Verizon's 20' Monolith (Courtesy: Macro/micro Brooklyn)

Verizon Communications has found a way to outdo AT&T’s enormous and unsightly “lawn refrigerators.”  They have installed 20 foot fiberglass poles in the middle of historic neighborhoods in Flatbush, Brooklyn on top of which the phone company plans to mount boxes containing equipment to support its FiOS fiber to the home service.

The enormous polygonal poles went up suddenly without advance warning, and neighbors left their homes to gaze up at the mysterious new addition to the Victorian-era community.

“The neighbors started gathering around it like it was the monolith in ‘2001,’ ” Rev. Jeanne Person, told the New York Times.

Nobody seemed to know who installed the poles, or more importantly why.

It turns out they are Verizon’s answer to AT&T’s enormous and unsightly 4-6 foot tall metal cabinets that the latter has been installing on street corners and in front of homes throughout U-verse service areas.

John J. Bonomo, Verizon’s director of media relations, told the Times the poles provide an interface between underground cables and above-ground wires that thread through backyards.  Bonomo recognized the way AT&T does it attracts vandals and graffiti.  Verizon’s solution tries to hide the unsightly boxes in the canopy of neighborhood trees, to varying degrees of success.  It also prevents anyone other than Spiderman from stealing equipment inside.

Besides, Bonomo says, the company got all of the necessary permits from the Department of Transportation.  Well, almost all of the necessary permits.

They forgot the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which regulates the look and feel of protected, historic neighborhoods — like Flatbush.  Install 20-foot plastic poles without a permit at your peril.

A spokesperson for the Commission says they hope to reach a resolution with Verizon soon.

It’s not that neighbors are ungrateful that Verizon is extending FiOS into Brooklyn, where it will provide real competition to Cablevision.  Many applaud the fiber service and look forward to signing up.  They just don’t believe randomly placed 20′ poles are the way to do it.

“First we wanted to know what it was,” Rev. Person said. “Then when we figured out what it was, we wanted to get rid of it. What does landmarking mean if it doesn’t protect us?”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCBS NY Verizon 20 Pole 6-7-11.mp4[/flv]

Brooklyn residents complained to WCBS-TV about the 20 foot unwelcome additions to their neighborhoods.  (2 minutes)

The Federal Communications Commission today released MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA, the first nationwide performance study of residential wireline broadband service in the United States.  The study examined service offerings from 13 of the largest wireline broadband providers using automated, direct measurements of broadband performance delivered to the homes of thousands of volunteers during March 2011.

Among the key findings:

Providers are being more honest about their advertised speeds: Actual speeds are moving closer to the speeds promised by those providers.  Back in 2009, the FCC found a greater disparity between advertised and delivered speeds.  But the Commission also found that certain providers are more likely to deliver than others, and certain broadband technologies are simply more reliable and consistent.

Fiber-to-the-Home service was the runaway winner, consistently delivering even better speeds than advertised (114%).  Cable broadband delivered 93% of advertised speeds, while DSL only managed to deliver 82 percent of what providers promise.  Fiber broadband speeds are consistent, with just a 0.4 percent decline in speeds during peak usage periods.

Cable companies are still overselling their networks.  The FCC found during peak usage periods (7-11pm), 7.3 percent of cable-based services suffered from speed decreases — generally a sign a provider has piled too many customers onto an overburdened network.  One clear clue of overselling: the FCC found upload speeds largely unaffected.

DSL has capacity and speed issues.  DSL also experienced speed drops, with 5.5 percent of customers witnessing significant speed deterioration, which could come from an overshared D-SLAM, where multiple DSL customers connect with equipment that relays their traffic back to the central office, or from insufficient connectivity to the Internet backbone.

Some providers are much better than others.  The FCC found some remarkable variability in the performance of different ISPs.  Let’s break several down:

• Verizon’s FiOS was the clear winner among the major providers tested, winning top performance marks across the board.  Few providers came close;
• Comcast had the most consistently reliable speeds among cable broadband providers.  Cox beat them at times, but only during hours when few customers were using their network;
• AT&T U-verse was competitive with most cable broadband packages, but is already being outclassed by cable companies offering DOCSIS 3-based premium speed tiers;
• Cablevision has a seriously oversold broadband network.  Their results were disastrous, scoring the worst of all providers for consistent service during peak usage periods.  Their performance was simply unacceptable, incapable of delivering barely more than half of promised speeds during the 10pm-12am window.
• It was strictly middle-of-the-road performance for Time Warner Cable, Insight, and CenturyLink.  They aren’t bad, but they could be better.
• Mediacom continued its tradition of being a mediocre cable provider, delivering consistently below-average results for their customers during peak usage periods.  They are not performing necessary upgrades to keep up with user demand.
• Most major DSL providers — AT&T, Frontier, and Qwest — promise little and deliver as much.  Their ho-hum advertised speeds combined with unimpressive scores for time of day performance variability should make all of these the consumers’ last choice for broadband service if other options are available.

