While Netflix has grown like wildfire across Canada, providing unlimited streamed video entertainment for $8 a month, a few cable operators at risk of premium channel cord-cutting have responded with their own movie streaming services, at least one that temporarily found itself the subject of controversy when it was introduced a few weeks ago.

Shaw Communications’ Movie Club is that cable company’s answer to Netflix — offering a flat rate streaming service available over broadband or through your Shaw set top cable box for $17 a month ($12 if you forgo HD movies).  For that, Shaw promises unlimited viewing, without any usage caps so long as you stream movies from your cable box and not from your home computer.

But is it worth it?

With the assistance of one of our readers in Calgary, we were able to give Shaw’s Movie Club a trial run.

Availability

Evidently, Shaw Movie Club works best if you live in Calgary or Edmonton, where Shaw has been testing their new “Gateway” system, which is a combination home video terminal/DVR designed to compete with phone company DVR boxes which can record 4-6 shows simultaneously and deliver recordings to multiple sets in the home.  A number of Shaw customers on less-advanced, older cable systems may find the service a lot less convenient to use.  Outside of urban Alberta and in British Columbia, we found instances where customers could request to view Shaw Movie Club titles, but they had to be watched on your cable set top box.  For now, the most aggressive marketing for the service seems to be in Calgary and Edmonton, perhaps for this reason.

The Selection

When we sampled the service, we found about 150 titles available for viewing — hardly a wide selection.  Although many popular, semi-recent movies were available for viewing, the selection was comparable to what one would find from one or two premium movie channels.  Existing premium subscribers may find more than enough to watch from Super Channel or Movie Central On Demand, which are included with your subscription to one or both networks.  In the States, HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime all offer their own virtual “on-demand” channels that let viewers select most of the titles shown on each respective network for instant, on-demand viewing.  Shaw Movie Club felt very much like one of these channels, based on the limited selection.

In comparison, Netflix does not make it easy to count the actual number of streamed movies they have on offer at any one time, but the selection was clearly more substantial on Netflix, with a much deeper catalog.  But Canadians are also punished by Netflix because the service does not yet have agreements in place with studios to stream the same titles to both American and Canadian audiences.  Americans have a much larger selection of titles to stream.  Shaw’s agreements with studios clearly emphasize more current titles, and there are titles available on Shaw’s service that are not available from Netflix.

Winner: Netflix – You have a better chance of finding something to watch on Netflix.

Loser: Shaw Movie Club – But the service may have access to movies you wish Netflix provided.

Shaw's biggest competitor

The Value

At up to $17 a month, Shaw Movie Club is expensive.  In fact, it’s a lot more expensive if you do not subscribe to Shaw’s cable television.  It’s required to sign up for the streaming service.  That seems counter-intuitive to provide video streaming but deny broadband-only customers the opportunity to buy, but not when you consider such services are designed to prevent cable-TV cord cutting, not enable it.  Shaw charges nearly $40 in Alberta for basic cable service, so that’s a steep entry fee to pay before handing over another $12-17 just to stream movies.

For those uncomfortable video streaming on home computers, Shaw’s set top box solution lets you watch shows on-demand directly on your television.

Shaw initially found itself mired in controversy when it appeared they would exempt their video streaming service from their own usage caps — a clear anti-competitive move against Netflix, which does count against your cap.  But Shaw quickly clarified their position to state only set top box viewing was exempt from their caps.  We’re not certain exactly what distinction Shaw is trying to make beyond the political, because data is data — it all arrives on the same cable.  Shaw would argue their video may travel over their “television” bandwidth when delivered to set top boxes and their broadband network when delivered over the Internet.  But Time Warner Cable has shown it can deliver video over its Apple iPad app to cable subscribers over Time Warner’s internal network, which means it costs next to nothing to provide.  We suspect there is nothing technically precluding Shaw from exempting all of its Movie Club viewing from usage caps, beyond the political implications of doing so.

