Back in the fall of 2010, British billionaire Alki David fired a salvo against major broadcast networks in the United States and United Kingdom with the introduction of FilmOn, an online cable system offering unlimited viewing of broadcast networks from both countries for around $10 a month. By early 2011, lawsuits from various networks forced the removal of the most-watched channels, and most of the incentive for subscribers to keep paying for the service.

But David has never given up on FilmOn, and borrowing a page from Aereo’s business plan, he has brought back most of the major American networks on his relaunched platform, dubbed AereoKiller.

The company claims it is now using individual over-the-air antennas to receive broadcast stations from the New York or Washington, D.C. area, selling 24/7 streaming access for $9.99 per month or $99 a year. DVR service is sold at prices ranging from $2.95 a month to $190 a year, depending on the number of hours recorded.

Among the stations included:

New York

• WCBS (CBS)
• WNBC (NBC)
• WNYW (FOX)
• WABC (ABC)
• Bounce TV (via WWOR subchannel)
• WPIX (CW)
• WNET (PBS)/WNET-Kids
• WNJU (Telemundo)

Washington, D.C.

• WRC (NBC)
• WTTG (FOX)
• WJLA (ABC)
• WUSA (CBS)

There seem to be no geographic restrictions to prevent out of area viewers from subscribing, and FilmOn offers viewing on the desktop, as well as through iOS and Android apps.

David

FilmOn may have avoided streaming west coast stations because a California court found in favor of broadcasters who sued to shut down the operation three years earlier. But it ultimately will not keep David’s upstart service out of the courts in the east.

Last week, three major television networks and Washington, D.C. station owner Allbritton Communications filed suit against FilmOn for streaming signals from the nation’s capital without permission.

Based on the track record of earlier ventures, customers may want to avoid subscribing at the annual package price. Historically, broadcasters have fought and won temporary restraining orders that block the streaming services until the case makes its way through legal proceedings. Aereo, which streams New York area television stations exclusively to New York City customers has proven the exception and continues to run, at least for now.

Broadcasters consider stopping “dime-sized” antenna farm streaming services like Aereo and AereoKiller a top priority, because networks and local stations earn lucrative retransmission consent rights fees from cable, satellite, and telco-TV providers used by at least 90 percent of the viewing audience. Should these alternative technologies be found legal and not in violation of copyright, pay television providers could potentially license and incorporate similar technology into their respective set-top boxes and avoid paying license fees to station and network owners.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FilmOn Introduction 5-13.mp4[/flv]

FilmOn’s introductory promotional video features some boastful claims from founder Alki David that are perhaps more wishful thinking than reality, but PlayOn has persisted despite broadcaster lawsuits by creating and distributing original live and recorded programming.  (8 minutes)

In response to the deadly tornadoes in Moore, Okla., Cox Communications today said it would lift viewing restrictions for dozens of networks for Cox Cable customers who want to watch cable programming online using Wi-Fi or mobile broadband.

Cox video subscribers in Oklahoma can download the Cox TV Connect app (iOS or Android) to view streamed programming either inside or outside the home for the next three months. The cable operator said it had reached emergency agreements with programmers to lift the usual restrictions preventing online viewing away from home.

“We hope to help those impacted by providing access to TV on some mobile and tablet devices while the area recovers in the weeks and months ahead,” Cox spokesman Todd Smith told FierceCable in an email.

Cox now offers around 90 channels on its TV Connect platform.

Tornado-ravaged customers in Moore will need a lot longer than three months to get cable service back in many areas completely devastated by the storm.

Cox parent Cox Enterprises announced Tuesday that it plans to give $1 million to support relief and recovery efforts in Oklahoma, including a $500,000 cash donation to the American Red Cross and $500,000 of “in-kind support,” including public service announcements.

Stop the Cap! will be monitoring the situation in Moore and other parts of Oklahoma damaged in the storm. Most cable operators waive equipment fees for unreturned cable equipment lost in major storms. If a Cox customer is asked to pay for lost cable boxes, DVRs or cable modems, please use the Contact Us button at the top of the screen and report it to us for further investigation.

