[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google Net Neutrality Ad.flv[/flv]
Big Corporations Know What’s Best for You (1 minute)
[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google Net Neutrality Ad.flv[/flv]
Big Corporations Know What’s Best for You (1 minute)
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has thrown out Novus Entertainment’s 2009 lawsuit against Shaw Cable accusing western Canada’s largest cable operator of predatory pricing and other anti-competitive acts.
Last summer, Stop the Cap! gave considerable attention to the price war that broke out between Novus Entertainment, a fiber provider serving many Vancouver apartment buildings and condos vs. incumbent cable provider Shaw Cable.
Novus, which entered the BC market well after Shaw, faced what it alleged were incidents of fixing prices below cost and false advertising in an effort to drive competition out of the market.
At one point, last summer’s battle dropped prices as low as $30 a month for a package of HD cable, unlimited phone, and 16Mbps broadband service from Shaw. Novus accused Shaw of recouping their losses in Vancouver from other Shaw cable subscribers across Canada who made up the difference with higher cable rates.
Novus sought relief before The Honourable Mr. Justice Greyell, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Novus argued that under the recently expanded Competition Act, the court could order Shaw to cease unfair competition and face punitive fines for the cable company’s bad behavior.
Novus recited details of the price war:
Commencing February 2009, Shaw began a series of marketing campaigns specifically targeted at Novus’ existing customers in high-rise, multiple-dwelling units (“MDUs”) developments in Vancouver and Burnaby, British Columbia.
In February 2009, Shaw offered very low pricing on its Cable Television Services, Internet, and digital telephone services to certain Novus customers. Customers were free to take one, two or all three of the services offered. There were no contracts or commitments required:
In March 2009, Shaw began offering a free HPDVR to keep, plus the first month of service for free, to customers that switch back to Shaw. Customers were only required to commit to six months of pre-authorized payments.
In July 2009, Shaw offered even lower pricing than it marketed in February:
To add insult to injury, according to Novus, Shaw began advertising Internet “now 50 percent faster.” In Novus’ opinion, the advertising implied Shaw’s Internet service was now 50 percent faster than broadband offered by Novus.
The text from Shaw’s ad read:
Feel the need for extra speed? Shaw high-speed Internet is now 50% faster that’s fast. Downloading your favourite music, videogames, and movies will take no time at all. Plus Shaw high-speed Internet comes loaded with no cost extras like Powerboost, Shaw Secure and much more. Get Shaw high-speed Internet for the amazing new price of only $19.95 per month for the first three months including modem and installation. There’s never been a better time to order. Call 310-Shaw today.
The decision by Mr. Justice Greyell was carefully watched across Canada as it represented the first test of expanded authority granted by Parliament for courts to impose significant monetary fines against bad actors. Commentators noted the new authority theoretically granted courts the power to determine anti-competitive activity itself — a power formerly held by Canada’s Competition Tribunal.
Those commentators need not have worried if the BC Supreme Court decision stands intact.
Mr. Justice Greyell dismissed Novus’ claims and ruled that in the absence of a determination of anti-competitive behavior by the Competition Tribunal, the court had no right to declare Shaw guilty of such behavior in the case.
“I conclude that in the absence of an order from the [Competition] Tribunal under s. 79 of the [Competition] Act, those portions of the statement of claim alleging a breach of s. 79 of the Act be struck out,” the chief justice ruled, effectively dismissing Novus’ anti-competitive claims against Shaw.
Mr. Justice Greyell also was unconvinced consumers would be confused by Shaw’s “50 percent faster” advertisement, believing the cable company now delivered faster service than Novus.
“In applying these tests to the ‘Now 50% Faster’ advertisement I am unable to conclude a reasonable person would view the words used as referring to the plaintiff’s business. I am of the view the interpretation any reasonable person would place on the words is that Shaw is directing the advertisement to its own customers, and anyone else who might be interested, that its services are 50% faster than they used to be. This fact is made clear by Shaw’s use of the word ‘Now’ – which implies that in the past Shaw’s services were slower and that Shaw has ‘Now’ improved the speed of its services The advertisement makes no reference to Novus or to any Shaw competitor,” the chief justice ruled.
Novus effectively walks away from the BC Supreme Court empty-handed, and a little lighter in the wallet. The chief justice also ruled Novus is responsible for Shaw’s legal bills associated with defending itself against Novus’ lawsuit.
[flv width=”630″ height=”375″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Novus – 10 Bucks Too.flv[/flv]
Novus released this video as part of an outreach campaign arguing cable customers across western Canada should qualify for the same incredibly low promotional pricing Vancouver residents pay for Shaw Cable. (2 minutes)
Broadband customers face dramatically higher prices for Internet service from a telecom company that wants to define for Alaskans an “appropriate” amount of “fair usage” of the Internet.
GCI, Alaska’s largest cable company, is currently embarked on a so-called “education” campaign over the summer telling residential customers it might be time for them to log off, or face the consequences of enormously higher broadband bills.
For one Anchorage coffee shop, that added up for several hundred dollars for just a single month of usage — all because they offer free Wi-Fi to their customers.
“People use it for their second space. Their home office,” Kaladi Brothers Coffee COO Dale Tran told KTVA news. “We’ve always offered an open network in our cafes, and after hours some people come by and park out front.”
Tran says the result was a bill from GCI several hundred dollars higher than expected.
GCI Communications Manager David Morris says at least two percent of their 110,000 customers are using “too much” service and violating the company’s “fair use” policies. Morris also warned customers with wireless equipment that if they don’t take steps to lock down their routers with passwords and security, they could be exposed to a huge bill from GCI for providing free Internet service to the entire neighborhood.
