AT&T has announced an across-the-board rate increase for smartphone and tablet data plans, raising prices $5 Sunday for most plans while including incrementally larger usage allowances:

• Lite Usage: 200MB for $15 is now 300MB for $20;
• Average Usage: 2GB for $25 is now 3GB for $30;
• Higher Usage: 4GB for $45 is now 5GB for $50.
• Regular Tablet Plan:  2GB for $25 is now 3GB for $30.
• A new, higher use tablet plan will offer 5GB for $50.
• Overlimit fees are now $20 for 300MB of additional usage on the lite usage plan, $10/GB on all other plans.

AT&T originally charged $29.99 for unlimited-use data plans.  The company claimed in the summer of 2010 its new limited-use plans would save most customers money, but except for very light users, that is no longer true.

AT&T's throttles are engaged.

AT&T says the new usage allowances reflect customer resistance to paying overlimit fees when they exceed AT&T’s existing caps.  But the company has also previously said the vast majority of its customers never exceed the old allowances. According to AT&T, 65 percent of its customers use less than 200MB per month and 98 percent of its smartphone customers use less than 2GB of data per month. That effectively means every customer will now face a $5 rate hike for increased usage allowances most will not currently use.

Existing customers can hang on to their old data plans indefinitely, but those who bounce between carriers will be forced to choose from a more limited, and expensive, menu of options.

Considering that AT&T’s most significant rival Verizon Wireless currently charges $30 for just 2GB per month, AT&T officials are still able to claim their new prices represent a “great value.”

Customers grandfathered under AT&T’s old unlimited-use plans are also discovering they are anything but unlimited.  So-called “heavy users” who exceed 2GB of use per month are first warned by AT&T they are in the “top 5%” of usage-hungry users, after which their wireless connection is throttled to as little as 15kbps for the remainder of the billing cycle.

Polly wants a $20K "stipend" for parroting the cable industry agenda.

Time Warner Cable is back again for the third year offering $20,000 in “dollar-a-holler” money to write “research reports” that meet the cable operator’s wish-list of current topics of interest.  While the cable company raises rates on customers, some of the proceeds pay for the Time Warner Cable Research Program on Digital Communications, which they say “awards stipends designed to foster research dedicated to increasing understanding of the benefits and challenges facing digital technologies in the home, office, classroom and community.”

After tearing through some of the earlier “award-winning” reports and topics over the past three years, we find it more an exercise in wasted cheerleading money, particularly when some of the authors happen to work for PR astroturf operations and other industry-connected/funded “think-tanks” that take money for dubious research and public statements that amplify the paymaster’s agenda.

It’s not much of a stretch to figure out exactly what kind of submissions the cable company is looking for after reviewing the topic list.  It’s a safe bet nothing we’d have to say to Time Warner would get them to cut us a check for $20K.  In case there is any doubt, we’ve provided a helpful “between-the-lines” analysis of what they are really looking for, should you wish to put pen to paper:

(1) The end-user experience for broadband services
In an increasingly competitive marketplace, more attention is being paid to the consumer experience. For service providers, it is essential to make it simpler and easier for customers to enjoy the benefits of broadband any time, any place, on any device. Key questions include identifying service characteristics consumers consider in evaluating broadband performance, the role of accessibility in design and engineering, how best to encourage innovation in services and business models, the role of pricing and packaging of services, and how best to meet the needs of diverse communities.

(Between the lines: how can we justify Internet Overcharging customers with usage caps and usage billing and make it sound all-consumery and good-newsy?)

(3) Internet governance
Internet governance is still largely framed by the way the Internet existed when it first became a mass-market phenomenon in the late 1990s. But more users rely on advanced digital communications for a diverse set of uses today. Networks and devices are more varied and more powerful than expected, and the Internet now supports a vast range of business models and drives economic growth . In this environment, the role of government and other intermediaries in framing and addressing policy goals continues to change. Key questions include examining the need for new methods of collaboration in multi-stakeholder processes, examining the role of standard-setting, how to measure and assess the performance of the broadband Internet, developing metrics that are meaningful to a wide range of stakeholders (from industry and policymakers to consumers), how to develop new forms of governance that convene stakeholders to solve problems cooperatively, and how to develop guidelines that protect settled expectations as well as enable continuing entry and innovation.

