Recent Articles:

Cord Cutters Can Now Buy Package of Streaming News Channels

Phillip Dampier October 20, 2011 Competition, Editorial & Site News, Online Video 1 Comment

Besides sports, the biggest challenge for cord-cutters is to find access to 24-hour news channels they give up when they cancel pay television service.  While cable news often doesn’t actually spend much time on “news” when breaking stories are few and far-between, when something serious does happen, cord-cutters looking for live coverage can and do miss access to news networks.

But now a New York startup, RadixTV, has a solution for news junkies: Rtv.

Yesterday, the company launched a package of four cable news networks — Bloomberg, CNBC, CNBC World, and MSNBC streamed live 24 hours a day for $14.99 a month.

That’s a steep price for four channels, of which MSNBC is arguably the most important.  The company plans to expand to 10 channels in the future, including CNN, Fox News, and international news networks like BBC World, France 24 and Al Jazeera English that American cable companies routinely ignore.

Kaul

Rtv is pitched primarily to Wall Street — financial firms, brokerages, and investment businesses that want access to continuous business news but don’t need a traditional cable package.  In fact, the package is technically only supposed to be sold to business customers, but anyone can sign up if they say they are stock traders, accountants, investors, etc.

Stop the Cap! sampled Rtv this morning and found the service to work well with our broadband connection, although at times crawling news and stock prices found at the bottom of the screen on some channels seemed less smooth than they could be.  It occasionally was distracting.  MSNBC was the most compelling channel in the lineup, although we’d love to see international news channels even more.  But $15 a month is still a high price to pay.

The company’s CEO, Bhupender Kaul, worked for Time Warner Cable for nearly two decades, and believes the future of cable TV is likely to be Internet-based, with programming sold in niche packages like his.  True a-la-carte may be too unwieldy for providers to pull off, but selling groups of channels together might not.  Still, Kaul seems intent on not aggravating the industry as much as earlier cord-cutting online viewing services, which have all since been sued out of existence.  Local broadcast and general interest programming does not come with Rtv.  While a six figure-salaried Wall Street banker won’t mind $15 a month, you might.

Further reading: In New Web TV Service, A Glimpse of the Future

Nobody Trusts Big Cable and Phone Companies, New Research Finds

Phillip Dampier October 20, 2011 Consumer News Comments Off on Nobody Trusts Big Cable and Phone Companies, New Research Finds

Even after the financial meltdown and the Great Recession, Americans still trust their cable and telephone companies even less than bailed-out financial institutions, mortgage brokers, credit card issuers, insurance companies, and airlines.

Those are the findings of the Temkin Group, which polled 6,000 U.S. consumers who recently contacted the surveyed companies to obtain customer service, support, or to ask a question or resolve a billing issue.

Temkin asked, “to what degree do you trust that these companies will take care of your needs?”  Responses were scored on a scale of 1-7 — from “do not trust at all” to “completely trust.”

The results show there is plenty of room for improvement for phone, wireless, and Internet providers.

The top-10 scoring companies don’t sell Internet service:

1. USAA (insurance)
2. Amazon.com (retail)
3. Costco (retail)
4. Edward Jones (investment firm)
4. Hyatt (hotel chain)
4. Sam’s Club (retail)
4. TriCare (health plan)
8. Kohl’s (retail)
9. Walgreens (retail)
10. Vanguard (investments)

Lower-rated companies do.  Here’s a sampling of where many telecom companies ended up (from better to worse) with respect to Internet and wireless service:

54. MSN
60. Cox Communications
89. Verizon Wireless (wireless)
90. T-Mobile
93. Sprint
100. AT&T (wireless)
104. AOL
106. AT&T (Internet service)
109. Cablevision
113. Time Warner Cable/Road Runner (Internet service)
120. Qwest
122. Virgin Mobile
140. Comcast
142. Charter Communications

Charter scored dead last out of 143-rated companies.  Customers trashed both Charter’s Internet service (142) and their cable-TV service (143).

Temkin shows telecom companies rate dead last.

