Telus' goats jump for joy as the company wins a favorable ruling in the B.C. courts over Rogers' "misleading" claims about network reliability

Ad wars over wireless data don’t just happen in the States.  Canadian providers have also been at each other over ad claims that just don’t tell consumers the whole story.  That’s the conclusion of a judge in British Columbia, who ruled that Rogers Communications’ wireless ads touting the provider as Canada’s “most reliable” are misleading.

In a court ruling Tuesday, the judge ruled in favor of a complaint lodged by Telus Communications that argued their wireless network was just as good as what Rogers had to offer.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Rogers Stick Internet Fastest Network Ad.flv[/flv]

Rogers “Prove It – Foot Print” Ad touts “Canada’s fastest mobile network.” (30 seconds)

What is really at issue, once again, is the differences between two different wireless network standards.  Rogers beat Telus and Bell in upgrading its network to “High Speed Packet Access” technology, which has been marketed with more familiarity to consumers as “3G.”  Once Rogers launched the service, up went advertising promoting Rogers as the “fastest” and “most reliable” Canadian mobile provider.  Last month, Rogers was forced to drop the “fastest” claim, but has maintained it runs the most “reliable” network in the country.

Now that Telus upgraded their network, they wanted to know what justification Rogers had to claim that.  Telus eventually sued.

Justice Christopher Grauer found Telus had cause.

“The only basis Rogers ever had for making that representation was the comparison between its HSPA network and its competitors’ first-generation EVDO networks,” Grauer wrote in his decision. “Rogers’ representation nevertheless continues to be made. In these circumstances, I conclude that is misleading.”

“What is clear from the evidence before me is that the present network technology is at least equivalent between Rogers and Telus,” the judge wrote.

“The technological advantage that allowed Rogers to represent that it has Canada’s most reliable network has disappeared.”

“I conclude … that the balance of convenience favors the granting of an order restraining Rogers from continuing to represent, without appropriate qualification, that it provides ‘Canada’s most reliable network’.”

The case has some slight similarities to the Verizon-AT&T spat, if you took AT&T’s position in the case.  Rogers, in this case, promoted its 3G network before the others had networks of their own, and used language that suggested that 3G access provided enhanced reliability.  Once the competition also upgraded, Rogers simply added new fine print in their advertising touting that 3G was better than the older network standards their competitors had relied on up until earlier this month.

Rogers claims they are “perplexed” by the decision because they still believe they have the most reliable network.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Rogers Most Reliable Dropped Call Ad.flv[/flv]

Rogers, “Canada’s most reliable network” doesn’t drop calls in elevators, according to this ad. (30 seconds)

There is no “good guy” in this story, however.  Once Bell upgraded their network on November 4th, they promptly began running commercials claiming they have Canada’s best network themselves.

Telus has the cutest… ads that is.  Nobody does cute quite like Telus.  Since 2001, the company has relied mostly on critters to sell their goods.  Among them: pot-bellied pigs, bunnies, tree frogs, monkeys, lizards, ducks, fish, hedgehogs, parrots, meerkats, and perhaps to celebrate their western Canadian roots, lots and lots of goats.

Watch the petting zoo, and some other Canadian wireless ads below:

… Continue Reading

You won't have this logo to kick around any longer.

AOL (the forgettable part of Time Warner) is desperately trying to rebrand itself in an effort to stay… relevant.  The shortened namesake of America Online, which began life as QuantumLink in 1985, peaked with 30 million subscribers before merging with Time Warner in 2001.  It was all downhill from there.  The once-enormous Internet Service Provider has now become far lesser known as a content producer and distributor, although the company still has almost six million legacy dial-up account users paying between $9.99 and $25.90 a month for access.  They discontinued broadband service several years ago, which was a shame because it offered an Internet access alternative to whatever one’s phone or cable provider had on offer.

This week, with details finalized for December’s AOL severance from Time Warner, the “all-new” Aol. was previewed with a new image branding campaign.

Aol. It's capital "A" and lowercase "ol" with a period.

Yup… that’s it.  There’s now a period in there.  The old triangle, which never meant anything to me either, is gone for good.  Instead, a simple sans-serif logo with a period replaces it, designed to blend into one of hundreds of background images the service will introduce to its new look this December.

