In what Netflix is characterizing as a technical fault, those who experienced a limit of one-stream-per-“Unlimited Streaming”-Account can now watch at least two streams at the same time once again.

Stop the Cap! broke the story on Netflix’s streaming crash diet on Labor Day after being contacted by several readers reporting the apparent new limitations.  Stop the Cap! confirmed them ourselves several times over the past three days, and so did Mashable‘s Ben Parr, who ran into the same error message we did after trying to stream multiple movies at the same time (although he had no trouble watching one movie and one television show concurrently.)

Netflix’s spokesman Steve Swasey called it a big misunderstanding this morning, telling us “no Netflix member is limited to less than two concurrent streams. A few Netflix members have heard differently from us, which is an error that we are correcting.”

Perhaps, but the errors continued straight through until early this afternoon, when we were finally able to confirm the launch of two concurrent streams without an error message.

Netflix has always maintained streaming limitations in their terms of service and in their Frequently Asked Questions.  The company, to this day, still proclaims “you may watch [Netflix streaming on] only one device at a time” if you are a stream-only customer.  Their terms of service emphasize this point in all-capital letters:

YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO INSTANTLY WATCH SIMULTANEOUSLY ON ONLY ONE SUCH DEVICE AT ANY GIVEN TIME. For certain membership plans in the United States, you may instantly watch simultaneously on more than one Netflix ready device within your household. Click here to view the number of devices on which you may simultaneously view movies & TV shows that are associated with your plan. The number of devices and concurrent streams may change without notice to you. For certain limited membership plans in the United States, your available Netflix ready device may be limited to personal computers.

While those clearly are the policies of Netflix, the reality has been customers could easily stream two or more concurrent shows over their Netflix streaming account from different devices without provoking an error message.  But that changed this past weekend, when we began to receive news tips from frustrated customers.

Some consumers never realized they could watch multiple streams at the same time, and were unconcerned with Netflix potentially limiting this feature.  For them, it was tantamount to abusing their Netflix account.  It is a fact some customers have shared their accounts with friends and family members, something that streaming restrictions would go a long way to discourage.  But there are legitimate uses as well, especially in large families with different viewing habits.

We feel it’s important for Netflix to convey exactly what their policy is regarding concurrent video streaming.  If Steve Swasey wants customers to feel assured they can watch two streams concurrently, their FAQ and terms of service should be updated to reflect that.  It’s clear Netflix reserves the right to change the number of devices and concurrent streams without notice, something our readers obviously feel very strongly about.

Whether this was truly a technical fault or a trial balloon that came crashing down under negative customer reaction, the message is clear: most customers are very glad to have concurrent streaming back, and hope it remains a part of the Netflix experience.

Bartz

The CEO of the Yahoo! has been shown the door, but unlike many recently-unemployed workers who get the bad news during an exit interview, Carol Bartz learned she was out in a humiliating phone call from the board of directors.

That left Bartz telling employees she’d been fired in an internal memo sent from her iPad.

Investors were happy to see the back of Bartz, sending Yahoo! shares higher on the news.  Bartz faced a growing number of critics in the past few years, almost immediately after arriving as CEO in early 2009.  Much like Yahoo! itself, her critics accused her of being out of touch with Internet culture and the realities of today’s high-tech businesses.

Bartz was no friend of coordinating expanded and improved broadband projects through the government.  She opposed the National Broadband Plan and Net Neutrality policies, dismissing both as government interference.  That put her in direct opposition to Google, which has spent millions in the public policy arena to influence expanded broadband in the United States.

Despite the lackluster results Yahoo! managed under her leadership, Bartz remained well-compensated, earning $60 million over the past two years.

Yahoo! has remained a challenged endeavor as a first generation Internet superstar long-faded after the dot.com crash in 2000.  Various efforts to relaunch Yahoo!’s flagging advertising revenue business, long dominated by Google, have not been very successful.  Yahoo!’s biggest problem has been its lack of innovation, creating new reasons for web visitors to return to a company that used to be a household name.

Now some believe the only hope Yahoo! has left is to sell itself to someone else.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Broadband Regulation 3-2-10 .flv[/flv]

Free Press’ policy director Ben Scott held his own, despite being hopelessly outnumbered, in a business-friendly CNBC ‘Power Lunch’ debate over broadband public policy held in March 2010.  Scott faced Yahoo! CEO Carol Bartz, Larry Clinton from the “Internet Security Alliance,” which receives substantial support — not disclosed by CNBC — from AT&T and Verizon, and CNBC’s clueless Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, who insisted 99 percent of America already subscribes to broadband.  All of the industry talking points were on hand, which isn’t too surprising when they come from industry front groups like the ‘ISA.’ (3/3/2010 — 5 minutes)

When is a cable, wireless, and video rental conglomerate big enough to start its own financial institution?  When it achieves the size and scope of Rogers Communications.