Morris claims the company wants to specifically define what it considers “fair use,” claiming it will make things more equitable for everyone.
But GCI’s Internet Overcharging scheme will never save a single customer a penny. Instead, customers will see only skyrocketing bills should they not fit within GCI’s arbitrary definition of “fair use”:
The company’s website states, “For a large majority of customers, normal usage activities are not expected to exceed the plan profiles defined below”:
Plan Name | Usage |
Ultimate Xtreme | 40,000 MB |
Ultimate Xtreme Family | 60,000 MB |
Ultimate Xtreme Entertainment | 80,000 MB |
Ultimate Xtreme Power | 100,000 MB |
GCI customers are not happy. One reader of the AK Community forum provided additional insight:
To add a little dimension to this before I start ranting, here are the respective rates for the above service plans:
Plan | Monthly Rate |
Ultimate Xtreme | $39.99 |
Ultimate Xtreme Family | $49.99 |
Ultimate Xtreme Entertainment | $69.99 |
Ultimate Xtreme Power | $99.99 |
Now, those prices are misleading because they are only for the internet service portion of the “bundle.” What they’re not telling you (anywhere on the web site that I can find, in fact) is that in order to receive that price, data transfer rate, and monthly bandwidth, you must also pay for GCI’s digital cable television service ($57.99 when part of a bundle), local phone service ($15.49 a month), and long distance service ($5.99 a month plus taxes and surcharges).
Without factoring in the various FCC fees and whatnot, the above information brings the total cost of GCI’s fastest, highest monthly bandwidth package to $179.46 per month! That’s actually the cost they quoted me on the phone, too, so at least we know their “customer service” staff are at least intelligent enough to figure out an adding machine.
Oh, and did I mention that those speeds and transfer rates are not available for standalone cable modem [subscribers]?
[…] What happens when you do go over? BAM! $5.12 per gig tacked on to your bill! I don’t know about you guys, but I’m sick of getting ripped off by GCI. Those of you who live outside of Alaska can confirm this, but GCI is just about the only cable company that still meters their customers’ bandwidth. I have friends who tell me that they’re paying $49.00 a month for 8Mb/s transfer rate and unlimited bandwidth!
What GCI is doing is highway robbery. How are they getting away with it? I’ll tell you: no competition. For very high speed broadband internet, they’re the only show in town, so they can charge whatever they want to anybody who wants more than 3Mbps (standard speed DSL service from Alaska’s other big telecom provider, the phone company).
[flv width=”478″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVA Anchorage GCI Fair Internet Use Crackdown 6-2-10.flv[/flv]
KTVA-TV in Anchorage ran this report about GCI’s plans to force many of their broadband customers to pay more if they enjoy the Internet “too much.” (3 minutes)
Jon Stewart spent a few minutes last night making a tentative stab at Net Neutrality on The Daily Show, trying to begin educating viewers about an Internet controversy many net users don’t even know exists. (3 minutes)
From the people who brought you the incredibly creepy computer animation re-enactments of Tiger Woods’ blowout and Lindsay Lohan’s jail stint for Taiwanese television, the Verizon-Google deal is now fair play, right down to devil’s horns for executives at both companies. (1 minute)
Time Warner Cable faces an increasing number of subscribers cutting their cable television service off, choosing to watch their video entertainment online.
Now the nation’s second largest cable company is trying to mitigate the potential damage with a series of new applications designed to bring cable television and your computer, cell phone, and iPad together.
Time Warner is getting started with the iPad, developing an application that will help cable subscribers remotely control their DVR cable box to record and manage programming. Away from home and want to scan a program guide and record an upcoming show? The new app will let you do it. Need to grab some video on-demand from Time Warner? Not a problem. You can even start watching on your iPad and pick up where you left off from your home.
Integrating the many devices consumers use as part of their daily lives with cable television could bring the cable viewing experience back front and center among at least some subscribers. That reduces the chance customers will decide they can do without cable TV. Since most of Time Warner Cable’s on demand library will only be available to current cable subscribers, cutting cable’s cord also means an end to online on-demand viewing of cable-licensed programming.
Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt has repeatedly emphasized his interest in delivering cable services the way customers want, and claims the new generation of applications on the way from the cable company will provide just that.
Although Time Warner will start with the iPad, the application will quickly become available for the iPhone and iPod Touch series. Additionally, versions for other smartphones as well as portable and home computers will soon follow.
Ironically, this integration process could drive data volumes on Time Warner Cable’s broadband network to new heights. Video streaming alone will dramatically increase traffic. Yet the same company that is ready and willing to provide these bandwidth-intensive services also complained about existing broadband customers “using too much” of their existing broadband service. In the spring of 2009, the company sought to implement a 40GB usage limit on some its broadband customers and charge up to three times more — $150 a month for unlimited access. At the time, Britt and other company officials blamed the burden of online video and other usage-intensive applications for spiking the demand on their network.
Customers may wonder whether Britt’s new enthusiasm for online video means he recognizes their network has plenty of capacity to support unlimited access or is looking for a new excuse to justify a return to Internet Overcharging schemes.
[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner Cable iPad App.flv[/flv]
Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt, CTO Mike LaJoie, VP of Web Services Jason Gaedtke and Director of Digital Communications Jeff Simmermon ponder their prototype iPad app and discuss the implications of integrating cable TV with other electronic devices. For Time Warner Cable, it’s a matter of preserving cable TV subscribers who might contemplate cutting the cable TV cord and watching everything online. (13 minutes)