Comcast has changed its explanation why the company’s XFINITY TV service, streamed over Xbox 360 has been made exempt from the company’s 250GB usage cap.

Last week, the company claimed the service traveled over the company’s “private IP” network, exempting it from usage restrictions.  That created a small furor among public interest groups and Net Neutrality supporters because of the apparent discrimination against streamed video content not partnered with the country’s biggest cable operator.

Stop the Cap! argued what we’ve always argued — usage caps and speed throttles are simply an end run around Net Neutrality — getting one-up on your competition without appearing to openly discriminate.

Now Comcast hopes to make its own end run around the topic by changing the language in its FAQ:

Before:

After:

Although the words have changed, the story stays the same.

The key principle to remember:

Data = Data

Comcast suggests its Xbox XFINITY TV service turns your game console into a set top box, receiving the same type of video stream its conventional cable boxes receive.  The cable company is attempting to conflate traditional video one would watch from an on-demand movie channel as equivalent to XFINITY TV over the Xbox.  Since the video is stored on Comcast’s own IP network, the company originally argued, it creates less of a strain on Comcast’s cable system.

AT&T's U-verse is an example of an IP-based distribution network.

But the cable industry’s inevitable march to IP-based delivery of all of their content may also bring a convenient excuse to proclaim that data does not always equal data.  They have the phone companies to thank for it.

Take AT&T’s U-verse or Bell’s Fibe.  Both use a more advanced form of DSL to deliver a single digital data pipeline to their respective customers.  Although both companies try to make these “advanced networks” sound sexy, in fact they are both just dumb data pipes, divided into segments to support different services.  The largest segment of that pipe is reserved for video cable TV channels, which take up the most bandwidth. A smaller slice is reserved for broadband, and a much smaller segment is set aside for telephone service.

AT&T and Bell’s pipes don’t know the difference between video, audio, or web content because they are all digital data delivered to customers on an IP-based network.  Yet both AT&T and Bell only slap usage caps on their broadband service, claiming it somehow eases congestion, even though video content always uses the most bandwidth. (They have not yet figured out a way to limit your television viewing to “maintain a good experience for all of their customers,” but we wouldn’t put it past them to try one day.)

What last mile congestion problem?

Comcast’s argument for usage limiting one type of data while exempting other data falls into the same logical black hole.  Comcast’s basic argument for usage caps has always been it protects a shared network experience for customers.  Since cable broadband resources are shared within a neighborhood, the company argues, it must impose limits on “heavy users” who might slow down service for others.

We've heard this all before. Former AT&T CEO Dan Somers: "AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of (its) veins."

But in a world where DOCSIS 3 technology and a march to digital video distribution is well underway or near completion at many of the nation’s cable operators, the “last mile” bandwidth shortage problem of the early 2000s has largely disappeared.  In fact, Comcast itself recognized that, throwing the usage door wide open distributing bandwidth heavy XFINITY TV over the Xbox console cap-free.

As broadband advocates and industry insiders continue the debate about whether this constitutes a Net Neutrality violation or not, a greater truth should be considered.  Stop the Cap! believes providers have more than one way to exercise their control over broadband.

Naked discrimination against web content from the competition is a messy, ham-handed way to deal with pesky competitors.  Putting up a content wall around Netflix or Amazon is a concept easy to grasp (and get upset about), even by those who may not understand all of the issues.

Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles can win providers the same level of control without the political backlash.  Careful modification of consumer behavior can draw customers to company-owned or partnered content without using a heavy hammer.

Simply slap a usage limit on customers, but exempt partnered content from the limit.  Now customers have a choice: use up their precious usage allowance with Netflix or watch some of the same content on the cable company’s own unlimited-use service.

Nobody is “blocking” Netflix, but the end result will likely be the same:

• Comcast wins all the advantages for itself and its “preferred partners”;
• Customers find themselves avoiding the competition to save their usage allowance;
• Competitors struggle selling to consumers squeezed by inflexible usage caps.

It is all a matter of control, and that is nothing new for large telecom companies.

Back in 1999, AT&T Broadband owned a substantial amount of what is today Comcast Cable.  Then-CEO Dan Somers made it clear AT&T’s investment would be protected.

“AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of [its] veins,” Somers said, referring to streamed video.

Obviously Comcast agrees.

Walden

When lawmakers talk about “unleashing” anything for “innovation,” it’s a safe bet we’re about to be treated to an anti-regulatory rant about how government rules are ruining everything for big business.  Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) does not disappoint.

