While AT&T endures zoning-related delays to build out its fiber-to-the-neighborhood service U-verse, a scrappy anti-cap, pro-speed Internet provider in Santa Rosa has announced its intention to deliver gigabit speeds to San Franciscans over a fiber-to-the-home network that will begin construction early next year.

Sonic.net has been providing broadband services for years in northern California, using AT&T’s network of phone lines to deliver unlimited 20Mbps DSL service (including a phone line) for $40 a month.

Sunset District, San Francisco, Calif. (Courtesy: Stilfehler)

Now the company is branching beyond traditional DSL into fiber optics.  Sonic.net has already completed the first phase of its gigabit fiber network in Sebastopol, where it advertises 100Mbps service for $40 a month and 1000Mbps for $70 a month, both including phone service at no extra charge (two lines for the 1Gbps plan).

In San Francisco, Sonic plans to start with 2000 homes in the Sunset District, expanding its network to fully cover the city within five years.

Such a network could deliver serious competition to Comcast and AT&T, the currently-dominant providers.  AT&T’s U-verse buildout has been stalled over the need to install 768 large, unsightly metal cabinets on San Francisco street corners.  The company, as late as this summer, remains mired in zoning disputes and public protests.  Sonic’s fiber network will require similar equipment, and the San Francisco Chronicle reports Sonic filed its own application with the city Department of Public Works to install 188 cabinets, measuring 5 feet tall, starting next year.

Sonic may have a better chance if only because it does not have AT&T’s less-than-stellar reputation among some residents and customers who have been upset with the company’s wireless performance, and ongoing battles over cell tower placement.  Sonic.net CEO Dane Jasper tells the Chronicle:

“There is a huge demand in San Francisco for higher bandwidth services, and fiber is the only long-term way to meet this demand,” he said.

Given the fact that the company’s all-fiber network will bring “the fastest and cheapest” broadband service to the city, Jasper says he thinks the chances of overcoming the obstacles experienced by his larger rival are “pretty good.”

Sonic.net has gained a reputation for excellent customer service and vociferously opposes usage caps and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  The company has attracted the support of Google, which is using Sonic to manage its gigabit fiber network on the campus grounds of Stanford University in Palo Alto.

AT&T has previously dismissed fiber to the home service as too costly to provide, and has adopted in its place a fiber-to-the-neighborhood system that relies on traditional home phone wiring for the last part of its network.

A Fox affiliate in Green Bay, Wisc. has some trouble drawing distinctions between informational programming and infomercials after it repackaged a four minute ad for AT&T U-verse into a feature story on “Living With Amy,” its morning show targeting women viewers.

As well as failing to disclose to viewers the four minute “segment” was actually a paid commercial, AT&T doesn’t appear anywhere on the show’s sponsor page, potentially confusing viewers into believing the positive U-verse feature was produced by WLUK-TV as an unbiased news story.

It’s just the latest example of a series of “news reports” we’ve found (here and here) that highlight the blurring of the line between journalism and paid advertising.  In most cases, cable companies like Comcast and phone companies like AT&T are “invited guests” of the show’s host, who proceeds to gush over the products and service on offer without informing viewers those companies paid to be there.

This time, the Fox affiliate didn’t even bother with a “sit down” and ran a short infomercial for AT&T’s U-verse instead.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLUK Green Bay ATT U-verse 12-14-11.mp4[/flv]

This “story” appeared on WLUK’s “Living With Amy” show earlier this week.  It’s little more than a four minute commercial for AT&T U-verse, but viewers couldn’t tell because the station never disclosed it was paid advertising. (4 minutes)

Verizon Communications has held no talks with Netflix about a possible acquisition, despite frenzied media reports to the contrary.

Deal Reporter, a trade publication, was the source of the original rumor, but Bloomberg News reports the story is premature after talking with two sources who should know.

The rumored takeover did wonders for Netflix stock, which jumped more than six percent on the news.  That’s a boost the streaming and DVD-rental service needed after a year of public relations missteps and subscriber losses.

Verizon’s recent move towards launching its own streaming entertainment service outside of its FiOS fiber-to-the-home service areas made the rumor more credible, but other analysts think Verizon’s interest is on different company that shares Netflix’s love of the color red.