Rogers announced, through a tiny legal notice filed over the weekend, it had taken the first steps to achieve its ambition of launching Rogers Bank:

ROGERS BANK

APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH A BANK

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 25(2) of the Bank Act (Canada), that Rogers Communications Inc. intends to apply to the Minister of Finance for the issue of letters patent incorporating a bank under the Bank Act (Canada) primarily focused on credit, payment and charge card services.

The bank will carry on business in Canada under the name of Rogers Bank in English and Banque Rogers in French, and its head office will be located in Toronto, Ontario.

Any person who objects may submit an objection in writing to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, 255 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H2, on or before October 24, 2011.

If approved by the Minister of Finance, don’t expect to get your next home mortgage or checking account from the cable company.  Rogers Bank intends to focus mostly on the payment services business, according to the application.  Among the potential angles to be pursued by Rogers Bank:

• Offering a Rogers-branded credit card to interested customers, perhaps tied to a rewards program;
• Getting a substantial discount processing credit card payments and the growing popularity of mobile micropayment services, which allow consumers to purchase items from vending machines, parking meters, and other in-person transactions using a mobile phone;
• Offering its own payment transfer service, similar to PayPal;
• Leveraging credit opportunities by running the credit-granting institution inside the company, instead of appealing to outside institutions.

Rogers’ idea, while unusual, is not unique.  Canadian Tire and Loblaw both operate their own “banks,” primarily for financing products and services.

Not satisfied with relying on the U.S. Department of Justice to protect the competitive marketplace for cell phone service, Sprint Nextel today brought suit against AT&T, Inc., AT&T Mobility, Deutsche Telekom and T-Mobile seeking to block the proposed acquisition as a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia as a related case to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) suit against the proposed acquisition.  It has been assigned to the same judge handling the Justice Department’s own lawsuit — Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.

“Sprint opposes AT&T’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile,” said Susan Z. Haller, vice president-Litigation, Sprint. “With today’s legal action, we are continuing that advocacy on behalf of consumers and competition, and expect to contribute our expertise and resources in proving that the proposed transaction is illegal.”

Sprint’s lawsuit focuses on the competitive and consumer harms which would result from a takeover of T-Mobile by AT&T. The proposed takeover would:

• Harm retail consumers and corporate customers by causing higher prices and less innovation;
• Entrench the duopoly control of AT&T and Verizon, the two “Ma Bell” descendants, of the almost one-quarter of a trillion dollar wireless market. As a result of the transaction, AT&T and Verizon would control more than three-quarters of that market and 90 percent of the profits;
• Harm Sprint and the other independent wireless carriers. If the transaction were to be allowed, a combined AT&T and T-Mobile would have the ability to use its control over backhaul, roaming and spectrum, and its increased market position to exclude competitors, raise their costs, restrict their access to handsets, damage their businesses and ultimately to lessen competition.

Sprint believes that in a marketplace dominated by AT&T and Verizon Wireless, the two largest players would likely collude on pricing and terms of service rather than compete heavily against one-another.  Sprint’s assumptions may already be true, considering both companies largely charge near-identical prices for service.

While Sprint proceeds with its own legal action, squabbling has broken out over whether or not AT&T so carefully crafted the terms and conditions of their $6 billion “breakup fee,” payable to T-Mobile USA if the merger fails, that it almost guarantees AT&T will never have to pay it.

“Under its agreement with Deutsche Telekom, the deal is only valid if the acquisition receives regulatory approval within a certain time frame,” an anonymous source told Reuters. “Also, the agreement could become invalid if regulatory conditions for the sale push the value of T-Mobile USA below a certain level.”

T-Mobile, unsurprisingly, disagrees with that characterization.

A Deutsche Telekom spokesman said Tuesday that AT&T could retreat from the transaction if the concessions necessary to get approval amount to more than $7.8 billion, but added Deutsche Telekom would still be entitled to receive the break-up fee package, which includes cash and wireless spectrum.

Too bad Comcast doesn't allow their Internet customers to use the service until 'xfinity.'

A Comcast customer of seven years has been warned if he exceeds the company’s arbitrary 250GB usage cap one more time, his family will be cut off from the cable company’s Internet service for one year.

Jrodefeld is just one more example of a customer who never thought he would have to monitor an online usage gauge to enjoy the Internet service he pays good money to receive.  But Comcast has deemed him an Internet abuser for exceeding a usage limit the company takes pains to bury in its lengthy terms and conditions, far away from glitzy marketing promising a fast, always-on experience.

