Netflix and consumer groups like Free Press are unimpressed with Comcast’s announcement they plan to experiment with an increased usage cap in some markets and temporarily eliminating it in others.

A Netflix spokesperson issued a statement that says the company has dodged the real issue: discrimination against its traffic, which counts towards whatever Comcast usage cap the company eventually settles on, and doesn’t count towards Xfinity TV, which the cable company owns.

“Increasing the data cap is a small step in the right direction, but unfortunately Comcast continues to treat its own Internet delivered video different under the cap than other Internet delivered video,” says the Netflix statement. “We continue to stand by the principle that ISPs should treat all providers of video services equally.”

Free Press and Stop the Cap! share the belief the company’s usage caps are arbitrary and unnecessary and should be eliminated completely.

“Comcast has never had any legitimate reason to cap its Internet customers, and today’s announcement of new overage charges is just another example of the cable giant’s efforts to discriminate against and thwart online video competition,” said Free Press policy adviser Joel Kelsey. “Data caps are not a reasonable or effective way to manage capacity problems, which are virtually non-existent for Comcast.”

Kelsey also believes Comcast is still trying an end run around Net Neutrality.

“While the move to increase its caps is overdue, the notion that Comcast would charge an exorbitant rate for additional bandwidth — while continuing to exempt its own traffic under its Xbox deal — illustrates that Comcast is really trying to discourage subscribers from experimenting with online video alternatives,” Kelsey said. “We call on Comcast to drop the caps and these exorbitant overage fees entirely.”

Waiting for FiOS

For those who admire the apparent pervasiveness of competition between Time Warner Cable and Cablevision Industries vs. Verizon Communications’ FiOS, the idea the Big Apple has a broadband problem seems a bit ridiculous, particularly if you can’t get your local cable company to pick up their phone and AT&T will only hand you a 1.5Mbps DSL line, if you can get it.

But according to the Village Voice, New York City broadband “sucks,” and it will continue to suck for at least the next eight years.

“Though entrepreneurs in most parts of the city can access a fast broadband connection today, many of those we interviewed said that New York’s telecom infrastructure is well behind where it should be for a city vying to be one of the nation’s two leading technology hubs,” the study notes.

What it comes down to is that New York — despite being the world’s media capital — does not have adequate access or bandwidth to support tech companies’ needs.

For example, some companies might be able to get either FiOS or Time Warner Cable, but not both, which means they can’t have broadband backup.

“It’s like the elephant in the room is that bandwidth here sucks,” one entrepreneur told the researchers. “You should be able to walk into any building and have at least 150 megabit connection available to you. There has to be ways for the city to construct much better bandwidth availability for start-ups.”

Many cited told the researchers that their internet routinely goes down. And startups who want to set up shop in cheaper, industrial districts often can’t, because the cable companies would rather provide service to more lucrative residential areas. Sometimes, telecom concerns are willing to dig up streets and lay cable, but at a hefty price — around $80,000.

That $80,000 bill is handed to a prospective customer and does not come from cable operators’ capital expense fund.

Researchers gave New York a broadband grade of B to B-, which isn’t too bad considering what broadband is like in the mid-south, the midwest, and the rural west. But it doesn’t cut it for helping New York become a bigger tech city.

Waiting for "Business Class"

While Time Warner Cable and Cablevision have wired multi-dwelling units and homes across New York City, cable operators have only recently started to turn their serious attention to corporate business customers.  Time Warner Cable agreed, as part of its franchise renewal deal with the city, to invest $1.2 million per year for fiber connections to commercial buildings yet to be wired for cable. Cablevision, which can be found in boroughs like Brooklyn and out on Long Island, agreed to spend a more modest $600,000 a year for the same purpose.

Time Warner Cable has already warned investors its capital spending on wiring commercial office buildings across the country is increasing as the company sees lucrative new revenue opportunities competing with their usual nemesis — the phone company.

Verizon treats FiOS deployment in New York City as a long, long-term project. There are neighborhoods in Manhattan that can’t wait much longer for the fiber optic network as Verizon increasingly lets its old copper wiring go to pot, leaving some New Yorkers without phone service for weeks.  The city of New York has given Verizon until 2014 to wire the city, and the company appears likely to need those two additional years at their current pace, and that agreement only covers residential properties, not commercial ones.