Walden is chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an important place to be if you want to influence telecommunications policy in the United States.  Walden slammed the Federal Communications Commission this morning in an editorial piece in Politico, accusing the agency of regulating communications companies before they have a chance to engage in bad behavior:

Sometimes the FCC acts before thoroughly examining whether regulation is needed. It’s now time to stop putting the regulatory cart before the horse. That’s why this bill requires the FCC to survey the marketplace, identify a failure and conduct a cost-benefit analysis before imposing rules.

[…] When the FCC reviews a merger, it now often imposes unrelated conditions. These extraneous agreements may not correspond to any harm presented by the transaction, may not be justified industry-wide and, in some cases, are outside the commission’s jurisdiction.

Such bootstrapping is unfair to the singled-out parties. It also results in poor policy. Imposing extraneous conditions on a transaction that is not otherwise harmful is inappropriate. And if a transaction is harmful, imposing extraneous conditions cannot cure it. Merger conditions should be directly related to transaction-specific harms, and within the FCC’s general authority.

Walden’s concerns coincide with the corporate agendas of some of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies he oversees as chairman.  That may not be surprising, considering seven of the top 10 corporate contributors to his campaign fund are all telecommunications companies.

Walden's top campaign contributors (Source: Opensecrets.org)

Walden’s record on “innovation” is open to interpretation.  He is on record opposing Net Neutrality, has sought to “streamline” the FCC by hamstringing its authority, and has favored a variety of mergers and acquisitions that have effectively reduced competition for American consumers.

The FCC’s zeal for increased competition appears occasionally in its rulemakings, although the agency under Chairman Julius Genachowski can hardly be considered aggressive and out of control when it comes to some of the most contentious telecom issues that have arisen during the Obama Administration.  It only followed the Justice Department’s lead opposing the AT&T/T-Mobile USA merger.  It punted on Net Neutrality enforcement, doesn’t oppose Internet Overcharging, and has granted more mergers and acquisitions than it has sought to block.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has not always successfully stared down industry efforts to consolidate and deregulate.

Some examples of “unrelated conditions” the FCC has imposed on mergers include no price hikes for consumers for a limited time (Sirius-XM), a discounted Internet service for poor families (Comcast-NBC Universal), and spinoffs of acquired cellular network assets in barely competitive markets (Verizon Wireless-Alltel).

Sirius-XM mostly kept to their agreement, but promptly raised prices when it expired, Comcast followed the FCC’s agreement to the letter but found ways to limit the number of qualified families, and Verizon Wireless sold some of their acquired Alltel assets to AT&T, which at least provided improved AT&T reception in certain markets they largely ignored earlier.

Consumer advocates would argue the FCC should never have approved these transactions in the first place, and the conditions the FCC imposed were so mild, they faced little opposition from the companies involved. But apparently even that is too much for Walden, who we have a hard time seeing opposing any of these mergers.  Besides, some of the largest companies donating to Walden’s campaign fund are already adept at working around the FCC, suing their way past the regulations they oppose.

Walden advocates the FCC only perform its oversight functions after the industry is proven to have imposed unfair, anti-competitive, and discriminatory policies against consumers, not to act to prevent those abuses in the first place.  In short, he wants the FCC to regulate only after the damage has been done. That would be akin to calling the fire department after your house burned to the ground. Companies would be free to walk away with their ill-gotten gains with little threat the FCC would punish bad behavior and fine the bad actors.

If you are Comcast, that is innovation.  If you are a consumer, it’s something else.

Skeptical Science produced this infographic of the Heartland Institute’s funding sources and where the money goes.

The Heartland Institute, a corporate-backed astroturf operation that has steadfastly supported cable and phone companies against the interests of consumers, has threatened legal action against activists, bloggers, and other journalists who published stories about recently-acquired documents connecting the group with major corporate donors.

Among telecommunications companies, both AT&T and Time Warner Cable show up in the alleged donor documents, which Heartland officials claim were obtained under false pretenses and, in some cases, were altered or forged.

Jim Lakely, communications director for the group, was unhappy:

We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

The fact the group implies it will take legal action against those who published stories not to the group’s liking will only draw added attention to the scandal.  Stop the Cap! has tangled with this group several times over the years whenever AT&T and Time Warner Cable’s corporate agendas are being challenged.

The group has steadfastly refused to release their donor lists, at one point telling us, “by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue.”

Not really.  That’s because the first rule of politics is to “follow the money.”  Most of these groups do not sing their songs for free, and knowing who paid the songwriter can be very revealing.

The Associated Press found no evidence Heartland’s budget or fundraising documents leaked to the media were faked or altered:

Because Heartland was not specific about what was fake and what was real, The Associated Press attempted to verify independently key parts of separate budget and fundraising documents that were leaked. The federal consultant working on the classroom curriculum, the former TV weatherman, a Chicago elected official who campaigns against hidden local debt and two corporate donors all confirmed to the AP that the sections in the document that pertained to them were accurate. No one the AP contacted said the budget or fundraising documents mentioning them were incorrect.

