An ad in the Syracuse Post-Standard announces a new invention -- a bow tie antenna design originally designed in the 1950s.

Back in December, Stop the Cap! alerted readers about the “revolutionary razor thin” HDTV antenna Clear-Cast that promised salvation from high cable and satellite TV bills forever.  No article published here has attracted as much attention as that one, drawing more than 40,000 new readers to find out whether the product is truly a scientific breakthrough, or razor thin hype.

Readers have overwhelmingly agreed with our review of the product — it did no better than a $1.49 antenna we bought years earlier from Radio Shack.  But plenty of readers also shared their disappointment with the company advertising Clear-Cast: Canton, Ohio-based Universal Media Syndicate, Inc.

The Canton Regional and Greater West Virginia Better Business Bureau reports it has received “numerous” complaints about Clear-Cast’s marketing practices, refund policies, and advertising claims.  Indeed, we’ve heard from hundreds of readers who assumed we sold the product, and a lot of choice words were included in the angergram e-mails mistakenly sent our way.  Among the claims many found deceptive — Clear-Cast’s marketing stretch that users can receive up to 953 shows (not channels).

Our story has been linked from a number of other websites, so many in fact our review of the product often appears higher in Google’s search rankings than the company selling the product itself.

Clear-Cast’s advertising, designed to look like an authentic newspaper article, has appeared in dozens of newspapers around the country.  Many readers report the price has increased as well, now selling for as much as $50, not including the high-pressure sales tactics to throw in “warranty protection” ($5 buys you two years) and shipping and handling (add another $10).  We found readers who spent $110 for two bow-tie antennas that used to be included with televisions until the 1980s for free.

Our findings: Clear-Cast is an antenna capable of receiving local broadcast channels, but no better or worse than other basic antennas we have tested that sell for $4-9.

Returning the product for a refund also proved nightmarish.  We received a working antenna from one of our readers if we’d agree to return to it the company when we were finished.  It was returned by Priority Mail in late January and was received by them in two business days.  Our reader reports a credit for the return finally posted to his credit card statement this morning — nearly four months later.

The BBB received such a substantial number of complaints, they met with the company in January to discuss their product and how it is sold:

The BBB found that the product does provide channels without cable or satellite. However BBB inquiries indicate that because the headline states that you can get rid of cable or satellite bills, consumers are under the impression that they will receive the same type of channeling as they would with their current provider.

Additionally, there seems to be some confusion as to what is actually being given away for free. In the company ad it states in the headline “Free TV” and “gets rid of cable or satellite bills.” Some inquiries indicate that consumers are under the impression that they will be receiving a free television. Also there seems to be confusion as to how many possible channels a consumer may get when using the ClearCast Digital HDTV. The company ad has indicated that consumers can receive up to 953 “Shows” and up to 53 “channels” depending on where you live.

The company has added disclosures that outline and explain what the consumers are actually getting, however the overall impression of the ad seems to imply differently.

The basic principles of the BBB code of advertisement states that an advertisement as a whole may be misleading although every sentence separately considered is literally true. Consumers are encouraged to read the ad in its entirety and despite deadlines and restrictions, to make sure the company and product is researched prior to purchase in order to make an educated buying decision.

We were not surprised to learn readers were still complaining about Clear-Cast as late as this weekend.

Universal Media Syndicate, which is responsible for its marketing, also pitches:

• the so-called “Amish-Made” Heat Surge Fireplace (all parts from China, with only the wood frame made by “Amish” employees);
• “three hundred ninety-eight dollars and shipping”-portable air conditioner ArcticPro;
• coin peddler World Reserve Monetary Exchange;
• PatentHEALTH, a Canton-based provider of something called “nutraceuticals” that include an FDA warning suggesting their products are “not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.”