Winner: Netflix – $7.99 a month is an afterthought when you consider how much you can watch.

Loser: Shaw Movie Club – Up to $17 a month is a very steep price to pay for fewer than 200 movie titles to watch.

Video Quality

Both services delivered high quality video, even over a remote connection we used to sample Shaw Movie Club.  Shaw’s HD streaming performed with absolutely no technical flaws, evidence they are paying careful attention to deliver video from networks as close to their customers as possible.  Shaw’s HD streaming was often better than Netflix’s online streaming, but Netflix’s network consumes a lot less bandwidth, an important distinction if you have a large family piling on your broadband connection at the same time.  Shaw’s video is a bandwidth piggy, and will eat into your usage allowance fast if you use it over the Internet.

We recommend watching Shaw’s service over your existing set top box whenever possible.  It’s convenient and won’t count against your usage allowance.

A Tie: Netflix and Shaw Movie Club both deliver excellent quality video with no technical flaws experienced.  Shaw Movie Club has a larger selection of HD movies, but that is tempered by the fact watching them will rapidly erode your usage allowance if watching online.

While T-Mobile isn’t bashing AT&T in advertising as badly as it did before the announced proposition of a merger between the two companies, T-Mobile is still calling out AT&T’s high mobile prices with innovative new service plans that can deliver substantial savings for consumers — savings that will evaporate if AT&T swallows the company whole.

Take this week’s introduction of T-Mobile’s new Family Mobile Unlimited Plans, which deliver unlimited texting, calling, and 2GB of throttle-free “4G” (HSPA+/HSPA+42) data for as low as $69.99 per line (two-line minimum), which is just shy of $140 a month before taxes and fees.  Comparable plans from AT&T run $99.99 per line — a $30 difference.  A two year contract is required.

Although T-Mobile is pitching these plans as delivering “unlimited data,” in reality their speed throttle kicks in on some of them after 2GB of usage per month.  While customers will not experience bill shock from overlimit fees common with AT&T and Verizon Wireless, they won’t actually get an unlimited data experience like the one Sprint still delivers on its unlimited data plans.

Additional lines are available for $20 a month with 500 calling minutes and 200MB of data usage, or $40 a month each to upgrade to unlimited talk (but keep the same 200MB usage allowance for data.)

T-Mobile is pitching these plans to value-conscious families who live on their phones.  While other providers let you pool calling minutes on Family Plans, each phone usually has to also select any additional added-cost features like data and texting.  T-Mobile is bundling some of these features into the sale price.

AT&T told investors the merger would bring about higher revenue and cost savings.  Not having to respond to T-Mobile’s aggressive price competition by lowering its own prices is one great way to achieve this.

That means higher prices for everyone.

Groups like San Francisco Beautiful fear AT&T's U-verse cabinets will succumb to graffiti, like this one in nearby Oakland. For the group, U-verse cabinets on the sidewalk promote urban blight.

Construction of the first of nearly 500 four-foot-tall utility cabinets is scheduled to begin this morning by AT&T, eager to expand its U-verse fiber-to-the-neighborhood service in the city of San Francisco.

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted 6-5 last Tuesday to allow AT&T to begin building the metal cabinets, which hold the interface between the company’s fiber optic network and individual subscribers’ copper phone lines.

Mark Blakeman, AT&T’s vice president of external affairs, wasted no time announcing the location for the first box, to be situated on La Playa in Outer Richmond.  AT&T promises to launch U-verse service in the area within six months.

Most of the company’s initially-proposed 495 cabinets will be located on public sidewalks or other nearby rights-of-way.  Unlike San Francisco’s other utilities, AT&T will be able to install its boxes above-ground.  That has brought years of criticism from neighborhood groups who decry the cabinets are ugly, block the view of pedestrians and vehicle traffic, and are magnets for graffiti.

For groups like San Francisco Beautiful, it’s just the beginning.  AT&T’s longstanding goal is to install more than 700 boxes across the city’s landscape.