(Between the lines: This whole “open platform” free-for-all network the Internet was originally envisioned to be is so yesterday.  How can we convert it into a corporate-controlled playground by convincing legislators our ‘investments’ in it should justify our ability to “coordinate” it ((a/k/a run, manage, and control)) as we see fit.)

(5) Video Convergence and Internet Video
Online video is growing rapidly, comprising an increasing proportion of Internet traffic even as workable business models continue to evolve. Internet video thus increasingly competes with more traditional video services, while at the same time placing extraordinary burdens on the broadband networks owned and operated by those competitors. This emerging development raises a host of issues for video competition and regulation as well as for broadband policy. Key questions include how to identify and respond to the challenges posed by Internet delivery of video, and identifying the marketplace, legal, and policy barriers that stand in the way of innovation in video service delivery.

(Between the lines: Since we can’t blame peer to peer traffic for the Internet ‘exaflood’ any longer, we’ve designated online video the new Frankenstein that threatens to run our broadband network into the ground.  How can we stop Internet video from cannibalizing our cable-TV service by limiting access (or charging a bountiful harvest of cash to those who dare to watch too much.) Bonus: Include tips on how we can obfuscate our tissue-paper-thin agenda to slap the caps on from being called out as an abuse of our market power.

HBO NO GO on Time Warner Cable & Bright House Networks

While Bright House followed Time Warner Cable’s footsteps this week, introducing long-awaited access to HBO/Max GO for customers who subscribe to one or both premium movie channels, neither cable company is prepared to let you watch the online video service on every available device.

After Time Warner Cable introduced HBO GO, we found the service was not authorized to work on the Roku platform, and Time Warner Cable remains off the list of available providers.  When Bright House Networks introduced the service this week, we quickly learned they do not support the Roku platform either.

We obtained nearly identical statements from HBO blaming the respective cable operators for this missed opportunity:

Bright House Networks [Time Warner Cable] is currently not supporting HBO GO on Roku. We encourage you to reach out to Bright House Networks [Time Warner Cable] and request that they add support for HBO GO on Roku.

Thank you,
The HBO GO Team

Bright House Networks Thursday switched on a huge network of free Wi-Fi hotspots for its broadband customers across central Florida.  Concentrated on coastal beach communities in eastern Florida and in the cities of Orlando, Tampa, and St. Petersburg, the new Wi-Fi service can be found on beaches and parks, inside malls and shopping destinations, downtown business districts, and medical facilities across their Florida service area.

Bright House Networks Wi-Fi Coverage Map

Existing Bright House broadband customers can log in and use the service for free:

• Most wireless devices will display available networks. If the device doesn’t show networks, open the network options and select My BrightHouse or Bright House Networks.
• Open the Internet browser of your choice.
• When the WiFi HotZones page opens, click ‘log in’ under Bright House Road Runner Customer.
• Log in using Road Runner email and password or My Services credentials.
• Agree to the terms of use and connect to the WiFi network.

Non-customers can purchase access with a credit card in increments of as little as three hours.  Stop the Cap! readers in central Florida report speed test results of around 5/1Mbps from many of the Wi-Fi locations, which is much better than many other publicly available Wi-Fi networks.

Bright House says it has launched the Wi-Fi service to help customers hang on to their usage-limited mobile broadband allowances.

“We’re trying to save our customers money, time and energy,” Bright House spokesman Donald Forbes said.  “Plus, Wi-Fi is so much faster and such a better connection.”