Robust broadband is essential for many high technology startups and the multi-million dollar data centers that support them. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg considers it a top priority to reduce the city’s economic dependence on Wall Street, which generates considerable tax revenue for both the city and state. High tech enterprises fit that bill. But the city’s broadband grades do not.

“For a city that’s trying to be a tech powerhouse, we need to have an A,” said Jonathan Bowles, the author of the study, “New Tech City.”

Growing questions are being raised about whether Comcast is violating FCC and Department of Justice policies that prohibit the cable company from prioritizing its own content traffic over that of its competitors.

Comcast’s Xfinity Xbox app offers Comcast customers access to Xfinity online video content without eating into their monthly 250GB Internet usage allowance. Netflix has called that exemption unfair, because its content does count against Comcast’s usage cap. New evidence now suggests Comcast may also be prioritizing the delivery of its Xfinity content over other broadband traffic, a true Net Neutrality violation if proven true.

Bryan Berg, founder and chief technology officer at MixMedia, believes he has found proof the cable company is giving its own video content preferential treatment, in this somewhat-technical finding published on his blog:

What I’ve concluded is that Comcast is using separate DOCSIS service flows to prioritize the traffic to the Xfinity Xbox app. This separation allows them to exempt that traffic from both bandwidth cap accounting and download speed limits. It’s still plain-old HTTP delivering MP4-encoded video files, just like the other streaming services use, but additional priority is granted to the Xfinity traffic at the DOCSIS level. I still believe that DSCP values I observed in the packet headers of Xfinity traffic is the method by which Comcast signals that traffic is to be prioritized, both in their backbone and regional networks and their DOCSIS network.

Berg also contends Comcast’s earlier explanation that its Xfinity content should be exempt from its usage cap because it travels over the company’s private Internet network is also flawed:

In addition, contrary to what has been widely speculated, the Xfinity traffic is not delivered via separate, dedicated downstream channel(s)—it uses the same downstream channels as regular Internet traffic.

Berg

Broadband traffic management is of growing interest to Internet Service Providers, who contend it can be used to manage Internet traffic more efficiently and improve speed and time-sensitive online applications like streamed video, online phone calls, and similar services. But manufacturers of traffic management equipment also market the technology to ISPs who want to favor certain kinds of content while de-prioritizing or even throttling the speed of non-preferred content. The technology can also differentiate traffic that counts against a monthly usage cap, and traffic that does not.

Quality of Service (QoS) technology can be used to improve the customer’s online experience or help a provider launch Internet Overcharging and speed throttling schemes that can heavily discriminate against “undesirable” online traffic.

Berg further found that when he saturated his 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection, traffic from providers like Netflix suffered due to the bandwidth constraints.  Because he flooded his connection, Netflix buffered additional content (slowing his stream start time) and reduced the bitrate of the video (which can dramatically reduce the picture quality at slower speeds). But when he launched Xfinity video streaming, that traffic was unaffected by his saturated connection. In fact, he discovered Xfinity traffic was exempted from his normal download speed limit, allowing his connection to exceed 25Mbps.

While that works great for Xfinity fans who do not want their videos degraded when other household members are online, it is inherently unfair to competitors like Netflix who are forced to reduce the quality of your video stream to compensate for lower available bandwidth.

According to the consent decree which governs the merger of the cable operator with NBC-Universal, prioritizing traffic in this way is a no-no when the company also engages in Internet Overcharging schemes, namely its arbitrary usage cap:

“If Comcast offers consumers Internet Access Service under a package that includes caps, tiers, metering, or other usage-based pricing, it shall not measure, count, or otherwise treat Defendants’ affiliated network traffic differently from unaffiliated network traffic. Comcast shall not prioritize Defendants’ Video Programming or other content over other Persons’ Video Programming or other content.”

This graph shows Berg's artificially saturated 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection. The traffic in red represents Xfinity Xbox traffic, which is given such high priority, it allows Berg to exceed his usual download speed limit.

