonged, and we thank our customers for their support and patience while we reached a fair deal.”

From Scripps:

“AT&T U-verse customers, we have been overwhelmed by your loyalty and support of HGTV and our other networks – DIY, Food Network, Cooking Channel and GAC. Your voice has been heard and we are very close to getting our networks back on AT&T U-verse.  We hope to have more good news for you soon.”

Terms of the new agreement were not disclosed, but you can be certain it includes a higher price tag for the bouquet of Scripps’ networks that will eventually appear on future AT&T U-verse bills.  But at least the cable networks avoided the fate of the Hallmark Channel, kicked off U-verse Sept. 1st and is still off as of today.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDAF Kansas City Cable Customers Lose Channels 11-8-10.flv[/flv]

WDAF-TV in Kansas City covers the weekend loss of Food TV and other cable networks on AT&T U-verse over another programming fee dispute.  (2 minutes)