CableMax's "channel lineup" isn't exactly a piece of art

A few warning signs that your “cable company” may not be completely up front about their service:

• They don’t have a website.
• The programmers they carry never heard of them.
• No readily apparent cable franchise agreements seem to be available for inspection.
• The number of customers seem to range between 50 and “several thousand.”
• The channel lineup guide looks like it was done up with Microsoft Word and printed on a laser printer.
• Channels in your service package suddenly start to become “deauthorized” and then the entire lineup goes dark.
• Company officials either left town, won’t appear on camera to answer questions, or issue vague statements about refunds.

CableMax Communications, which claims to “maximize your cable experience,” instead maximized collection of subscriber fees and minimized their cable package down to nothing.  When it all fell apart a few days before Christmas, subscribers were out an installation fee and any payments they made for a full month of service.  Subscribers were charged $65 for installation and paid $24.95 for a package of 41 channels.

WNEM-TV in Saginaw, Michigan suggested the entire affair could have been a “scam,” interviewing one CableMax installer who claimed the service was quietly sending signals received from DISH Network, a satellite dish service, down the cable to paying subscribers.  If true, either the money to pay for multiple subscriptions to the satellite provider ran out, or DISH Network discovered the unauthorized distribution and cut off service.

If CableMax was reselling DISH Network programming, it would not be unprecedented.  In the 1980s and early 1990s, informal cable systems in the Caribbean maintained multiple subscriptions or hacked the satellite signals of satellite-delivered programming and resold it to subscribers, without bothering to pay the programmers involved.

One of the owners finally reached by phone by WNEM denied he was obtaining programming from DISH Network and promised refunds, claiming the system had approximately 50 subscribers, many who were late on their bills, and the entire enterprise ran out of money.

The village of Unionville, Michigan got itself caught in the middle when local residents approached the town hall to inquire about what happened to the village’s cable system.  A message on the village website states:

THE VILLAGE IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH CABLE MAX AND ARE UNABLE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS AT THIS TIME. THE VILLAGE OFFICE WILL TRY TO KEEP YOU INFORMED AS INFORMATION IS RECEIVED. WE ARE VERY SORRY FOR YOUR INCONVENIENCE.

CABLE-MAX
103 SOUTH WESTLAWN DR.
MIDLAND, MI. 48640

IF YOU NEED SERVICE CALL: 1-888-308-8782 (THIS NUMBER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED)

That South Westlawn address appears to be in a residential area to the west of Midland, and is likely a residence.  We couldn’t find a cable programmer on their lineup that heard of the company or was authorized to cablecast its programming.  Although the state of Michigan does include the company on a generic cable complaint form, we could not locate any formal cable franchise agreements for CableMax Communications.  Further, the state government only had one contact e-mail address for the company – a Gmail account.

Although WNEM notes the Better Business Bureau has rated the company “F,” that rating appears to be based on a single complaint.

Very little additional information is known about CableMax Communications, and no active investigation was currently underway by Michigan authorities.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNEM Saginaw Cable Provider Accused Of Defrauding Customers 12-30-09.flv[/flv]

WNEM-TV in Saginaw opened its 6pm newscast last night with this exclusive story about CableMax Communications. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNEM Flint Cable Company Ripoff 12-31-09.flv[/flv]

Today, the station aired a follow-up report about the latest developments with the cable company that closed down operations, leaving cable customers without service. (1 minute)

Bright House Networks, which has had a close association with Time Warner Cable for years, launched its own version of a “roll over or get tough” campaign through its new Your Right to Watch website.  The launch of the site comes in response to Fox’s own critical ads warning Bright House subscribers access to Fox programming was about to go dark on the cable system unless the two parties reached agreement by December 31st.  Bright House Networks has been negotiating through Time Warner Cable, which is why Fox targeted both in its most recent ad campaign.

The website, stark in appearance, contains just a few sentences on its home page.

“During negotiations, some program providers threaten to take their channels off the cable system. Using this tactic only hurts TV viewers – causing confusion and concern — and is a no-win for everyone,” the site notes.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bright House Your Right to Watch Ad.flv[/flv]

Bright House Networks includes this video on their new ‘Your Right to Watch’ website.

Tomorrow is the final full day when Fox cable network programming will be available to Time Warner Cable subscribers, unless negotiations achieve a breakthrough.  Spectators watching the back and forth don’t anticipate any agreement, but suspect the companies will agree to some sort of extension over the holiday weekend to keep the viewing public reasonably happy.

Today several Fox-owned broadcast affiliates began reporting on their own potential involvement in the dispute — Time Warner Cable stands to lose the rights to carry several Fox broadcast stations in major television markets like New York, Los Angeles, and Dallas.  Stories about the dispute began appearing today on several TV news outlets.  In areas where Fox affiliates are independently owned and operated, most have tried to reassure viewers they won’t immediately lose access to the Fox station in their area, but several Fox cable networks could be impacted.