“It is going to put the blight of 726 utility boxes on our streets,” San Francisco Beautiful spokesperson Milo Hanke said. “Utility boxes from AT&T that are ugly and in most instances we still believe they are unnecessary; they should be on private property.”

AT&T will roll out its U-verse service in different parts of the city in segments, starting with the Richmond and Sunset Districts.

AT&T anticipates taking at least two years to complete the project across the city, but claims it remains open to bypassing neighborhoods that simply refuse to accept its boxes.  AT&T might not have a choice, considering the agreement they have with city officials.

Neighborhoods must be given time to provide input to city officials before permits are issued to AT&T.  If a city supervisor in a particular district doesn’t like the boxes, the “memorandum of understanding” grants the politician ultimate veto power over AT&T’s permit requests.  That means AT&T will be forced to do a lot of hand-holding public relations throughout the city to win support for their equipment.

That’s something AT&T is not used to in other states, where the company has won the right through deregulation to install its equipment cabinets anywhere it pleases, so long as they are located in a public right of way.  That has left a series of 4-6 foot tall boxes in the front yards of consumers in states like North Carolina, with absolutely no recourse.

AT&T will install its "compact model" cabinet within city limits, not the 6' tall boxes some homeowners in other states contend with.

In California, regulators can require utilities screen equipment with plants, maintain boxes to remove graffiti and correct noisy cabinet fans, and give property owners some input about where the often-unsightly boxes end up.  But those regulations are only as good as those willing to enforce them.

San Francisco Beautiful notes AT&T boxes in nearly Oakland are often covered in graffiti for extended periods, reducing property values and promoting neighborhood blight.

Hanke claims last week’s agreement violates a 2005 city order from the Department of Public Works mandating utilities put their equipment underground wherever possible.

“The supervisors fell victim to AT&T’s bluster,” said Hanke. “This benefits a private company at the public’s expense.”

AT&T’s Lance Kasselman told the San Francisco Chronicle it won’t go where it isn’t wanted.

“Obviously, those who clearly want it will get it first,” Kasselman told the newspaper. “People who want it or don’t want it, or have questions and concerns, should tell us on our website. We’ll meet with whoever wants to talk about it.”

With a close 6-5 vote, some city supervisors are well aware of the public minefield that awaits them in neighborhoods that despise AT&T’s equipment.  With opponents calling on citizens to complain, Supervisor Scott Wiener (Castro/Noe Valley/Diamond Heights) knew he needed to prepare.

“This morning, I did a yoga class to clear my head before writing a letter to neighborhood associations in my district,” Wiener told the Chronicle.  “I’m trying to make sure people understand what (Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors) vote means.”

[flv width=”600″ height=”358″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KGO San Francisco ATT Utility Boxes 7-19-11.flv[/flv]

KGO-TV in San Francisco covers the AT&T U-verse box controversy, and the Board of Supervisors’ decision to approve their installation.  (2 minutes)

Don’t like the prospects of a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile and worried your AT&T bill will increase as a result?  If you are an AT&T on-contract customer, the New York law firm of Bursor & Fisher wants to talk to you.

Scott A. Bursor, the founding partner of the firm, says he wants to represent AT&T customers to help stop the proposed merger, or win significant financial concessions on behalf of those who could face skyrocketing cell phone bills as a result of reduced competition in the marketplace:

AT&T’s $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile would turn back the clock to the era of the Ma Bell monopoly. The deal would give AT&T and Verizon control over 80% of the wireless market, would stifle the competitive market forces that would otherwise help to keep prices down, and would stifle new products and innovation.

AT&T’s claim that the takeover will help improve network quality makes no sense. T-Mobile’s network overlaps almost entirely AT&T’s. And AT&T already has more spectrum than any other company. In most areas, AT&T already holds at least 40 MHz of spectrum it is not even using. AT&T is keeping that spectrum off the market, which prevents competitors from using it to provide better service at lower prices.