Florida Woman Gets $201,000 T-Mobile Bill: Data Roaming Bill Shock Nightmare

A Miami woman fell to pieces when T-Mobile sent her a cell phone bill that was higher than the purchase price of many nice suburban homes, after a two-week trip to Canada turned into a data roaming disaster.

Celina Aarons is the latest victim of bill shock — when phone and cable companies send surprise bills that throw families into turmoil, begging for help from the provider that could either aggressively collect or save your sanity by reducing the bill.

Aarons appealed to WSVN Miami’s consumer reporter Patrick Fraser for help after the bill arrived.

“I was freaking out. I was shaking, crying, I couldn’t even talk that much on the phone,” Aarons said. “I was like my life is over!”

It turns out her deaf brother uses a phone on her account to communicate… a lot.  He routinely sends thousands of text messages a month, in addition to relying heavily on the mobile smartphone’s Internet access.  He had no idea a two-week trip to Canada would invoke an insanely high data roaming rate — $10 per megabyte.  Text messages sent while roaming in Canada run $0.20 each, with or without a texting plan.  Just running an online video at those rates will easily rack up charges well over $1,000.  And they did.

Unfortunately for Celina, T-Mobile claims to have sent a handful of warning messages — to her brother’s phone, never to hers.  He claims he never saw them.  She’s ultimately responsible for the bill, and she’s upset T-Mobile didn’t notify the primary account holder — her — of the rapidly accumulating roaming charges.  T-Mobile told her they don’t send such notifications for “privacy reasons.”

[flv width=”630″ height=”374″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSVN Miami Help Me Howard – High phone bill 10-17-11.mp4[/flv]

WSVN in Miami explains what happened when Celina Aarons received her 40+ page T-Mobile bill… for $201,000.  (4 minutes)

Life's for sharing a $201,000 cell phone bill.

That’s how parents end up receiving bill shock of their own, when children handed phones run up enormous charges mom and dad never learn about until the bill arrives in the mailbox.  By then, it’s too late.

The Federal Communications Commission was supposed to take direct action to put an end to bill shock by demanding carriers send clear warnings when usage allowances are used up or when roaming charges begin to accrue.  It was a priority for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, until wireless industry lobbyists convinced him to abandon the effort, choosing an industry-sponsored voluntary plan instead.

Genachowski quietly put the FCC’s own proposed bill shock regulations on hold, which also likely means an abdication of the agency’s responsibility to closely monitor the wireless industry’s adherence to its own voluntary guidelines.

The CTIA Wireless Association, the industry’s largest trade and lobbying group, will be coordinating the “early warning” program, but will take their time implementing it.  The industry wants until October 2012 to implement the first phase of its program, which will send text messages for usage allowance depletion and excessive usage charges.  It also wants even more time — April 2013 — before the industry is expected to adopt additional service alerts.

Genachowski: Abdicated his responsibility to protect consumers in favor of the interests of the wireless industry.

The wireless industry’s plan is based entirely on early warning text messages.  It does not provide any of the top-requested protections consumers want to end the wallet-biting:

  1. The ability to shut off services once usage allowances are depleted until the next billing cycle;
  2. An opt-in provision which requires customers to authorize additional charges before they begin;
  3. The ability to shut off services and features on individual handsets on their account;
  4. The ability to easily opt-out of all roaming services, so sky high excess charges can never be charged to their accounts;
  5. Provisions to require providers to eat the bill if it is demonstrated that warning messages never arrived;
  6. Fines and other punishments for carriers who fail to meet the provisions of either a regulated or voluntary plan.

The CTIA’s plan won’t stop some of the horror stories Genachowski spoke about earlier this year, when he was still advocating immediate action by the Commission.  Among them:

  • Nilofer Merchant: Racked up $10,000 in international roaming and overlimit fees while visiting Toronto.  AT&T waited until after she returned to the United States before notifying her of the charges.  They “generously” agreed to reduce the bill to $2,000, which they ultimately pocketed.
  • A woman who rushed to attend to her sister in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake found more tragedy when her provider billed her $34,000 in roaming charges;
  • A man whose limited data plan ran out faced $18,000 in overlimit fees before the provider notified him his bill was going to be higher than normal that month.