“Our new identity is uniquely dynamic. Our business is focused on creating world-class experiences for consumers and AOL is centered on creative and talented people – employees, partners, and advertisers. We have a clear strategy that we are passionate about and we plan on standing behind the AOL brand as we take the company into the next decade,” said Tim Armstrong, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AOL.

Unfortunately for all concerned, there are going to be a lot fewer employees doing the work to create that “world-class” experience.  More than 2,500 employees, one-third of the company’s workforce, will be offered buyouts to get out.

The Associated Press reports on AOL’s plans to shed 2500 workers.  (1 minute)

The company is showcasing the all-new pretty wrapping paper for its December relaunch.

“Historically brand identity has been monolithic and controlling, little more than stamping a company name on a product.  AOL is a 21st century media company, with an ambitious vision for the future and new focus on creativity and expression, this required the new brand identity to be open and generous, to invite conversation and collaboration, and to feel credible, but also aspirational. We’re delighted to have worked so closely with the AOL leadership team to create something bold and exciting that sets AOL apart,” said Karl Heiselman, CEO of Wolff Olins.

The question is, do most consumers actually associate AOL with a 21st century media company, or a distant memory of dial-up access days gone by?  Aspiring to be the next best thing when your company formerly was the ISP tens of millions of Americans said goodbye to when broadband service arrived is a challenge.  The Internet is filled with yesterday’s sensations whose glory days are long since passed.  Just ask Yahoo!, AltaVista, Ask Jeeves, Napster, or GeoCities.

[flv width=”640″ height=”405″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/aol_brand-H.264.flv[/flv]

A video reel showcasing some of AOL’s new branding.  (1 minute)

Luke Wilson's blizzard of postcards

Luke Wilson is back for three more AT&T ads hitting back Verizon Wireless for its 3G map ads, and Apple has come running to AT&T’s defense with two new ads of its own.

The theme?  AT&T’s GSM network lets subscribers talk and browse the web at the same time.  Verizon Wireless’ CDMA network does not.  For that matter, neither does Sprint, which also uses CDMA, but as a non-combatant gets a pass for this round.

Mobile phone networks in the United States primarily use GSM (AT&T, T-Mobile) or CDMA (Verizon Wireless, Sprint, MetroPCS, U.S. Cellular, Cricket) technology.  Because of the way the two standards developed, GSM can permit a customer to talk while also concurrently using mobile data services.  CDMA users must choose one or the other.

The new round of ads exploit that difference.  How important that distinction is depends on how you use your phone.  If you frequently use your AT&T phone to web browse while also speaking to someone on that phone, you would likely find Verizon Wireless’ limitation irritating.  If you don’t, you won’t care.

More importantly, it’s a moot point if you find yourself in one of AT&T’s older EDGE network areas, which predominate outside of major cities.  The EDGE standard doesn’t let you talk and browse at the same time either.

Broadband Reports notes “it seems like AT&T might just be better served by not talking anymore, and just focusing on getting tower sites and backhaul links upgraded. How many upgraded cell sites would Luke Wilson’s salary have paid for? How many backhaul links could have been upgraded with the money spent suing Verizon? Fixing the capacity and coverage issues that have been plaguing AT&T would do more than any ad campaign.”

Apple’s “me too” ads promote the same concurrent use of phone and data applications on the iPhone, but also ignore the pesky fact that those stuck in AT&T’s vast EDGE network will discover it’s a distinction without a difference.

Watch all five ads below.

… Continue Reading

Annoying usage caps, allowances, and consumption billing irritate broadband users in those places where Internet Overcharging is established.  But the demand by consumers for unlimited broadband is so strong, some ISPs are giving way, looking for competitive edges that can win them new customers and keep the ones they already have happy.

Orcon, a DSL provider serving New Zealand, has announced it is exempting visits to YouTube from its data allowance until the end of January 2010.