Turning back the clock to the Ma Bell monopoly era will allow AT&T and Verizon to dictate what type of phone you can use, how you can use it, and what you will pay. It will destroy competition, leading to higher prices and worse service.

Since AT&T’s wireless contracts specifically prohibit customers from suing the company for any reason, the law firm seeks to pursue the alternative “mandatory arbitration” specified by AT&T in an effort to either derail the merger or force the price much higher.

Customers who retain the law firm on their website can expect the firm to follow four steps that could bring arbitration awards as high as $10,000 per customer:

First, when you sign up, you will receive a confirmation email with a copy of our retainer agreement. We will also provide you with the an email address where you can contact us if you have any questions or concerns about the process.

Second, shortly after you sign up, we will send a letter on your behalf by certified mail to AT&T giving them notice that you intend to file an arbitration seeking to enjoin the takeover of T-Mobile. This is the first hoop you have to jump through to bring an arbitration under the fine print of AT&T’s Arbitration Agreement. We will send you a copy of that letter by email.

Third, if AT&T does not agree to cease and desist from completing the merger within 30 days, we will file a demand for arbitration on your behalf with the American Arbitration Association. The demand will include extensive evidence and legal authority we have gathered to prove that AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile will harm competition in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act. We will email you a copy arbitration demand when it is filed.

Fourth, our team of lawyers will litigate your arbitration case aggressively to make sure that your arbitration rights, and your rights under the antitrust laws, are protected. If we are successful, we may seek a $10,000 payment for you.

Bursor

AT&T scoffs at the effort, releasing a statement calling Bursor & Fisher’s actions “completely without merit.” Company officials also claimed arbitrators have no standing to block a corporate merger, hinting the endeavor may be more about winning the law firm a substantial payout than representing the interests of consumers.

Bursor & Fisher are not pursuing AT&T for free.  The attorneys will deduct 50 percent of any award as their contingency fee — a percentage considerably higher than the more common 33-40 percent attorneys usually deduct, and this does not include further reductions to cover any “costs” advanced by the firm.

We found this somewhat curious, considering AT&T’s own arbitration legalese already provides for an attorney premium in their award — twice the amount of any legal fees and reimbursement of expenses.  So deducting an additional 50 percent and taking fees from any consumer awards seems like a case of unfair double-dipping.

But since you are not obligated to pay a cent in fees, anything you might manage to walk away with is more than you started with.

Verizon Wireless customers who subscribed to the company’s legacy America’s Choice wireless plans are receiving notification of a pending class action settlement between Verizon Wireless and two law firms that will bring a handful of free calling minutes to impacted customers while netting up to $6 million for the attorneys bringing the suit.

At issue was a dispute over whether Verizon Wireless properly provided roaming service for customers under America’s Choice I and II calling plans.  The plaintiffs claimed the company charged roaming rates for calls that should have been covered by the wireless plans at no additional charge.  Verizon Wireless denies the claims, but has agreed to settle the case.

Unfortunately for average consumers, the proposed award is a pittance — 25 additional wireless calling minutes that you can use for a period of one year if you go over your monthly minutes allowance.  Former Verizon Wireless customers, and those who don’t want that award, can alternatively select a Verizon calling card good for “40 units” of domestic or international long distance, good for two years.  That amounts to around 40 minutes of calling in North America, considerably less for international calls.  The only cash being handed out goes to three Ohio plaintiffs, who will receive up to $20,000 each.  But the real prize goes to two Cincinnati law firms — Strauss & Troy and Statman, Harris & Eyrich LLC, who are seeking a payout of up to $6 million.

The firms defend their request claiming they spent more than five years in litigation with Verizon Wireless, which has long since discontinued signing up new customers to either calling plan.  While a judge reviews the proposed settlement, Verizon has taken to e-mailing most impacted customers.  If you missed yours, you can track the progress of the suit on the official website for the Cowit v. Cellco Proposed Class Action Settlement.  You can also claim your minutes starting now, before the deadline of November 8, 2011.