Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment who was the subject of our last HissyFitWatch, has decided damage control was the order of the day after being caught making remarks suggesting the Internet had never come to any good and was filled with pirates and freeloaders.  A recap:

“I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet, period.”

The Internet has “created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It’s as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, ‘Give it to me now,’ and if you don’t give it to them for free, they’ll steal it.”

Just brought to our attention, Lynton decided he’d better clarify those remarks, because the blog world had already spent a week burning him in effigy for making them.  So off to The Huffington Post he went to pen his long-form explanation on May 26th.

In March, an unfinished copy of 20th Century Fox’s film X-Men Origins: Wolverine was stolen from a film lab and uploaded to the Internet, more than a month before its theatrical release. The studio investigated the crime, and efforts were made to limit its availability online. Still, it was illegally downloaded more than four million times.

That kind of wide scale theft was very much on my mind when I was on a panel the other day which opened with a question about the impact of the Internet on the entertainment business, and I responded, “I’m a guy who sees nothing good having come from the Internet. Period.”

But, I actually welcome the Sturm und Drang I’ve stirred, because it gives me an opportunity to make a larger point (one which I also made during that panel discussion, though it was not nearly as viral as the sentence above). And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content — music, newspapers, movies and books — have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.

Some of that damage has been caused by changing business models (the FTC just announced an inquiry into the impact of new media on the newspaper industry). But the primary culprit is piracy. The Internet has brought people with no regard for the intellectual property of others together with a technology that allows them to easily steal that property and sell or give it away to everyone, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted.

He could have said this at the Whine & Cheese breakfast in Syracuse and it would have provoked the same reaction his original comments had.  Not much to see here beyond another big corporate Hollywood studio executive pleading poverty and ruin because one of the industry’s own employees made off with a film print to score big bucks and eventually the copy drifted into Pirate Bay.  Nobody need call CSI to determine the cause of injury in this case.  Even the most casual observer can see most of these wounds are self-inflicted.

… Continue Reading

A lot of big companies have gotten big headaches dealing with the implications of a wired world.  Instead of embracing change and developing new business plans to win profits from online users, many see the net as the enemy or something that must be controlled.  When netizens out-think corporate efforts to protect fat profits and market control, an executive throwing a hissyfit sooner or later goes public.

That’s precisely what happened at one of those elite breakfasts with “important people” this past Thursday, according to Irin Carmon, reporting for WWD Media.  Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton let loose in a mini-tirade against what the Internet had done to Sony Pictures:

“I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet… (The Internet) created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It’s as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, ‘Give it to me now,’ and if you don’t give it to them for free, they’ll steal it.”

At the breakfast, co-hosted by the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University and The New Yorker, Lynton wasn’t alone in whining about the online revolution’s impact.  Co-panelist Nora Ephron wanted to share her pain about how the Internet in impacting the newspaper business:

The Internet has had a greater effect on “our beloved print than it’s had on the movie business.” But, she conceded, “We’re in the last days of copyright, if you want to be grim about it….  Stop it. I dare you.”

When Hollywood or the folks who work for the dead tree format feel threatened, demanding control and order usually comes next, which is really just code language to hand power over to the entities feeling threatened.  Lynton didn’t disappoint, complaining the Obama Administration’s plan to improve broadband without first obsessing about piracy control measures was the equivalent of building highways with no speed signs or licensed drivers.

Of course, Lynton’s world view would have companies like Sony serving as the DMV, mandating the same kinds of onerous, consumer-unfriendly digital rights management schemes, lock-outs on content, or ludicrous high pricing — the very things that fuel piracy in the first place.

The newspaper industry’s problems didn’t start with the Internet.  The merger and acquisition frenzy of the 1980s and 1990s in the newspaper business created enormous debt, resulting in inevitable “cost-cutting” measures, laying off the very journalists that made newspapers worth reading to begin with.  Today, many newspapers print a dozen or less locally written stories per day, often shallow in scope, with the rest being wire service copy, columns, and lots of ads.  Is it any surprise many people drop their subscriptions for a paper that increases in cost and decreases in quality?  When movie studios shovel junk to moviegoers who pay $10 or more per person, bombard them with ‘preview’ commercials, and require “easy credit financing” to afford the popcorn and soft drinks, why be surprised when people rely on Netflix or other rental services to watch for less?