Some conclusions the FCC wants consumers to ponder:

1. For basic web-browsing and Voice-Over-IP, any provider should be adequate.  Shop on price. Consumers should not overspend for faster tiers of service they will simply not benefit from all that much.  Web pages loaded at similar speeds regardless of the speed tier chosen.
2. Video streaming benefits from consistent speeds and network reliability.  Fiber and cable broadband usually deliver faster speeds that can ensure reliable high quality video streaming.  DSL may or may not be able to keep up with our HD video future.
3. Temporary speed-boost technology provided by some cable operators is a useful gimmick.  It can help render web pages and complete small file downloads faster.  It can’t beat fiber’s consistently faster speeds, but can deliver a noticeable improvement over DSL.

More than 78,000 consumers volunteered to participate in the study and a total of approximately 9,000 consumers were selected as potential participants and were supplied with specially configured routers. The data in the report is based on a statistically selected subset of those consumers—approximately 6,800 individuals—and the measurements taken in their homes during March 2011. The participants in the volunteer consumer panel were recruited with the goal of covering ISPs within the U.S. across all broadband technologies, although only results from three major technologies—DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home—are reflected in the report.

A California company with a novel approach for renting DVDs faces the prospect of a preliminary injunction against the service if a judge agrees the service is skirting copyright law.

Zediva promotes itself as a remote DVD rental service that avoids lengthy delays often imposed on online streaming and pay-per-view services.  The company allows customers to “rent” DVD titles the same they are released, remotely streaming the contents over a broadband connection.  Zediva says it literally has a bank of DVD players which customers can access and remotely control.  When a customer “rents” a DVD, a Zediva employee inserts the disc into a DVD player and gives each customer up to two weeks to watch the movie.  Because Zediva says only one customer can rent the physical DVD at a time, it is not skirting copyright or streaming laws. The service will even mail the DVD to a customer if they don’t want to watch it over their Internet connection.

Zediva argues it is using the Internet as a way to connect the DVD player to a renter’s television.  The company says it should not matter where the player is physically located, and because a customer can exclusively control the actual player during the rental period, it is not violating any laws.

Hollywood disagrees, and the Motion Picture Association of America promptly filed suit in April, claiming Zediva’s business model undermines its licensing agreements with online movie services.  The lawsuit claims Zediva is not paying movie streaming rights like other online movie services, and is not comparable to a traditional movie rental store because the company makes individual titles available for viewing by other parties as soon as four hours after a customer stops watching, even though they can return and watch the movie again for no additional charge for up to two weeks.

This week, the MPAA touted a potential new friend of the lawsuit — Cablevision, which filed its own amicus brief in the case drawing distinctions between its Remote DVR service and Zediva.  Cablevision is in trouble with some rights holders over its new Remote DVR, which records shows on equipment at the cable company’s offices and then streams the programming on-demand to subscribers’ TV sets.  Some contend Cablevision owes “per performance” license payments for every show watched over the service.  Cablevision has consistently argued to the contrary, suggesting the actual location of the storage system should not matter, so long as the recordings are made and watched by only a single customer.

But Cablevision’s brief shows the company has no interest in being connected to Zediva, arguing its Remote DVR service is not comparable to the pay-per-view business Zediva is running.

A judge is expected to hear the case early next week.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Zediva Video Streaming Service 3-17-11.flv[/flv]

CNBC and the New York Times’ David Pogue tried out Zediva back when it was introduced in March of this year.  (3 minutes)

Cable Montana is now Optimum West, Cablevision’s marketing name for the cable systems it acquired from Bresnan Communications.

Earlier today, customers in Billings, Laurel, Park City and Columbus were able to start using upgraded cable, phone, and broadband equipment on the updated cable system.  More than 2,200 Montanans were introduced to the Optimum name in a mailing sent to neighborhoods where service has been upgraded.  But all of the new equipment that comes with the service has created considerable confusion for long-standing Bresnan customers who have been using older Bresnan equipment for years.