We have several reports on where things stand at the moment, including some additional background to help people get up to speed on why this battle is taking place in the first place.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Time Warner Fox Dispute 12-30-09.flv[/flv]

CNBC ran this extended piece today debating the changing business model for television programming, which explains why these carriage disputes are increasingly contentious. Brian Seltzer, New York Times media reporter and Vanity Fair columnist Michael Wolff join Julia Boorstin to discuss Time Warner Cable’s showdown with News Corporation’s Rupert Murdoch. (6 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Talks Continue TWC Fox 12-30-09.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News also explores the changing business model of broadcast “free” television.  Can it survive against cable and online program distribution?  News Corporation and Time Warner Cable are pessimistic that question can be answered before the deadline expires at midnight, December 31st. (6 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNYW New York FOX-Time Warner Cable Deal Unlikely 12-30-09.flv[/flv]

WNYW-TV, the Fox affiliate in New York, started reporting to its viewers Fox’s position on the carriage dispute, warning them an agreement by December 31st is critical if Time Warner Cable customers are to be assured of watching Fox sports coverage on New Year’s Day.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KDFW Dallas FOX, Time Warner Still Negotiating 12-30-09.flv[/flv]

KDFW-TV, the local Fox affiliate in Dallas, took issue with Time Warner Cable’s claim that even without an agreement the Fox station would still be shown on the local cable system. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLUK Green Bay Jay Zollar on Time Warner 12-30-09.flv[/flv]

Some Time Warner Cable customers in smaller cities have been confused by national wire service reports which, to them, suggest their local Fox station will be affected by the potential programming blackout as well.  Some Fox affiliates have devoted time on their newscasts to clear up what programming or channels will be affected in their respective areas.  WLUK-TV in Green Bay, Wisconsin was one such station.  (1 minute)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WENY Elmira Fox Time Warner Battle 12-30-09.flv[/flv]

Another small community getting some local coverage of the story, and its potential impact on Time Warner Cable-carried Fox-owned cable channels, is Elmira, New York.  WENY-TV, which serves southwestern and south-central New York around Elmira and Corning, explained things to viewers.  (1 minute)

OnLive puts the processing power to render and play games on their end, and streams the result to you over your broadband connection (click to enlarge)

OnLive, the cloud-based videogame streaming service, was on display during a live dem0 of the service at Columbia University.  The service, which literally streams game play across fast broadband networks, could seriously challenge the videogame console marketplace.  Instead of using an expensive piece of hardware at home to play videogames such as w88, OnLive puts the hardware at their end and streams the results to any computer or television.  If it works, it means consumers won’t need the highest performance videocards or latest new CPU.  They’ll just need a fast broadband connection to let OnLive’s own servers do all of the processing.

The founder and CEO of OnLive, Steve Perlman, shows considerable enthusiasm for the concept, and several major investors including AT&T and Time Warner have backed the venture, which could help guarantee smooth passage on their broadband networks.

Still, a product that requires a minimum of a 5Mbps broadband connection for HD-quality streamed game play could consume an enormous amount of data — up to 2.25 GB per hour of gaming.  Although cable and fiber-based broadband connections will suffice, many DSL customers don’t have service fast enough to support OnLive.  Among those that do, any usage caps or allowances will significantly reduce the value of the service to potential subscribers.  Frontier Communications’ infamous 5GB “acceptable use” per month, for instance, would allow just over two hours of use per month, assuming you did nothing else with your DSL service.

Even Comcast’s 250GB usage allowance cuts game play to a little over 100 hours per month.  That’s a ludicrous amount of gaming for most of us, but not for some gaming addicts who may have tried games like 핑카지노.  Besides, it also assumes you don’t use your Comcast broadband service to watch video or other bandwidth-intensive online services.

Time Warner Cable’s proposed 40GB usage limit, shelved indefinitely in April after consumer protests, would permit less than an hour of play per day, assuming your Road Runner service was for nothing but OnLive.

In short, assuming OnLive works as promoted, its biggest threat to success will come from external factors mostly outside of its control — namely cap-happy ISPs that could quickly make streamed cloud computing untenable for all but the wealthiest among us.

What could OnLive do to reduce its risk from caps?  Partner with ISPs in a non-Net Neutral broadband world, of course.  That investment from AT&T, for example, could theoretically pave the way for AT&T to exempt OnLive from any usage limits that come from its own Internet Overcharging experiments in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.  That would be a clear violation of Net Neutrality, if enacted into law.