“Verizon’s not interested in Netflix, they see Redbox as a much better fit,” Sam Greenholtz, an analyst with Telecom Pragmatics in Westminster, Maryland, who has consulted for Verizon and was briefed by its employees about its plan, told Bloomberg.

It’s not the ubiquitous network of Redbox kiosks Verizon is after, it is the content distribution deals the company has with Hollywood studios.  Those deals are becoming quite lucrative for production companies — so lucrative in fact Time Warner’s chief entertainment mogul has cut back on his personal bashing of Netflix.  With Amazon, Time Warner’s own HBO Go, and Verizon entering the online video fray, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings declared there is now an “arms race” among the behemoths to dominate online viewing, and jack up licensing fees.

Hastings sees only the deepest-pocketed players as having a chance to make a stand in the online streaming marketplace, because content costs are increasing dramatically.  Hastings says Verizon and Amazon are bit players because they don’t offer a deep catalog of content and their offerings are more difficult to view on the family television set.

“The competitor we fear most is HBO Go,” Hastings said. “HBO is becoming more Netflix-like and we’re becoming more HBO-like. The two of us will compete for a very long time.”

HBO Go is part of the cable industry’s TV Everywhere project, delivering online video services to authenticated cable-TV subscribers.  Although HBO Go is typically included for free with an HBO subscription, the premium movie channel’s price has increased dramatically in the last three years.  In many areas, a monthly subscription for HBO now runs just shy of $15 a month.

CNN Money pondered whether Netflix can ultimately stay independent in a country where vertically and horizontally integrated super-sized entertainment companies control programming, distribution, and the Internet providers consumers use to access the content.  Netflix may still be an acquisition target:

Verizon. On the one hand, Verizon appears to be showing stronger interest in Redbox, which is planning to launch a streaming-video service in May 2012. On the other hand, Redbox is likely to face the same onerous licensing costs that plague Netflix, and Verizon might be better off buying a company experienced in licensing streaming rights. And besides, by hinting of a Redbox deal, Verizon can push down Netflix’ price – making a deal that much cheaper.

But if a Verizon deal makes sense on the face of it, it could become problematic over time. The two companies’ cultures are incompatible. Netflix takes risks that often (but not always) pay off, and builds its products around the customer’s experience. Verizon is risk-averse and builds its strategies on wringing fees from customers. If Netflix members staged a revolt over of the subscription fiasco, imagine how they’d react if Verizon raised fees further or demanded Netflix users sign up with its Internet service.

Microsoft. Netflix could give Microsoft the popular online service it’s never been able to build on its own. The Xbox has gone from gaming console to a well-received smart TV device, and integrating Netflix’ streaming-video service could put it ahead of Apple and Google. Plus, Reed Hastings could bring Microsoft a seasoned executive who instinctively understands where digital content is going.

Google. If the search giant can buy a phone maker, why not a video service? At $42.6 billion Google’s cash stockpile is 116 times the size of Netflix’s. Google already owns the only other digital-video property that has been embraced by the masses: YouTube. Combining the best features of both could lead to the only site you’d need to visit to get your video fix. Google’s recent comments on a controversial anti-piracy bill, however, could strain relations with studios that Netflix must license from.

Apple. As with Google, Apple’s $45 billion in cash will not only buy Netflix but sign many content deals and still leave tens of billions in the coffers. Thanks to iTunes, Apple has longstanding relationships with TV and movie studios, which could secure better terms for Netflix. And like iTunes, Netflix could spur enough sales of Apple devices that Apple doesn’t need to worry about making the profit that Netflix investors expect today.

Amazon. For as long as Netflix has been around, someone has been suggesting a merger with Amazon. Consumers have been buying DVDs from Amazon for years, and with IMDB, the best single film database on the planet, finding and researching movies to watch would be a cinch. The catch has been that owning Netflix’s mailing facilities would open it up to taxes in many states. But that may change now that Netflix seems ready to sell off its shrinking DVD-rental business.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Bibb on Verizons Possible Bid for Netflix 12-12-11.flv[/flv]

Porter Bibb, managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners LLC, talks about Verizon Communications Inc.’s possible offer for Neflix Inc. and the outlook for the streaming video industry. He was widely cited as one of the primary sources of the Verizon acquisition rumor.  He speaks with Jon Erlichman on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”  (5 minutes)

Rogers Communications has mailed letters to rural Canadians announcing it will cease operation of its Portable Internet wireless broadband service effective March 1, 2012.