Comcast sent GigaOm a statement that denies the company is doing any such thing:

“It’s really important that we make crystal clear that we are not prioritizing our transmission of Xfinity TV content to the Xbox (as some have speculated). While DSCP markings can be used to assign traffic different priority levels, that is not their only application – and that is not what they are being used for here. It’s also important to point out that our Xfinity TV content being delivered to the Xbox is the same video subscription that customers already paid for and is delivered to their home over our traditional cable network – the difference is that we are now delivering it using IP technology to the Xbox 360, in a similar manner as other IP-based cable service providers. But this is still our traditional cable television service, which is governed by something known as Title VI of the Communications Act, and we provide the service in compliance with applicable FCC rules.”

Our View

Comcast, as usual, is talking out of every side of its mouth. In an effort to justify their unjustified usage cap, they have pretzel-twisted a novel way out of this Net Neutrality debate by paving their own digital highway on a Comcast private drive.

Comcast argues their 250GB usage cap controls last-mile congestion to provide an excellent user experience. That excuse completely evaporates in the context of its new toll-free video traffic. In fact, their earlier argument that its regionally-distributed streaming traffic should not count because it does not travel over the “public Internet” at Comcast’s expense does not even make sense.

Berg provides an example:

A FaceTime call from my house to my neighbor’s—which never leaves even the San Francisco metro area Comcast network, given that both of us are Comcast customers—goes over the “public Internet.”

Yet Comcast’s Xbox streams, which pass from Seattle to Sacramento to San Francisco through all of the same network elements that handle my video call (and then some!) are exempt from the bandwidth cap?

You can’t have it both ways, guys.

DOCSIS 3 technology has vastly expanded the last mile pipe into subscriber homes. If Comcast can launch their own private pipe for unlimited IPTV traffic that travels down the same wires their Internet service does, they can comfortably handle any additional capacity needs to support their “constrained” broadband service without the need to limit their customers’ use.

Usage caps remain an end run around Net Neutrality. Consumers given the opportunity to view content under a usage cap on the “public Internet” or using the “toll-free” traffic lane Comcast created for content from their “preferred partners” will make the obvious choice to protect their usage allowance. Comcast is certainly aware of this, and it is a clever way to discriminate through social engineering. It’s also less obvious. You don’t have to de-prioritize or block traffic from your competition to have an impact, you just have to limit it. Customers who repeatedly exceed their usage allowance face suspension of Comcast broadband service for up to one year. That’s a strong incentive to follow their rules.

Netflix is fighting to force Xfinity traffic to fall under the same arbitrary usage cap regime Netflix endures — a truly shortsighted goal. The real issue here is whether Comcast should be capping any of its Internet service.

Comcast has given us the answer, launching the very bandwidth-intense video streaming it used to decry was contributing to an Internet traffic tsunami.

It’s time for Comcast to drop its usage cap.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson is kicking himself over his decision to allow “unlimited use” plans on AT&T’s wireless network.

Speaking at the Milken Institute’s Global Conference last Wednesday, Stephenson took the audience on a journey through AT&T’s transformation from a landline provider into a company that today sees wireless as the source of the majority of its revenue and future growth.  But the company left a lot of revenue on the table when it offered “unlimited data” for smartphone customers, particularly those using Apple’s iPhone.  It’s a mistake Stephenson wishes he never made.

“My only regret was how we introduced pricing in the beginning… thirty dollars and you get all you can eat and it’s a variable cost model,” Stephenson complained. “Every additional megabyte you use in this network, I have to invest capital. So get the pricing right. Our average revenue [per customer] has been increasing every single quarter since we started down this path.”

Stephenson admitted AT&T’s problems were created by the company itself when it embraced its transformation into a wireless power player.

Years earlier, the current CEO green-lit a new “smartphone” after a visit from Apple proposing a new device that used a touch screen to make calls, launch applications, and surf the wireless web.  It was called the iPhone.

AT&T’s first iPhone, Stephenson said, was not a major problem for AT&T and did not even launch on the company’s growing 3G network. In 2007, the Apple iPhone came pre-loaded with a selection of apps and used AT&T 2G network to move data.  Stephenson said Apple’s launch of a new iPhone in 2008 that worked on AT&T’s 3G network, along with a new App Store that allowed customers to do more with their phones, changed everything.  By 2009, AT&T’s network was overloaded with data traffic in many areas.