Controlling the Internet isn’t just limited to big media companies or newspapers.  Most of those opposing net neutrality have a vested interest in protecting their brand or service from the online free-for-all.  Some new media companies manage to make enormous profits that other older companies wish they could still earn.  It’s not always an issue of price or piracy.  More often, it’s about developing a product or service that consumers want and charging a fair price for it.  Consumer Reports online represents a success story.  Many are willing to pay a yearly access fee for their online content because of its quality and trustworthiness.  Meanwhile, several online news sites experimenting with subscription models to monetize their content also want to hang onto profits from their littered-with-ads look, driving readers crazy with video ads, sales pitches taking over your screen, and the usual pop-ups and pop-unders.  You still get all of the irritation, but now you also have to pay for the right to be irritated.  No wonder web audiences simply move on.

Instead of learning lessons from customers that reject limits on things they’ve already paid for, denial of access for ‘business reasons,’ or trying to reduce the quality of a product while charging the same or more for it, cartel thinking takes over. Enormous sums are spent trying to impose limits or order on the net to protect themselves, even if it means shutting down the Internet’s own “model,” where a level playing field means success to those with the best ideas, not just to those with the best connections and influence.

Challenge: How do you, the second largest cable company in the nation convince people you cannot afford to complete needed upgrades of your network without rationing usage and massive rate increases, while the fifth largest cable company just pulled it off with no drama and has announced the nation’s fastest residential broadband service, at fire sale pricing with no caps or limits on usage, starting May 11th.  Cablevision even doubled the speeds of their free wi-fi, offered as a public service to their broadband customers at no additional cost in many public locations, to three megabits per second.

Time Warner wants to ask customers to pay $150 a month for 15Mbps service while Cablevision rolls out Optimum Online Ultra, priced at $99.95 per month for both consumers and business customers, offering 101Mbps service.  You read that right.  One hundred one megabits per second service.  Cablevision has no caps or limits on its customers — doesn’t need them, never wants them.  Cablevision’s new broadband package even blows away Verizon Communications FiOS highest tier, which offers 50Mbps priced at $139.95 a month.

How can Cablevision pull this off while Time Warner has a hissy fit and yanks back their own vaguely-promised upgrades because customers rightfully said no to a 300% rate increase?

Integrity, honesty, real commitment to the communities they serve, and a recognition that a credit-card-like-pricing model at a time when the economy is hurting is about as low as you can go, all might have something to do with it.

Cablevision didn’t whine when it saw broadband growth.  It simply reached inside the broadband division’s profits, and made an investment in the future needs of their customers.  They completed upgrades to DOCSIS 3.0 without a lot of fanfare, without the need to impose rationing plans and without any caps dumped on everyone from the lightest to heaviest users.  In other words, they chose treating their customers with respect instead of considering them crooks, bandwidth hogs, and freeloaders that needed to pay more… much more, for the exact same thing.  That “other company” saw the same growth in Internet usage and felt their best option was to cut investment by 11% last year.

“Optimum Online Ultra firmly solidifies Optimum as the fastest Internet service in the home, at work and through the air over Optimum Wi-Fi,” Cablevision chief operating officer Tom Rutledge said in a statement. “This is a perfect complement to our existing high-speed data products, which are fast, reliable and far superior to anything available from our competitors.”

You bet it is.  Standard service customers who receive 15Mbps/2Mbps service will also reap the benefits of less congested bandwidth pipelines, made possible by the technology upgrade.  For Cablevision, it means reaping the rewards of an easier-to-manage-network, happier customers, new profit-making possibilities afforded by higher speed premium tiers, and an assurance they will retain their 75% market share for broadband services in their service areas.

That “other provider” continues to stomp its feet and decide the real problem isn’t their rape and pillage pricing plans, but the fact customers weren’t “smart” enough to see the genius of turning you upside down and shaking you for every dollar that happens to fall out of your pocket in the process.  You cannot Re-Educate an informed and empowered consumer that can see right through the PR campaign:  not yesterday when you shelved it, not today while you ponder how to market it, and not tomorrow when you bring back the same rejected plans with a new coat of paint.

[Update 6:22pm EDT — If you are in the Austin area and you have had your service cut off for “over use,” please contact me immediately using the Contact form on the top of your screen.  Thanks!]