The wireless industry’s chief lobbyist, CTIA president Steve Largent, declared total victory.

“Today’s initiative is a perfect example of how government agencies and industries they regulate can work together under President Obama’s recent executive order directing federal agencies to consider whether new rules are necessary or would unnecessarily burden businesses and the economy,” Largent said.

Consumer groups are less excited.

Text message warnings or not, the wireless industry still wants to be paid.

Joel Kelsey, a policy analyst at public interest group Free Press, said he was skeptical providers would be making their customers their first priority under the voluntary program.

“Asking the uncompetitive wireless industry to self-police itself is like asking an addict to self-medicate,” said Kelsey. “The FCC is charged by Congress to protect consumers, and they should use their authority to write a rule that puts an end to $16,000 monthly cellphone bills.”

“Wireless carriers are not charities — they will make the most revenue they can from their user base,” Kelsey said. “And since competition is weak in this industry, there aren’t natural incentives for companies to be on their best behavior.”

T-Mobile, which is in the process of trying to merge with AT&T, has agreed to discount Aarons’ bill to $2,500 and give her six months to pay.  Stop the Cap! reader Earl, who shared the story with us, suspects that kind of charity won’t last long.

“This won’t happen again if AT&T merges with T-Mobile,” Earl suspects.

While $2,500 is a considerable discount over the original bill, customers who have suffered from bill shock would prefer an even better deal — no surprise charges at all.

That kind of deal is unlikely if the FCC continues to defer to the wireless industry, who have few incentives to provide it.

Consumers can reduce the chances of wireless bill shock by checking with their wireless provider to see if roaming services can be left turned off unless or until you activate them.  Many companies also offer smartphone applications to track usage and billing, useful if you have a family plan and want to verify who is doing what with their phone.  Avoid taking your cellphone on international trips, and that includes Canada.  If you need a cell phone abroad, we recommend purchasing a throwaway prepaid phone when you arrive and rely on that while abroad.  Such phones can be had for as little as $10, and per-minute rates are usually substantially lower than the roaming charges imposed by providers back home.

If you must travel with your phone, carefully consider roaming rates before you go.  Some carriers may offer international usage plans that discount usage fees.  You can use Wi-Fi to manage data sessions, but it’s best to avoid high bandwidth applications while abroad altogether.  One movie can cost a thousand dollars or more in international roaming charges.

While T-Mobile could have provided warnings to Aarons’ own phone as her bill began to skyrocket, T-Mobile’s bill was ultimately correct.  Wireless phone users must take personal responsibility for the use of phones on their account.  Aarons’ brother ignored the handful of warnings T-Mobile claims to have provided, and the agony of the resulting bill no doubt created tension inside that family.  Don’t let a wireless phone bill tear your family apart.  Take steps to protect yourself, because it’s apparent the FCC won’t anytime soon.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS NewsHour New Alerts to Stop Bill Shock 10-17-11.flv[/flv]

PBS NewsHour interviews FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski about the pervasive problem of “bill shock,” and why the Commission elected to defer to the wireless industry to voluntarily alert consumers when their bills explode.  (7 minutes)

1 Down, 1 to Go: Bell Plans to Suspend Speed Throttling for Wholesale Customers

After nearly a half-million Canadians expressed outrage about Bell’s Internet Overcharging practices, the company is responding.  This week, Bell sent a letter to their wholesale customers announcing it plans to end the practice of speed throttling peer-to-peer file traffic (at least for them):

Effective November 2011, new links implemented by Bell to augment our DSL network may not be subject to Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMP).  ITMPs were introduced in March, 2008 to address congestion on the network due to the increased use of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications during peak periods. While congestion still exists, the impact of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications on congestion has reduced. Furthermore, as we continue to groom and build out our network, customers may be migrated to network facilities where Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMPs) will not be applied.

Peer-to-peer traffic, once all the rage for swapping music, movies, and software (legally or otherwise), has been declining as a percentage of Internet traffic and legal online entertainment services (Netflix, et al.) have become available.  Copyright crackdowns and usage caps manage to further restrict customers from leaving P2P software running continuously as it can rapidly eat into usage allowances.