Variation on the traditional bow-tie UHF antenna

Our advice for cord cutters remains the same:

Antenna design really has not changed much in 50 years. Here is a good and credible site to explore: http://www.antennaweb.org/Info/AntennaInfo.aspx

Start out with something basic. The best antennas allow you to orient them in different directions towards the signal you want. For UHF, try a set top loop-style antenna that can be rotated (Wal-Mart probably has one). You might also find playing around with some aluminum foil attached behind the antenna or even to it can make some difference. Experiment… a lot, until you find the ideal position for your antenna. If you are thinking of spending $38 on Clear Cast, remember it will probably cost you at least $5 to mail it back if you find it not worth keeping.

For the absolute best results, seriously consider a traditional outdoor or attic antenna. Channel Master and Winegard are quality manufacturers with a long history. They sell online and UPS can deliver it straight to your home already assembled in many cases.

But always hire a professional installer if you are absolutely not certain of your rooftop skills.  A frequent cause of rooftop falls and other accidents used to be attributed to do-it-yourself antenna installers who didn’t appreciate the risks.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTVQ Lexington Clear-Cast HDTV Antenna 3-28-12.mp4[/flv]

WTVQ in Lexington, Kentucky investigated viewer complaints about Clear-Cast and talked with the Better Business Bureau about the company and its marketing tactics.  (3 minutes)

Comcast has changed its explanation why the company’s XFINITY TV service, streamed over Xbox 360 has been made exempt from the company’s 250GB usage cap.

Last week, the company claimed the service traveled over the company’s “private IP” network, exempting it from usage restrictions.  That created a small furor among public interest groups and Net Neutrality supporters because of the apparent discrimination against streamed video content not partnered with the country’s biggest cable operator.

Stop the Cap! argued what we’ve always argued — usage caps and speed throttles are simply an end run around Net Neutrality — getting one-up on your competition without appearing to openly discriminate.

Now Comcast hopes to make its own end run around the topic by changing the language in its FAQ:

Before:

After:

Although the words have changed, the story stays the same.

The key principle to remember:

Data = Data

Comcast suggests its Xbox XFINITY TV service turns your game console into a set top box, receiving the same type of video stream its conventional cable boxes receive.  The cable company is attempting to conflate traditional video one would watch from an on-demand movie channel as equivalent to XFINITY TV over the Xbox.  Since the video is stored on Comcast’s own IP network, the company originally argued, it creates less of a strain on Comcast’s cable system.

AT&T's U-verse is an example of an IP-based distribution network.

But the cable industry’s inevitable march to IP-based delivery of all of their content may also bring a convenient excuse to proclaim that data does not always equal data.  They have the phone companies to thank for it.

Take AT&T’s U-verse or Bell’s Fibe.  Both use a more advanced form of DSL to deliver a single digital data pipeline to their respective customers.  Although both companies try to make these “advanced networks” sound sexy, in fact they are both just dumb data pipes, divided into segments to support different services.  The largest segment of that pipe is reserved for video cable TV channels, which take up the most bandwidth. A smaller slice is reserved for broadband, and a much smaller segment is set aside for telephone service.

AT&T and Bell’s pipes don’t know the difference between video, audio, or web content because they are all digital data delivered to customers on an IP-based network.  Yet both AT&T and Bell only slap usage caps on their broadband service, claiming it somehow eases congestion, even though video content always uses the most bandwidth. (They have not yet figured out a way to limit your television viewing to “maintain a good experience for all of their customers,” but we wouldn’t put it past them to try one day.)

What last mile congestion problem?

Comcast’s argument for usage limiting one type of data while exempting other data falls into the same logical black hole.  Comcast’s basic argument for usage caps has always been it protects a shared network experience for customers.  Since cable broadband resources are shared within a neighborhood, the company argues, it must impose limits on “heavy users” who might slow down service for others.

We've heard this all before. Former AT&T CEO Dan Somers: "AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of (its) veins."