In my house there are five people with five computers, several smartphones, a Playstation 3 and AppleTV all connected to the Internet through a wireless router.  Several of us are tech minded people who need to be able to send and receive large amounts of data through our network and publish material on the Internet.

Not only that, but I have (legally) downloaded films through places like iTunes and downloaded games and software in the same manner.  I create digital content (web pages, animation, other content) and publish it on the Internet. Not only that, but I send this content to friends and colleagues through web hosting sites like Netload.  I download games and watch streaming Netflix through my Playstation 3.

I think it is absolutely beyond belief that Comcast can offer the speeds that they do, with the evolving demands of the Internet and modern digital demands that people have, and think that 250GB is sufficient for even the moderately tech savvy user.  This data cap is absolutely horrible and is an insult to my family and an abomination given how much money we have given to Comcast over the last several years for their service, amounting in the thousands of dollars.  Not to mention that we signed up with the idea of getting an “always on”, unlimited service.

Jrodefeld claims his family steers clear of the usual suspect of heavy usage consumption — peer-to-peer software.  But with five tech-savvy teenagers and high-tech workers living under one roof, Comcast’s usage meter reflected the family was several times over the company’s usage limits:

• In May, 2011 the total data used was:  1363GB
• In June, 2011 the total data used was:  758GB
• In July, 2011 the total data used was:  1271GB

Based on a review of the applications being run by those achieving that level of usage, online file backup is usually the culprit generating the most usage.  That is closely followed by avid online streaming and gaming.  While game-play itself is probably not much of a factor, the relentless number of game updates and new games distributed over an Internet connection can easily exceed several gigabytes each.  The family also streams some very high bitrate HD movies over a video rental service that uses their Comcast Internet connection to provide the video.  That can run nearly 10GB an hour in some cases, Jrodefeld says.

For usage cap opponents, this represents the perfect example of what can happen in families that rely on video streaming and have teenagers living at home.  While one individual may have little trouble staying within Comcast’s arbitrary 250GB limit, unchanged since its introduction in 2008, the more Internet-savvy members in a household sharing a connection, the bigger the risk for Internet Overcharging or a warning e-mail.

Comcast says their average user keeps usage well under 10GB per month.  But they don’t provide any demographic breakdown of usage profiles.  Older households may pay for an Internet account exclusively for web browsing and e-mail.  Younger households, those with teenagers, and cord-cutters who rely on Internet video streaming will almost certainly use considerably more.

Jrodefeld can’t believe Comcast has stuck his family with a “one size fits all” Internet experience.  And their reasons for the 250GB usage cap don’t make any sense.

“On the one hand, it is said that a user going over that threshold hurts the Internet experience for other users in your area, and on the other hand Comcast claims that the ‘average’ user uses only 2-4gb per month,” he notes. “If that is the case, then multiple users who average 250GB a month would slow down the Internet far more than one individual who uses, say, 500GB in a month.”

“If such a small number of users exceed the cap, Comcast’s network should easily be able to allow that without it affecting other users,” he argues. “If, on the other hand, many users are exceeding the cap, it means that the limit is far too small and Comcast should upgrade their infrastructure if they cannot keep up with user demands.”

The cap-free alternative for Comcast's "heavy users."

In fact, Comcast has upgraded the Internet experience for most of their customers considerably since they introduced a usage cap.  The company has aggressively deployed DOCSIS 3 upgrades, exponentially increasing the amount of bandwidth available in individual neighborhoods, allowing them to sell highly-profitable, faster tiers of service and eliminating congestion issues.  But no matter what speed you buy, or how much you spend, Comcast imposes the same 250GB usage limit on all residential accounts.

Comcast company officials had nothing to offer Jrodefeld, but several other Comcast customers did: upgrade to a Business Class account, if only to be rid of the usage limits.  Comcast Business Class service currently has no usage limitations, and carries this pricing in the northeast, before taxes and fees:

• Starter Plan — 12/2Mbps:  $59.95/mo Best Value
• Preferred Plan — 16/2Mbps:  $89.95/mo
• Premium Plan — 22/5Mbps:  $99.95/mo Best Speed/Performance Value
• Deluxe Plan — 50/10Mbps:  $189.95/mo
• Installation Fee: 1 year contract = $199, 2 years = $99, 3 years = $49

The alternative is to sign with a telephone company provider, but AT&T also has a 250GB usage limit on their U-verse service, and charges an overlimit fee of $10 for every 50GB of excess usage.  Verizon FiOS offers unlimited service.