Cable provider-delivered Wi-Fi is often used by the industry as a customer retention tool and goodwill gesture.  It typically uses the company’s pre-existing broadband infrastructure, which keeps costs low.

Bright House is soliciting customer feedback about possible new locations for future Wi-Fi hotspots.  The company plans to add at least 2,000 additional hotspots by the end of this year.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bright House launches major Wi-Fi initiative 1-12-12.flv[/flv]

Bright House produced this informational video introducing its Wi-Fi service.  (2 minutes)

Phillip Dampier

Sometimes you have to wonder if some people have no shame.  Former Sen. Chris Dodd, who now collects a fat paycheck as chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, has his fur in quite the ruffle this morning, upset to learn thousands of websites have voluntarily gone offline in a one day protest against proposed copyright legislation bought and paid for by the industry he now represents.

“Some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging,” Dodd said in a statement.

Corporate pawns?  The irony of Dodd’s use of the revolving door between his public office and the special interests he used to oversee (and now earns a living from), was lost on him.  So was the fact the MPAA and its recording industry cohort the RIAA have spent the past several years alienating consumers extorting settlements out of those presumed guilty, under threat of being sued for much more.  With years of overreach and customer alienation under their belts, pardon America if they suspect Hollywood’s latest anti-piracy plan is more of the same.

Dodd served the people of Connecticut when the music and movie industry began a series of crackdowns on content theft that did more harm than good.  This is the industry that fought the right of consumers to record TV shows on home VCR’s for later viewing, wanted to tax blank media, raised prices on CD’s and DVD’s to the point it fueled piracy, for years refused to license legal online content in ways that would have undercut piracy, imposed “digital rights management” technology that effectively curtailed fair use of content consumers purchased for themselves, and sued customers it suspected of stealing — innocent or otherwise.

Dodd

But Chris Dodd doesn’t work for the American people any longer.  He works for giant corporate studios and now represents their interests.

Dodd is especially upset because the Stop SOTA protests may actually be effective at shutting down the railroading of the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” through Congress.

“It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information… A so-called ‘blackout’ is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals,” said Dodd.

The industry has spent millions trying to position their legislation as a solution to shady offshore counterfeiters and content thieves, but the bill’s most significant provisions hit much closer to home.

The proposed legislation would allow the Department of Justice and content owners to seek court orders against any site accused of “enabling or facilitating” piracy.  Since America’s long arm of justice can reach only between the states of Hawaii and Maine, this most important provision of the proposed bill would do little to curtail those “foreign criminals.”

SOPA also demands that search engines censor themselves to remove anything Hollywood suspects of infringing copyright from search listings.  As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has documented for years on its Chilling Effects project website, such powers have already been used within the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to wipe out listings that just reference copyrighted works, occasionally even by third parties that have no real standing to file the complaint.  At least websites responding affirmatively to DMCA complaints are protected from unknowingly violating copyright law.  Under SOPA, those protections are bypassed, potentially making even innocent infringement liable for civil action and search engine blocking.

Much of the enforcement, likely encouraged by companies Dodd now represents, will be done at the behest of Hollywood studios and other deep pocketed content producers.  Ultimately, most of the impact will be felt by consumers suspected of “infringing,” many who effectively lack the financial resources to prove their innocence.

Any web publisher would need to think twice about publishing anything online, if only because the financial risks of defending oneself against alleged copyright infringement would be onerous.

Since most of the criminal element Dodd claims to be concerned with is in it for the money, the most obvious solution is simple: remove the financial incentive.  A victim of copyright infringement need only seek a court order that bars financial transactions between theft-oriented websites and the online payment processors that supply the money.  Barring credit card companies, online payment services like PayPal, and other payment services from accepting money for copyright infringement puts the criminals out of business fast.  Existing provisions in the DMCA already force search engines to remove infringing content.

The alternative is turning the Internet over to the Hollywood copyright police, who along with the movie industry have demonstrated a long history of broad brush enforcement that cares little about the presumed innocence of the accused.