“YouTube is one of the hottest properties on the web – with an almost endless supply of content. It makes up a big chunk of our customer-base’s usage every month. With the school holidays looming and the festive season in full swing we’re expecting a big uptake from our customers,” said Orcon chief executive Scott Bartlett.  “Streaming and downloading can rapidly chew through gigabytes of data so these holidays mums and dads can rest assured their data cap won’t take a beating. It is also a great opportunity for families to make and share their own holiday home movies with friends and family around the world.”

Orcon presently exempts several domestic websites, including TV New Zealand, from its usage allowance.  YouTube is one of the first international sites Orcon has exempted.

Orcon services its customers over the telephone network using ADSL and, in selected areas, ADSL2+ which provides service theoretically up to 24Mbps.

For Orcon customers, any streaming video exemption is good news, considering the ISP’s tiny usage allowances.

Orcon charges prices that would shock Americans:

Orcon’s Purple Plan provides a variable download speed (often 8Mbps or less downstream) and 128kbps upstream service with a 1GB monthly usage allowance for $29US a month.  Each additional gigabyte costs $1.50.  Their Platinum Plan doesn’t provide additional speed, just a bigger usage allowance.  For 20GB of usage per month, prepare to spend $95 per month.  Domestic long distance and local calling is also included in the Platinum Plan.  Orcon’s new ADSL2+ network is even more pricey, but can deliver faster speeds (12-15Mbps seem to be real world ranges for downstream).  The usage allowance is slightly higher on the ADSL2+ network, but not by much.  The highest allowance available tops out at 25GB.

[flv width=”640″ height=”405″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Orcon Broadband Iggy Pop Ad 11-16-09.flv[/flv]

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>Orcon Broadband ran an advertising campaign to find eight New Zealanders to help Iggy Pop re-record ‘The Passenger’ live via Orcon Broadband.  This is the result. (November 16, 2009 – 2 minutes)

Edward Wasserman

The Comcast-NBC deal that would bring one of the nation’s largest television networks under the control of the nation’s largest cable operator has not enjoyed the smoothest sailing since the deal was first rumored more than a month ago.

Consumer advocates oppose the deal because it would give Comcast too much control over the video content it would now own, and some industry leaders suggest the era of integration is over, warning bigger is not always better.

“The only beneficiaries of this deal are the industry titans who already enjoy too much market power,” said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press.  Free Press is mounting a national campaign for consumers to become involved and help block the deal.

“If this deal goes through, Comcast would have control of marquee content and three major distribution platforms: Internet, broadcast and cable,” Silver said. “We’ve never seen this kind of consolidated control across so many platforms.”

Edward Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University, penned a scathing review of the proposed deal.  “Stop Comcast’s Power Grab” quotes a bitter Ted Turner, who saw his media empire fall from his control several years ago under the super-structured AOL-Time Warner deal:

“Big media today wants to own the faucet, pipeline, water and the reservoir. The rain clouds come next,” Turner wrote in a Washington Monthly article five years ago indicting big corporate media control.

The concept of vertical integration in media involves companies owning as much of the content and distribution as possible.  In a best case scenario, one company would control every element, from the production to the sales and distribution of that content.  The more you control in-house, the less you have to pay or answer to someone else.  Wasserman picks up the story:

And vertical integration is why Comcast, the country’s biggest owner of cable systems, the company that decides which networks reach one of every four U.S. homes, is drooling over NBC Universal. The deal, if it happens, would be a staggering one.

NBCU, in short, is a mammoth content machine. And, Comcast, though chiefly an immensely rich operator of cable pipes, isn’t just the $34 billion-a-year utility whose bill you bellyache about every month. It, too, covets content. It tried to buy Disney in 2004, and it owns all or part of 20 cable networks, including E! Entertainment Television, Style, G-4, the Golf Channel and a bunch of national and regional sports channels.

And now it wants NBCU. One analyst estimated that combining the content arms of the two companies would bring roughly one-quarter of the country’s TV programming under a single owner. Another said the merged entity would control one of every five hours of programming.

[…]

The usual objections to such deals have to do with the outsized economic clout the resulting colossus would wield. Scale emasculates market discipline. When you control access to 24 million homes, you aren’t ruled by prevailing prices, you set them. Recession? Comcast is squeezing $6 more per household now than it was a year ago, and its profits were up 22.5 percent last quarter.