The service, which uses the Inukshuk Wireless network, delivers Internet access to over 150 communities across mostly rural-northern Canada, where DSL and cable broadband is simply unavailable.  Customers were paying $45 a month for up to 3Mbps service with a 30GB usage cap.

Rogers’ decision will now force most of those customers to use the company’s far more expensive 3G wireless network, which runs far slower and has substantially lower usage allowances.  How much more expensive?  Rogers’ 3G customers choosing the company’s 3G Flex data plan will pay between $94-104 a month (depending on speed), for a plan with a 15GB usage allowance.  Overlimit fees run $10/GB. Customers using 20GB on Rogers’ 3G Flex will pay the company $144-154 a month for slower service.

“The price disparity is absolutely enormous,” says Stop the Cap! reader Ted who uses Rogers Portable Internet service in Val Caron, Ont., located north of Sudbury.  “You might as well not bother using the Internet at all at these prices.”

Ted says Rogers Portable Internet was never a perfect solution, but it was priced similarly to what larger city residents pay for broadband.

“It’s not really WiMax, which came after Rogers introduced the service, and the speeds and ping times can be appalling if you don’t have good reception, but it was affordable,” Ted says.  “Using 3G service means even slower speeds and lower caps at double the price, which is typical for Rogers.”

Ted points out the 30GB one receives on the Portable Internet service for $45 would correspond to a bill for $25o on 3G — five times the price for worse service.

“I am talking to my wife about buying the Rocket Hub [Roger’s device for mobile broadband] so we have something, because Bell has told us not to expect DSL anytime soon,” Ted notes. “Rural Canada cannot catch a break.”

The other option rural Canadians have is satellite Internet access, but providers like Xplornet have faced withering criticism from customers for poor speeds, network speed throttling, and usage caps.

RIM has a new PR problem.

Research in Motion, already reeling from a year of bad news about its beleaguered BlackBerry, is now red-faced over reports that two of its employees got drunk and engaged in raucous mayhem on an Air Canada flight to Beijing that grew so out of control, the pilots were forced to land the plane in Vancouver.

Now, the CBC has garnered an official transcript from a sentencing hearing which has further tarnished the image of RIM over its employees’ behavior, which a B.C. Provincial Court Judge called “disgusting.”

Pre-boarding, some fellow passengers noticed the pair of corporate executives appeared highly inebriated.

CBC News quoted from the court transcript: “…When the males boarded the flight they seemed quite intoxicated, they drank more, passed out, one would wake up and lean over the little cubicle, slap the other guy on the head because he wanted somebody to drink with, and then they would yell and abuse each other, then they’d pass out, then they’d wake up and start kicking again.”

When other passengers tried to intervene, they were threatened.  One was told “I know who you are,” while others were warned by one of the executives he would “off people when they left the plane.”

Eventually, both men were wrestled kicking and screaming to the floor, assaulting one flight attendant in the process.  Even a combination of plastic restraints and heavy tape were not enough.  Police reports indicate both men literally chewed through the plastic cuffs and ripped the tape off with their teeth.

At that point, pilots declared a security emergency and diverted the plane first to Anchorage, but quickly settled on much-closer Vancouver, where authorities met the aircraft and took both men into custody.

Air Canada eventually pegged its losses (assuming nobody files a civil case against the airline for the ‘air show’) at $193,900, which includes putting up passengers in Vancouver hotels overnight, extra fuel, navigation charges, and flying in a new crew for the resumption of the flight the following morning.

The B.C. Court Judge swiftly fined the two executives $70,000 to cover the costs of the hotel and meal vouchers for the passengers.  The judge wouldn’t hear defense attorney objections.

“I am somewhat sympathetic to your position but I am, quite frankly, absolutely disgusted with the actions of these two individuals who know better and acted like absolutely — well, I can’t say it. But that is the punishment that they should suffer,” the judge ruled.

Both men were quickly fired from the company when they returned to their Waterloo, Ont. homes.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News RIM Executives Launch Mayhem 12-12-11.flv[/flv]

CBC News has this exclusive report about the chaos caused by Research in Motion executives on Air Canada’s Flight 31.  (4 minutes)