But in a world where DOCSIS 3 technology and a march to digital video distribution is well underway or near completion at many of the nation’s cable operators, the “last mile” bandwidth shortage problem of the early 2000s has largely disappeared.  In fact, Comcast itself recognized that, throwing the usage door wide open distributing bandwidth heavy XFINITY TV over the Xbox console cap-free.

As broadband advocates and industry insiders continue the debate about whether this constitutes a Net Neutrality violation or not, a greater truth should be considered.  Stop the Cap! believes providers have more than one way to exercise their control over broadband.

Naked discrimination against web content from the competition is a messy, ham-handed way to deal with pesky competitors.  Putting up a content wall around Netflix or Amazon is a concept easy to grasp (and get upset about), even by those who may not understand all of the issues.

Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles can win providers the same level of control without the political backlash.  Careful modification of consumer behavior can draw customers to company-owned or partnered content without using a heavy hammer.

Simply slap a usage limit on customers, but exempt partnered content from the limit.  Now customers have a choice: use up their precious usage allowance with Netflix or watch some of the same content on the cable company’s own unlimited-use service.

Nobody is “blocking” Netflix, but the end result will likely be the same:

• Comcast wins all the advantages for itself and its “preferred partners”;
• Customers find themselves avoiding the competition to save their usage allowance;
• Competitors struggle selling to consumers squeezed by inflexible usage caps.

It is all a matter of control, and that is nothing new for large telecom companies.

Back in 1999, AT&T Broadband owned a substantial amount of what is today Comcast Cable.  Then-CEO Dan Somers made it clear AT&T’s investment would be protected.

“AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of [its] veins,” Somers said, referring to streamed video.

Obviously Comcast agrees.

“Disruptive” is perhaps too timid a word to use for Skype co-founder Niklas Zennstrom, the man who brought Excedrin-strength headaches to the music industry with file-swapping software Kazaa and streamed video across the net for free with Joost.  Now he wants to blow up America’s business model for expensive wireless data by literally giving it away to wireless phone users.

FreedomPop has a “freemium” business model of its very own — give away 1GB of 4G data through Clearwire to iPhone owners willing to use FreedomPop’s WiMAX-fitted phone case with the hope users will throw more business their way for around $10/GB after the first gigabyte is gone.

Zennstrom

Clearwire has been in the mood to make deals with all-comers to leverage its WiMAX network that carriers like Sprint plan to abandon for LTE 4G service in the not-too-distant future.  By giving away 1GB of free usage (and it remains unclear whether this is a “one-off” deal or if the meter resets to zero every month), the company is set to draw plenty of free press.

FreedomPop is likely to appeal to price-sensitive customers who don’t want to pay providers $30 a month for 2-3GB of usage when a much smaller, cheaper data plan combined with the free service will do.

The WiMAX case, which will fit over Apple’s iPhone, also acts as a mobile hotspot, supporting up to eight concurrently-connected devices.  No change of phone is required as users can connect to the service through Wi-Fi.

Customers will have to place a deposit on the case, likely less than $100, refundable when returned in good condition.

With most people not exceeding 1GB of usage per month, the only cost will be the “bare minimum” data plan customers are required to take with AT&T, Verizon Wireless, or Sprint, which currently runs $15-20 for a few hundred megabytes.

Clearwire’s WiMAX doesn’t deliver coverage to all points in the United States, and its speeds are considerably lower than 4G LTE service.  But free is free – a concept NetZero hopes to use to pitch a similar free 4G Clearwire WiMAX service.  The primary difference is your granted usage allowance.  FreedomPop will provide 1GB — NetZero 200MB.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ How Skype Co-Founder Hopes to Make Money Giving Away Mobile Broadband on FreedomPop 3-23-12.flv[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal explores the business model of FreedomPop.  How can giving away 4G data succeed financially?  (4 minutes)

Maybe this explains why Frontier’s customers in West Virginia and beyond are still waiting for the promised DSL service that actually delivers better than 1Mbps speed at peak usage times.  Who knew it had to be this complicated?