Very nice, but when you own the programs, too, you can make sure your networks get delivered even when that means elbowing other producers aside. You can strong-arm your competitors — satellite companies, for instance — by threatening to withhold popular networks or forcing them to carry the dogs as well. You can cut deals with other distributors who want the shows they control flowing through your pipes. You get your way.

Naturally, you’ll resist innovation unless you control it. Comcast would get a 30-percent stake in Hulu, the upstart distributor of first-run Hollywood programming via the Internet — a huge potential threat to cable operators. Subscription cable is Comcast’s bread and butter, and a business that makes $944 million on quarterly revenue of $8.8 billion is some business. Comcast will make sure that online’s future doesn’t endanger its own.

[…]

The whole point of vertical integration is to secure unfair advantage, to unlevel the playing field. And besides, since when is avoiding the worst the best we can hope for? It has been longstanding public policy to encourage localism, diversity and competition in the media business. It’s time to dust off that policy and give it some teeth by blocking this ridiculous and dangerous deal.

CNBC’s John Faber got some industry insider perspective from Dr. John Malone, a power player in the cable television industry during his reign at Tele-Communications, Inc., which used to own cable systems now largely a part of the Comcast empire.

Dr. John Malone

As far as Malone is concerned, this deal could herald a radical transformation away from traditional broadcasting models and “free TV.”

Malone believes America could be on the verge of dumping traditional broadcast network-local affiliate distribution of programming and switching to a “cable-centric” model where television programming is no longer distributed for free over broadcast television, or perhaps a hybrid approach where half of today’s television networks become cable/broadband-only.

He believes the government could be persuaded to support such a model if it meant returning broadcast spectrum back to the government for resale to the highest bidder, presumably for wireless broadband applications.

Malone’s vision leaves big vertically-integrated players like the broadcast networks and cable operators as big winners, owning and controlling programming, distribution, and all of the advertising slots, and cutting local television stations out of the deal.

Losers?  Independent local television stations and viewers that eschew pay television services like cable and satellite and rely on free over-the-air broadcasting.  “Free” may be an unsupportable business model, at least in Malone’s world view.  As many television stations are independently owned and operated, their concern for future viability is also sure to be an issue in the deal, Malone tells Faber.

Malone’s remarks are nothing unusual for the controversial cable mogul.  Al Gore once referred to Malone as the “Darth Vadar” of cable, leading a cable Cosa-Nostra with an agenda of a monopolist bent on dominating the television marketplace.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Faber Report John Malone 11-23-09.flv[/flv]

Dr. John Malone talks about the Comcast-NBC Universal deal in this CNBC Exclusive with John Faber, aired earlier today. (4 minutes)

For any deal to consummate, Comcast and NBC Universal need the consent of Vivendi, the French conglomerate which now finds itself in the catbird seat.  The Paris-based media concern is asking for several hundred million dollars more than NBC-owner General Electric is prepared to part with, sources tell today’s Wall Street Journal:

GE has offered Vivendi something in the neighborhood of $5 billion for its stake, according to people familiar with the matter. That is lower than the value implied by the deal GE has tentatively negotiated with Comcast. The GE-Comcast deal would value NBC Universal at about $30 billion. Allowing for debt that NBC Universal now carries, that value would imply Vivendi’s equity stake is worth somewhat less than $6 billion.

GE is offering Vivendi less than the value implied by its Comcast deal because it believes Vivendi wouldn’t be able to fetch as much through a public sale that it also has the right to pursue, according to people familiar with the talks.

Vivendi, meanwhile, has asked for a price somewhere from the “mid-five” billion dollars to closer to $6 billion, according to people familiar with the matter. Two people familiar with the matter said GE and Vivendi were within about $500 million in price.

Vivendi has also asked for deal guarantees, according to people familiar with the matter. Those guarantees could include GE paying for at least part of its stake before any Comcast agreement closes. Vivendi doesn’t want to assume the risk that GE’s deal with Comcast could be blocked by regulators in Washington, or could otherwise fall apart, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Most deal-watchers predict Vivendi will eventually part with its stake after it gets what it wants.

One of the Journal‘s sources said it was unlikely those working out the deal would let “a few hundred million” stand in the way.