Heartland can best salvage its reputation and put this behind them by releasing the names of their largest donors, letting consumers decide whether this organization truly represents their interests, or those of the corporations writing the big checks.  In addition to corporate contributions, Heartland’s operations rely on a single person identified only as “Anonymous Donor.” In the past six years, the man has given $14.26 million to the institute, nearly half its $33.9 million in revenue, according to the AP.

Grassroots this is not.

Christmas in January.

AT&T and some of the company’s best friends in Congress have attached wireless America’s legislative wishlist to the must-pass Payroll Tax Bill that will temporarily reduce Social Security taxes for millions of Americans.  Now AT&T and other cell phone companies want their piece of the action.

Michael Weinberg at Public Knowledge has sounded the alarm attacks on Net Neutrality, spectrum auctions, and White Space Wi-Fi have turned up in amendments to a bill that Big Telecom is convinced must pass.  Weinberg explains:

No Net Neutrality Protections.  Forget your feelings about the FCC’s formal Open Internet Rules.  An amendment by Rep. Marsha Blackburn would prevent any restrictions on network management, block any requirements to make connectivity available on a wholesale basis (which would increase competition), and stop the FCC from passing a rule allowing users to attach any non-harmful device to the network.  As a result, the winner of the spectrum auction would be able to throttle, block, and discriminate however it sees fit – something that runs counter to any definition of network neutrality.

No Safeguards Against Further Consolidation.  It is no secret that one of the reasons that there are only four nationwide wireless carriers (and two dominant ones) is that only a few companies control most of the available spectrum in the United States.  This amendment would prevent the FCC from making sure that new spectrum goes towards new or under-provisioned competitors instead of being further consolidated by AT&T and Verizon.   That’s probably why AT&T is pushing so hard for this amendment.

No Super-Wifi.  One of the greatest boons of the transition from analog to digital TV broadcasting was supposed to be the creation of unlicensed “whitespaces” or “super-wifi.”  This new spectrum – which is much better at communicating long distances and through walls than current wifi spectrum – would be used cooperatively by everyone and usher in a new era of wireless devices.  However, a third amendment would destroy the FCC’s power to allocate some of this great spectrum for unlicensed uses.  That means that opportunity would simply pass us by.

Weinberg notes consumer advocates like Public Knowledge are now fighting all three amendments.  There are opportunities to strip them from the bill as it works its way through the legislative process.  Those backing the amendments hope the public doesn’t find out.

They just did.

Virgin Media is doubling customer broadband speeds... for free.

Great Britain is leapfrogging ahead in the global broadband speed race with two announcements this morning that represent major advances in British broadband.

First, Virgin Media is announcing it will double the broadband speeds for four million of its customers starting next month, for free.

The company says it will be the first residential provider in the United Kingdom offering 120Mbps broadband — a 20Mbps speed increase for their existing 100Mbps clients.  Customers on Virgin’s 10, 30, and 50Mbps tiers will soon receive free upgrades to 20, 60, and 100Mbps, respectively.  Those on the company’s popular 20Mbps plan will have their speeds tripled to 60Mbps.

That’s a major advancement for British broadband, where dominant BT-provided DSL runs at speeds averaging just over 6Mbps.

The new speeds were made possible by “modest investments” in Virgin’s fiber network, according to Virgin Media CEO Neil Berkett.

Berkett said the new speeds would help meet growing demand for faster access to support the proliferation of new digital devices.  Because Virgin invested primarily in fiber and cable broadband, speed upgrades on their existing infrastructure come “at a fraction of the cost of other network operators.”

That understanding was not lost on Sky Broadband, a growing competitor in the United Kingdom.  Sky this morning announced it has launched a newly-upgraded 100Gbps optical network to support its 3 million broadband customers.  The company is spending several hundred million British pounds on updating its network to position itself to become Britain’s largest Internet Service Provider.

Sky’s new network is based on the latest Alcatel-Lucent fiber technology, capable of supporting 100Gbps speeds on each of the individual 88 wavelengths on a single optical fiber.  Sky deployed the new dense wavelength division multiplexing technology on its existing optical fiber backbone network, demonstrating the infinite upgrade possibilities fiber optic technology offers.

Sky pitches its network capacity to consumers as a key benefit of its service, noting it is free of “traffic management” policies that reduce speeds for customers of other Internet providers.

The upgrade arrives just in time to handle the expected explosion of online traffic with this week’s introduction of Netflix streaming across Great Britain.