More than two years after the cable industry began promoting the concept of TV Everywhere, offering paying subscribers access to cable networks and shows online and on-demand, Time Warner, Inc. is finally moving to introduce live streaming of its TBS and TNT networks 24 hours a day to authenticated cable, satellite, and telco-TV subscribers.

The move comes just a few days after ABC announced its own Watch ABC service, which will also only be available to customers with a pay television subscription.

The move is designed to increase viewing and advertising opportunities for the Time Warner cable networks. Since online viewers will need credentials supplied by their pay-TV provider to reach the streams, non-paying viewers will be kept away.

A number of providers have their own implementation of TV Everywhere, introducing apps and viewing portals where paying customers can scroll through and watch cable channels without having to visit the website of each network.

Wireless Industry: We’re running out of spectrum!
Wireless Industry: We’ve got plenty to room for unlimited ESPN!

America is on the verge of a wireless traffic data jam so bad, it could bring America to its knees.

Or not.

Stop the Cap! notices with some interest that while wireless carriers continue to sound the alarm about a spectrum crisis so serious it necessitates further compressing the UHF television dial and forces other spectrum users to become closer neighbors, the same giant phone companies warning of impending doom are negotiating with online video producers to offer customers “toll-free,” all-you-cat-eat streaming video of major sports events that won’t count against your usage allowance.

ESPN is in talks with at least one major carrier (AT&T or Verizon Wireless) to subsidize some of the costs of its streamed video content so that customers can watch as much as they want without running into a provider’s usage limit. Both Verizon and AT&T have signaled their interest in allowing content producers to pay for subscribers’ data usage. In fact, they don’t seem to care who pays for the enormous bandwidth consumed by streaming video, so long as someone does.

At a recent investment bank conference Verizon Wireless chief executive Dan Mead explained the next chapter in monetizing data usage will allow the company to rake in more revenue from third parties instead of customers already struggling with high wireless bills.

“We are actively exploring those opportunities and looking at every way to bring value to our customers,” said Mead.

Content producers are increasingly frustrated with the stingy caps on offer at AT&T and Verizon Wireless because customers stop accessing that content once they near their monthly usage limit. One large provider admitted to ESPN that “significant numbers” of customers are already reaching their cap before the end of their billing cycle, after which their online usage plummets to limit the sting of overlimit charges.

Offering “toll-free” data could dramatically increase the use of high bandwidth applications and increase profits at wireless providers based on new fees they could collect from content producers. Customers would still be subject to usage limits for all non-preferred content, a clear violation of Net Neutrality principles.

The buffet is open.

But in case you forgot, wireless carriers won exemption from Net Neutrality, arguing their networks lack the capacity to sustain a Net Neutral Internet experience. These same companies claim without more frequencies to handle the massive, potentially unsustainable amount of wireless traffic, the wireless data apocalypse could be at hand in just a few years. It was also the most-cited reason AT&T and Verizon discontinued their unlimited use data plans.

But unlimiting ESPN video? No problem.

In January 2010, Verizon Wireless was singing a very different tune to the FCC about the need to control and manage high bandwidth applications like the “toll-free” streaming video service ESPN proposes (underlining ours):

Wireless broadband services face technological and operational constraints arising from the need to manage spectrum sharing by a dynamically varying number of mobile users at any time. Thus, unlike, for example, cable broadband networks, where a known and relatively fixed number of subscribers share capacity in a given area, the capacity demand at any given cell site is much more variable as the number and mix of subscribers constantly change in sometimes highly unpredictable ways.

Are wireless carriers now part of the problem?

For example, as a subscriber using a high-bandwidth application such as streaming video moves from range of one cell site to another, the network must immediately provide the needed capacity for that subscriber, while not disrupting other subscribers using that same cell site. Of course, the problem is magnified many times over as multiple subscribers can be moving in and out of range of a cell site at any given moment. Moreover, the available bandwidth can fluctuate due to variations in radio frequency signal strength and quality, which can be affected by changing factors such as weather, traffic, speed, and the nearby presence of interfering devices (e.g., wireless microphones).