The changes have been overwhelming for those used to Bresnan’s modest level of service for more than a decade.  Cablevision, best known for its Optimum service in suburban New York City, Connecticut, and New Jersey, has brought an enormous increase in programming, and improvements in broadband service, for many customers.

“All existing customers in Laurel, Park City and Columbus will be upgraded to Optimum TV by July 20, which will deliver many more channels, including access to more than 100 channels of free HD (high definition), thousands of titles of video on demand and other benefits like faster high-speed Internet and a better phone service with lower prices and more features than are available from any other provider,” says a Cablevision spokesperson.

When it works properly.

The Laurel Outlook reports some customers frustrated with the changeover have found themselves at local cable stores trying to sort out all the problems:

One Laurel customer installed his modem, but was not receiving service. A visit to the Laurel office did not provide answers to his satisfaction, so he drove to the Billings office on Monad Road, where he received two telephone numbers to call for tech support. He called one of the numbers, followed a menu, and was able to troubleshoot with a technician to get his Internet up and running.

A second customer installed her set-top box but was not receiving Optimum TV channels. She called the 1-800 number provided in the mailing packet, but technicians were unable to walk her through the necessary steps to receive service. Frustrated, she drove to the Laurel walk-in center on West First Street and made an appointment for a technician to come to her home. She discovered that not only must she program her television with the new Optimum channel numbers, she must also program the TV-top box with the correct numbers. After doing so, she was able to receive the new channels.

Many customers are likely going to need to reprogram their televisions more than once.  When the upgrades are complete, Cablevision says it plans to unify channel lineups across the area.

Stop the Cap! readers Tom and Scott both sent word that the music industry, Hollywood studios, and your Internet Service Provider have teamed up to begin inspecting your downloading activity looking for evidence you are grabbing illegal, copyrighted content from the Internet.

ISPs ranging from Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, and AT&T are installing the “Copyright Alert System,” an industry-approved “solution” to copyright theft of online content.  Your ISP will receive word if either the music or movie industry suspects you are trying to download an episode of your favorite TV show or latest Hollywood film from an “unauthorized” download site.  Then, the ISP will start sending you warnings or redirect your web browsing to Alert Purgatory, the place where you learn you are suspected of copyright theft, but haven’t yet been convicted for it.

If you don’t contact your ISP straight away to protest your innocence, your provider may then begin redirecting all of your web journeys to the copyright theft warning website and leave you there until you convince your ISP you are not doing anything wrong.

The voluntary agreement between service providers and copyright owners delivers very little to consumers, despite protestations to the contrary by the cable industry lobbying group — the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

“Consumers have a right to know if their broadband account is being used for illegal online content theft, or if their own online activity infringes on copyright rules—inadvertently or otherwise—so that they can correct that activity,” said James Assey, executive vice president of the NCTA.

Innocent or not, consumers who wish to seek an independent review before their ISP redirects every web address to the enforcement page, can get one — for the low, low price of $35.

Where that money ultimately goes is anybody’s guess, and nobody yet understands the exact mechanism of how consumers can prove their innocence.

Stop the Cap! believes this system does not serve consumers well.  Copyright enforcement measures taken by the music and movie industry in the past have proven to be far from well-targeted, using a “sue first, ask questions later” approach that has cost some consumers thousands of dollars to settle threatened litigation that would have cost far more to defend in court — guilty or not.

YouTube videos cited for copyright enforcement claims may irritate those who uploaded them, but never put YouTube visitors at risk of the Copyright Alert System just for landing on one that a studio executive deemed copyright theft.  Forcing a consumer to pay $35 to defend themselves from watching that New Order music video from the 1980s is simply unacceptable.

Copyright theft is a serious problem, and we don’t blame content owners for seeking to protect what is rightfully theirs.  But as we have learned over the last 20 years, overzealous protection measures have always backfired.  Openly available, legally accessed content from sites like Hulu have put a major dent in illegal downloading of entertainment from torrent sites and file hosting providers.  It’s more convenient, and the studios sell well-tolerated advertising to help pay for the costs.

Solutions like that are far superior than spying on web traffic looking for “illegal downloads” using unknown mechanisms which could prove as unreliable as earlier copyright enforcement efforts.  In the past, profit-making companies with an incentive to identify “theft” have been hired to ferret out those suspected to stealing online movies and music.  With a financial motive to lean towards guilt before innocence, subscribers confront the very real possibility they’ll have to pay $35 to try and prove a negative – that they didn’t engage in illegal downloading.