“[There] were volumes [of traffic] that nobody had ever anticipated and we had anticipated big volumes of growth,” Stephenson said.

In Stephenson’s view, AT&T’s solution to the traffic problem early on should have been a change to the pricing model, eliminating flat rate service at the first sign of network congestion.

“I wish we had moved quicker to change the pricing model to make sure that people that were consuming the bandwidth were paying for the bandwidth and [instead] we had a model where the high end users were being subsidized by the low end users,” he said.

Stephenson acknowledged the company has service issues in large American cities like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and blames them on a combination of voracious wireless data usage and spectrum shortages.  However, industry observers also note that many of AT&T’s service woes may have come from an unwillingness to invest in sufficient network upgrades as aggressively as other carriers, which have not experienced the same level of network congestion and the resulting steep declines in customer satisfaction AT&T has endured for the last three years.

But the ongoing congestion problems have not hurt AT&T’s revenue and profits.  Stephenson admitted that in 2006, AT&T earned almost nothing from wireless data and made between 30-32% margin selling voice and texting service.

“Today, we’re a $20 billion data revenue company and we’re operating at 41-42% margins,” Stephenson said.

Despite that improved revenue, AT&T says if they don’t get spectrum relief soon, they are going to keep raising prices on consumers. Stephenson said the company has been increasing prices across the board on data plans, new smartphone ownership, those upgrading phones, as well as reducing certain benefits for long-term customers. Stephenson said these actions were taken because spectrum has become a precious resource and bandwidth scarcity requires the company to tamp down on demand.  But that’s not a message he delivers to Wall Street, telling investors AT&T’s key earnings and increased revenue come from price adjustments and metering data usage.

Stephenson also fretted there is too much competition in America’s wireless marketplace.  That competition is eating up all of the available wireless spectrum, threatening to create a spectrum crisis if the federal government does not rethink spectrum allocation policies, he argued.  Stephenson believes additional industry consolidation is inevitable because of the capital costs associated with network construction and upgrades. He said he was uncertain whether AT&T will be able to participate in that consolidation after failing to win approval of its buyout of T-Mobile USA.

Stephenson believes the days of heavy investment in wired networks are over. Stephenson has systematically sought to transition AT&T away from prioritizing wired services in favor of wireless, a position he has maintained since his earliest days as AT&T’s CEO. The company’s decision to end expansion of U-verse — AT&T’s fiber-to-the-neighborhood service, and concentrate investment on wireless is part of Stephenson’s grand vision of a wireless America.  Stephenson noted the real fiber revolution isn’t provisioning fiber to the home, it’s wiring fiber to cell towers to support higher data traffic.

But that traffic doesn’t come to users free. Instead, Stephenson believes leaving the meter on guarantees lower rates of congestion because it makes customers think about what they are doing with their phones. It also brings higher profits for AT&T by charging customers for network traffic.  Stephenson believes that assures the returns Wall Street investors demand, attracting capital to front network investments.

With that in mind, Stephenson still believes AT&T can help solve the data digital divide, where poor families cannot afford to participate in the online revolution. Stephenson said it can be managed by handing the disadvantaged sub-$100 smartphones and $20 data plans, assuming they can afford those prices.

What keeps Stephenson up nights?  Worrying about business model busters that manage end-runs around AT&T’s profitable wireless services.

“Apple iMessage is a classic example,” Stephenson noted. “If you’re using iMessage, you’re not using one of our messaging services, right? That’s disruptive to our messaging revenue stream.”

Stephenson remains fearful its network upgrades will improve wireless data service enough to allow customers to switch to Skype for voice and video calling, depriving AT&T of voice revenue.

But the CEO seems less concerned than some of his predecessors that content producers are enjoying “free rides” on AT&T’s network.

“We in this industry have spent more time bemoaning the thought that Google or Facebook may use our network for free, and it just hasn’t played out that way,” Stephenson said. “I mean they do use it for free, they’re getting a bargain, and that is fine.”

“I believe what will play itself out over time, is that the demand model will change this behavior,” he said. “We’re already at a place where some companies that deliver content are coming to us and saying ‘we would like to do a deal with you where you would give us a class of service to deliver our content to your customers.'”