These problems compound those resulting from limited spectrum. As the Commission has repeatedly recognized in proclaiming an upcoming spectrum crisis, “as wireless is increasingly used as a platform for broadband communications services, the demand for spectrum bandwidth will likely continue to increase significantly, and spectrum availability may become critical to ensuring further innovation.”

A wireless carrier cannot readily increase capacity once it has exhausted its spectrum capacity. Thus, wireless broadband providers are left to acquire additional spectrum (to the extent available) or take measures that use their existing spectrum as efficiently as possible, which they do through a combination of investing in additional cell sites and network management practices that optimize network usage and address congestion so as to provide consumers with the quality of service they expect.

Regulators need to ask why wireless companies are telling the FCC there is a bandwidth crisis of epic proportions that requires the Commission to exempt them from important Net Neutrality principles while telling investment banks, shareholders and content producers the more traffic the merrier, as long as someone pays. Customers also might ask why their unlimited use data plans were discontinued while carriers seek deals to allow unlimited viewing with their preferred content partners.

What is the real motivation? The Wall Street Journal suggests one:

“Creating a second revenue stream for mobile broadband is the holy grail for wireless operators but collecting fees from content companies would probably make the FCC take a close look into the policy implications,” said Paul Gallant, managing director at Guggenheim Securities. An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ ESPN Toll Free Data 5-9-13.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal takes a closer look at a plan to manage an end run around Net Neutrality by allowing preferred content partners to offer streaming video services exempt from your usage cap. (4 minutes)

The Heeley family have been Cox customers for over 15 years, buying cable television, broadband, and phone service that costs them nearly $200 a month.

With nearly $2,400 a year going into Cox’s bank accounts from their family alone, John Heeley was a little upset Cox sent him a warning message about his family’s “excessive Internet usage.”

“It seems we went over our usage cap by 40GB in April thanks to a rotten spring and a lot of Netflix viewing,” Heeley tells Stop the Cap! “I didn’t even understand the letter because I never knew there was a cap on the Internet.”

Cox, like certain other providers, have arbitrary usage limits on broadband accounts, with larger allowances granted to customers who upgrade to faster speeds for more money.

Heeley’s fiancé Shelley was angry after realizing just how much the couple already spends with Cox.

“I called them on the phone and the first thing they want to do is get you to upgrade and spend even more money with them,” she tells Stop the Cap! “They tried to vaguely threaten our service if we continued to ‘overuse the Internet’ and suggested we cut back or cancel Netflix which they think is the reason we went over the limit.”

Shelley says she was born at night, but not last night.

“How convenient they want you to stop using Netflix, Amazon, or other online video services that their cable TV competes with,” Shelley says. “It is unfair competition.”

Shelley requested a Cox supervisor and threatened the company right back, telling Cox if they sent one more letter like that, the Heeley family would take their business elsewhere.

“He told us quietly we could ignore the letter and any future letters and they will add a note on our account,” Shelley tells us. “He confided they have customers going over the limit all the time and the letter is really about educating customers about usage.”

It seems if Cox threatens you, threatening them back with account cancellation is usually the end of the story.

We found Broadband Reports‘ readers who exceed usage limits with Cox largely unafraid of any consequences:

• Rakeesh: I’ve gone everywhere from 300gb to 700gb over the cap for the last 19 months in a row. You’re fine.
• Skeechan: I have gone over too. The nastygrams seem to only be sent in selective markets. I am on Ultimate, perhaps that is why they haven’t sent me one since I have nowhere to go plan-wise. And being triple play since 1998 offers up a reliable and high ARPU. Of course that assumes they actually give a crap about common sense.
• Maltz: I went over my cap by about 30GB last month and got an email telling me that I was over. That was the end of it.