First Time Warner (via TWCAlex on Twitter) told customers who fought back the caps that the company was reneging on the DOCSIS upgrade, at least for now, and was taking their toys home with them.

But now the hissy fit might be extending into a usage crackdown in at least one of the “test” cities.  Because the promised “listening tour” of customer concerns is nowhere in sight, and the company has instead relied on a Re-Education campaign involving astroturfing lobbyists and propaganda, StoptheCap! launches a new feature this morning for any and all ISPs who throw tantrums when customers rebel and don’t allow providers to do whatever they want.

HissyFitWatch reports on ISPs who suddenly develop a bad attitude when things just don’t appear to be going their way.

Austin StoptheCap! reader Ryan Howard kicks off our premiere edition with a report that his Road Runner service was cut off yesterday without warning.  According to Ryan, it took four calls to technical support, two visits to the cable store to try two new cable modems (all to no avail), before someone at Time Warner finally told him to call the company’s “Security and Abuse” center.

“I called the number and had to leave a voice mail and about an hour later a Time Warner technician called me back and lectured me for using 44 gigabytes in one week,” Howard wrote.

Howard was then “educated” about his usage.

“According to her, that is more than most people use in a year,” Howard said.

Howard questioned the company representative about what defines an acceptable amount of usage so he doesn’t get cut off again.  He pays extra for Road Runner’s premium Turbo tier, so he already hands more money to Time Warner than average subscribers for his broadband service.

“All she would commit to is less — perhaps half or as quarter as much,” he said.

Time Warner is taking their DOCSIS 3 toys home with them after customers reject Caps 'n Tiers.

Convenient, considering that amounts to 40-60 gigabytes a month, which falls right in line with the now-temporarily-shelved tier pricing.

Ryan felt concerned that the Time Warner representative had such detailed information in front of her about his usage, although the representative reiterated repeatedly that they were not monitoring what he was doing with his account, just how much and when he was using it.

Ryan was upset over the entire ordeal, not only because a Time Warner representative lectured him (and 44 gigabytes, while a considerable amount, is not even close to the terabytes of usage Time Warner usually complains about when they speak about heavy users “abusing” their network), but also because he wasted more than seven hours of his day yesterday making several trips and calls trying to troubleshoot a technical problem that was anything but.

Of course, Time Warner’s own policies for using Road Runner allow them to crackdown on whatever they define represents “abusive use” of their service:

Road Runner Terms of Service — Austin, Texas

The Internet is known as a “shared resource,” and Road Runner accounts operate using these resources. Excessive use or abuse of these shared network resources by one customer may have a negative impact on all other customers. Misuse of network resources in a manner, which impairs network performance, is prohibited by this policy and may result in termination of your account.

You are prohibited from excessive consumption of resources, including CPU time, memory, disk space and session time. You may not use resource-intensive programs, which negatively impact other customers or the performance of Road Runner systems or networks. Road Runner reserves the right to terminate or limit such activities.

Time Warner’s Acceptable Use Policy also allows them to limit and/or throttle service at will:

The ISP Service may not be used to engage in any conduct that interferes with Operator’s ability to provide service to others, including the use of excessive bandwidth.

The ISP Service may not be used in a manner that interferes with Operator’s efficient operation of its facilities, the provision of services or the ability of others to utilize the ISP Service in a reasonable manner. Operator may use various tools and techniques in order to efficiently manage its networks and to ensure compliance with this Acceptable Use Policy (“Network Management Tools”). These may include detecting malicious traffic patterns and preventing the distribution of viruses or other malicious code, limiting the number of peer-to-peer sessions a user can conduct at the same time, limiting the aggregate bandwidth available for certain usage protocols such as peer-to-peer and newsgroups and such other Network Management Tools as Operator may from time to time determine appropriate.

Of course, the company always had these terms and conditions at its disposal to control the “abusers.”  One of the benefits of the DOCSIS 3 upgrade, that they have apparently now taken back, is that it dramatically reduces the possibility that a heavy bandwidth consumer will impact anyone else’s service.  Why put several cities through the ordeal of forced tier pricing experiments, when they’ve always had the power to manage the traffic on their network?  It’s just another reason why we’ve been skeptical about usage caps and forced tier pricing all along.

If Ryan’s experience is an example of what is forthcoming for more customers in the Austin area, we’re concerned.