Scenarios like this should drive consumers to support Net Neutrality policies.  ISPs forming “preferred partnerships” with innovative services like OnLive might seem consumer-friendly at first, but not in the long-term because it spells the death of would-be “non-preferred” start-ups, and helps pave the way even faster to Internet Overcharging schemes letting broadband providers pick the winners and losers of the future.

[flv width=”484″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/OnLive Columbia University Demo.flv[/flv]

OnLive founder and CEO Steve Perlman demonstrates OnLive and talks about cloud-based, streaming game play at this gathering at Columbia University in New York. (49 minutes)
(If stream stops for buffering, pause it for a few minutes to let a significant amount of the file pre-load, which should reduce re-buffering problems.)

Customers in New York City attempting to order an iPhone direct from AT&T's website saw this message over the weekend

While much speculation about this week’s two-day unavailability of the iPhone for those in the Big Apple has often centered on the company running out of capacity, the more likely explanations are far simpler — the regional fulfillment center temporarily ran short after a holiday rush and AT&T wanted to stem the tide of increasing numbers of bottom-feeding eBay resellers doing business in the Tri-State area.

Customers in the New York metropolitan area discovered Saturday they couldn’t order an iPhone from AT&T’s website after entering a New York-area zip code.  Customers were told “we’re sorry, there are no Packages & Deals available at this time — please check back later.”  By Monday afternoon, orders were being processed normally.

The mystery deepened when some blogs began speculating the reason for the order blockade had to do with AT&T’s data capacity in New York City, suggesting the wireless company had reached its limit and halted sales accordingly.  They had the right to speculate if online chats with AT&T sales representatives were to be believed.  The Consumerist found two different explanations during their chats:

Daphne: Welcome to AT&T online Sales support. How may I assist you with placing your order today?

Laura: Hi, I was looking at the iPhone 3Gs and the system tells me that I cannot order one in my ZIP code. My zip code is 11231. (Brooklyn, NY) Is this true? Are iPhones no longer available in New York City?

Daphne: I am happy to be helping you today . Yes, this is correct the phone is not offered to you because New York is not ready for the iPhone.

Daphne: You don’t have enough towers to handle the phone.

Laura: Thank you for your help. So the phone is not available to people anywhere in the city?

Daphne: Yes this is correct Laura.

AT&T didn’t help matters with a non-denial denial issued by AT&T spokesman Fletcher Cook, who said only that the phone company periodically “modifies” its distribution channels. He had no comment about why the company resumed sales.

By not denying the capacity narrative that gained popularity earlier this week, it confirmed it in the popular press, including two local television news reports detailing the ‘sales outage.’

[flv width=”596″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNBC New York iPhone Sales Stopped 12-28-09.flv[/flv]

WNBC-TV reports on the unavailability of the iPhone in New York and AT&T’s ongoing problems with reception, service, and now PR in the Big Apple. (2 minutes)

With that story feeding the greater narrative that people “love the iPhone, hate the network,” AT&T better get on the phone with Luke Wilson and start taping some new ads.

In reality, Cook’s vague statement is something you’d expect from a spokesman who hasn’t been briefed on what really happened and needed to go with something to placate media speculation.  The data capacity theory would only make sense if the company suspended sales across all channels.  Except they didn’t.  Beyond the post-holiday low inventories found by some shoppers, New Yorkers could still find and purchase the iPhone in AT&T retail stores and through third-party retailers.  One could even order the phone from Apple.  Could unofficial ‘over-eager’ customer service representatives be responsible for the volunteered excuses noted above, either of which would ignite a firestorm of bad press for AT&T?

An increasingly annoying problem confronting cell phone companies is the eBay bottom-feeder and other gray market sales of the popular phone.  Both AT&T and Verizon have had growing problems with resellers who purchase a subsidized smartphone, agree to a two year contract, and immediately cancel it and resell the phone.  And they’ve been cashing in.

AT&T sells a new iPhone 3GS with 16 gigabytes of memory for $199.  When a reseller cancels the contract and keeps the phone, they pay a $175 early termination fee.  That means the phone costs them $374.  They then easily modify the phone to work with other cell phone companies and resell it for upwards of $600 or more on eBay, pocketing a nice $226 in profit.  Demand for the iPhone abroad is high, and considering the value of the dollar remains relatively low, Europeans can snap one up at a fire sale price.  Outside of North America, wireless phone companies don’t discount handsets like the iPhone.

Verizon Wireless has tried to deal with this problem by doubling the early termination fee on smartphones to $350.  That nearly eliminates the profit motive to resell affected phones.

[flv width=”600″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC New York iPhone Sales 12-28-09.flv[/flv]

WABC-TV New York calls the latest iPhone mess “salt in the wound” for many New York-area AT&T customers.  (1 minute)