“The content guys that have been so loud about these issues [Net Neutrality] are now the ones coming to us saying we want these models,” Stephenson argued. “I’ve always believed that is what would play out.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Global Conference 2012 A Conversation With ATT’s Randall Stephenson 5-1-12.flv[/flv]

Stop the Cap! edited down Randall Stephenson’s appearance at last Wednesday’s conference.  Stephenson faces few challenges as he presents his world-view about AT&T pricing, spectrum allocation policies, network investments vs. data traffic growth, his vision for AT&T’s future, and how much customers will be forced to pay for today’s “spectrum crisis.”  (28 minutes)

Our good friends at Broadband Reports reported they discovered a new usage meter for Cox Cable customers that implied overlimit fees were on the way for those who exceeded the company’s arbitrary usage caps.

Now Cox Cable’s director of media relations is calling the appearance of the new glitzy usage gauge, and references to “overages” all a ‘big mistake‘:

“Thanks for bringing this to our attention,” Cox Director of Media Relations Todd Smith tells Broadband Reports. “This is an error and the language is being removed from the site. Our policy remains the same, we do not currently charge customers for exceeding bandwidth allowances.”

Cox did not make it clear how exactly the language was included in the meter by accident, and their statement does not preclude the possibility that they’re interested in moving this direction eventually.

Cox's New Meter (Courtesy: Broadband Reports)

Cox Cable customers upset the cable company has a usage meter and caps should first thank them for backing down on charging broadband users overlimit fees for “excessive use.”

After that, it is time to take Cox on and tell them you don’t want your broadband usage metered at all, especially at the prices they are charging for broadband service.

Just last June, Cox Communications President Pat Esser told an audience at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association Cable Show that the industry must keep asking customers what they want and find ways to satisfy those demands.

‘Cable must accept that fact that a robust broadband platform means the ‘industry won’t control everything,’ Esser told fellow cable executives.

Stop the Cap! thinks Esser needs help understanding Cox Cable customers do not want their Internet access limited with caps and additional fees.

You don’t want to check a usage meter and cannot understand why a company that earns incredible profits from broadband that costs less and less to deliver needs to cap your access.

Cable operators don’t unveil new usage meters and mentions of overlimit fees by mistake. It is likely their new usage meter “jumped the gun” and the company temporarily withdrew it.

This is your opportunity to deliver a death blow to Cox Cable’s Internet Overcharging.

Get Involved and Send Cox Executives the Message!

Call Cox Corporate Relations at (888) 566-7751 or e-mail them at [email protected]

Better yet, you can write directly to Cox’s top executive.  We have provided a sample, but you can be most effective writing it in your own words:

Mr. Pat Esser
President, Cox Communications
1400 Lake Hearn Drive
Atlanta, GA 30319

Dear Mr. Esser,

Last June, you told attendees at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association annual meeting that the cable industry needs to keep asking customers what they want and then find ways to satisfy those demands.  As a loyal Cox customer, I am taking advantage of that opportunity to write and express my profound concern Cox Cable has started to limit my Internet usage.  I cannot understand why Cox needs usage caps at a time when broadband revenue is skyrocketing and the costs to deliver the service are actually in decline. There is simply no justification for these limits, particularly after Cox upgraded its network to DOCSIS 3, which supports a considerably larger data pipeline.

Cox and other cable operators are introducing new, faster speeds for customers to earn more revenue.  But with usage caps, there is little incentive to pay more for faster service that remains constrained with a usage limit.  Would you buy a race car you could only drive around the block?

As competition for my telecommunications dollar continues to increase, I am willing to cancel my Cox service over this issue and take my business to another provider.  Some have shown a willingness to waive usage caps in order to win my  business, and I am happy to oblige. I’d prefer to stay with Cox, but not if your company keeps refusing to listen to its customers on this issue.

If you were serious in your remarks last summer in Chicago, then you should follow the lead of companies like Verizon, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable which have all avoided imposing usage limits on customers. Time Warner Cable believes unlimited broadband should always be available to customers. Cox has imposed limits on everyone, and that has to change.

Very truly yours,

// Your signature here