With increased capacity of Bell’s networks and decreased interest in file swapping software among customers, the practice of throttling such traffic (along with the unintended collateral damage to online gaming), means such network management practices have outlived their usefulness.

Providers these days are far more likely to blame online video for congested networks.  But once providers attach a speed throttle to an application, it can be difficult to remove.  Even as Bell announced it would no longer throttle their wholesale clients, retail customers will still suffer with reduced speeds during “peak usage times” — 4:30pm-2am local time.

Michael Geist, who covers Canadian broadband issues, wonders if Bell’s throttles are actually in violation of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s traffic management guidelines:

While Bell says its congestion has been reduced, its retail throttling practices have remained unchanged, throttling P2P applications from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am.  Given the decline in congestion, a CRTC complaint might ask whether the current throttling policy “results in discrimination or preference as little as reasonably possible” and ask for explanation why its data cap policies “would not reasonably address the need and effectively achieve the same purpose as the ITMP.”  In fact, the same can now be said for many other ISPs who deploy broad based throttling practices (Rogers, Cogeco), which may not be reasonable under the CRTC policy.

No Matter the Technology, Fiber to the Home is Better… Period

Phillip Dampier October 18, 2011 Broadband Speed, Community Networks, Competition, Data Caps, Editorial & Site News, Public Policy & Gov't, Rural Broadband, Video Comments Off on No Matter the Technology, Fiber to the Home is Better… Period

Phillip "Wants a High Fiber Diet" Dampier

Believe it or not, there are still some people out there who believe wireless broadband, as it exists today, is the future of high bandwidth communications in North America.  Forget DSL, forget cable, forget fiber optics, they say.  Technology like 4G and WiMax are “far superior” and cheaper.

To be fair, most of the people advocating the technology Sprint is in the process of abandoning have a vested interest in stopping fiber broadband projects.  That is because while Verizon continues to sit on its hands expanding its excellent FiOS fiber-to-the-home service, some of the most aggressive fiber projects in the country are being built by your local town, city, or village government.  It’s community-owned broadband, by and for the people in your own area.  Large telecom interests that have always refused to deliver fiber service (or pretend to by using the word ‘fiber’ while not bringing a single strand to your home) have it in for potential competitors that are willing to provide the advanced fiber technology they won’t.

So why aren’t big phone and cable companies providing this level of service?  In a word, money.  Their shareholders don’t like the initial cost of deploying fiber to the home service, even though the technology is superior to what reaches your home today, is infinitely expandable without stringing new cables across town, and can support money-making applications developers and providers have not even dreamed of yet.  With a pervasive lack of competition, there is nothing to overcome Wall Street’s conclusion that fiber doesn’t deliver fast enough profits to justify the initial expense.

When you take Wall Street out of the equation, especially in the telecom sector, the math works very differently.  While the phone and cable company is probably telling you “no,” companies like Google are saying yes in Kansas City.  So are municipally-owned rural co-operative phone and cable companies.  Communities deciding broadband is too important to leave to the phone companies that deliver half their residents 1-3Mbps DSL and call it a day are saying yes to fiber optics as well.

Overseas, fiber networks are being built in countries in Eastern Europe where the economics would never make sense by Wall Street standards, yet residents (and perhaps more importantly new digital economy businesses) are now getting Internet speeds of 100Mbps or better.  The next countries that could import good-paying American jobs might be Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria.

So what does it take to adapt to this reality in North America?  Providers that are willing to make a long term investment in fiber broadband — one that may take a few extra years to pay back, but will generate dividends like increased employment, capacity to provide better, faster service, more reliable networks, and earning a piece of the action powering North America’s new digital economy.  If they won’t listen, tell your elected officials to support policies that promote additional competition and back community broadband expansion that can make all the difference between 3Mbps DSL and 100Mbps fiber.

[flv width=”640″ height=”372″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fiber is Better.flv[/flv]

Watch and share this video with friends and family to educate them about the infinite possibilities of fiber optic broadband and learn why it is superior to usage-capped wireless, slow speed DSL, satellite fraudband, or lopsided cable “High Speed Internet” broadband that delivers high speed in only one direction. (3 minutes)

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!