You paid for "lightning fast" speed, but are you actually getting it? Find out!

In areas where limited competition between broadband providers has broken out, consumers are discovering their local providers advertising faster, higher priced tiers of Internet service.  But do you really get the speeds you are paying for?

There are a number of factors that can impact your speed — the quality of the lines to your home, whether you are accessing the Internet through a wireless connection, and how much congestion your provider copes with during peak usage times.  Here are some tips to consider:

If your speeds are simply awful — nearing dial-up at times —  especially when the weather is poor outside, you should first suspect a problem with your connection.  Call your provider and request a line test to determine if there is an obvious fault with the lines running to your home or business.  The usual culprits are cracked cable fittings, worn out insulation, water getting into the wiring, or squirrels that have used your phone or cable line as a toothpick.  If the line test is not definitive, request a service call to check your lines.  Phone cables are especially prone to water damage, often inside terminal boxes located well off your property.  Cable TV lines suffer from corrosion, insulation that has fallen away or cracked, or fittings that need replacement.  If critters have chewed through the outer cable, you will often also see the results on your television with a downright lousy picture.  The biggest problems always seem to appear in the spring and fall during major climate transitions.

If you notice speeds are much slower during the early evening and weekends and you are on a cable connection, your cable company has probably oversold service in your neighborhood and too many users are trying to share the line at the same time.  Cable companies can divide up the traffic by splitting the neighborhood’s connection back to the cable company in half.  The upgrade is usually done at a box or facility somewhere in the neighborhood, not at your home.  If this prime time slowdown occurs on a DSL or fiber connection, chances are the provider doesn’t have a wide enough pipeline to the Internet to accommodate customer demand in that town or city.

A squirrel's favorite chew toy may be your broadband cable or phone line.

Also remember that DSL connections from the phone company are sensitive to the distance between your home and the phone company’s central office.  Don’t pay for higher speed tiers of service if your phone line simply refuses to support those speeds.  Downgrade your service to a speed level you can realistically expect to receive in your home.

If you access the Internet over a wireless connection from a router, a major speed logjam can occur if your Wi-Fi signal faces interference from neighbors sharing the same wireless channel.  Sometimes just running a microwave oven can obliterate certain wireless connections or significantly slow them down.  If your signal strength meter shows poor or fair reception, try reorienting your wireless router.  The higher you can place the router and keep it free of obstructions the better.  Walls, floors, and even metal filing cabinets can degrade wireless signals.  Many wireless routers have two antennas.  Try orienting one antenna vertically and the other horizontally and see if it makes a difference.  Sometimes moving a router across the room can make a significant difference.  You can also try changing wireless channels if you routinely see a large number of neighbors’ Wi-Fi connections all piling on the same channel you use.

The best way to gauge what kind of Internet speeds you are getting is to perform a free speed test at different times of the day.  Your service provider may have its own test website to visit (try Googling the name of your provider, your nearest city and “speed test” in a one sentence search).  Broadband Reports has several different speed tests to try as well.

If you are not getting what you are paying for, be sure to complain and get some money back.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KNXV Phoenix Qwest and Cox may charge your for faster Internet speed, but is your broadband really that fast 8-24-10.flv[/flv]

KNXV-TV in Phoenix explains how to make sure you are getting the Internet speeds you are paying for with some free speed test websites.  (2 minutes)

Sezmi set top DVR box, antenna, and remote control

While most of the pay television industry forces huge basic cable packages on subscribers containing dozens of channels never watched, an innovative California company thinks it has the perfect solution for those who want to cut cable’s cord but still keep some of their favorite cable channels.

Sezmi combines a super-sized 1 terabyte DVR set-top box ($149.99) with a digital broadcast receiver to deliver every local television signals, 23 popular cable channels, on-demand movies, video podcasts, and YouTube content for $19.99 per month.  Don’t care about the cable channels or live outside of Los Angeles?  The price drops to $4.99 per month.

Sezmi’s inventors believe the marketplace is ripe for a compromise between paying enormous cable bills or simply going without popular cable series and 24/7 news.

Besides, Sezmi’s founders argue, with free digital television stations increasing the amount of programming they offer and Americans wanting to watch more of their favorite shows on-demand, Sezmi’s super-sized DVR may provide enough live and recorded programs to more than satisfy average viewers.  If not, a budget-priced package of two dozen popular cable channels could give people enough courage to cut cable’s cord forever.

At its core, Sezmi’s set top box offers an enormous capacity hard drive that can store up to 1400 hours of SD (standard definition) and 340 hours of HD (high definition) programming.  It can also record one channel while watching another, and its software gives each member of a viewing family their own personal menu to access, record, and view the programming they want.

[flv width=”446″ height=”270″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sezmi All-In-One Personal TV Service.mp4[/flv]

A promotional reel introducing shoppers to Sezmi and its services.  (3 minutes)

Sezmi’s founders future-proofed their technology to be immune from broadband providers with Internet Overcharging schemes in mind.  Unlike other cord-cutting alternative set top technology that relies on broadband to access programming, Sezmi receives its live TV and cable network programming entirely over the air.  That keeps your local cable or phone company from stopping all the fun by imposing broadband usage limitations or charging steep penalties for watching too much of a competitor’s service.

Sezmi’s unique way of bypassing the local broadband provider is both innovative and challenging at the same time.  In the Los Angeles market, currently the only city where Sezmi provides cable networks, it leases leftover capacity from local stations to transmit the encrypted cable networks over the air to Sezmi receivers.  As long as you get a signal from a local station, the cable signals come along for the ride.

While that can work in Los Angeles, which has at least 26 full powered broadcast stations in the market from whom it can potentially lease capacity, most American cities have fewer than eight full power local channels.  If those stations can’t or won’t lease out their extra bandwidth, the cable programming service simply won’t work.

Part of the original business plan for Sezmi was to provide the set top box as a solution for phone companies like Frontier and other independents who want to deliver a video package without improving their current copper-based networks to deliver it.  Because the box will work reasonably well with a broadband connection of 3.1Mbps or higher, companies selling DSL broadband packages to customers could use Sezmi to deliver video content to subscribers.  In rural areas, relying on broadband delivery may prove more effective than over-the-air reception, and since the provider offers the service themselves, there is little chance they’d limit their own customers’ use of Sezmi.

Now Sezmi is directly being sold to consumers on Amazon.com and in Best Buy stores in the 35 U.S. cities Sezmi serves.

Sezmi's cable channel lineup is currently only available in Los Angeles.

Buyers are pre-qualified before purchase to determine if they’ll be able to receive a suitable broadcast TV signal required for Sezmi to operate.

A lengthy beta test in Los Angeles revealed many consumers loved the concept of Sezmi, but definitely discovered some flaws:

• There is no wireless connection supported for broadband.  You must use a supplied Ethernet cable to connect to a router;
• The remote control and its functionality was frequently reviewed as unintuitive and slow to respond to commands;
• Cable networks arrived only in standard definition video;
• Reception varied considerably depending on where one lives in relation to local broadcast transmitters.  Where TV stations use different transmitting locations, reception problems for one or more stations can be an issue unless you regularly reposition the antenna;
• Sezmi’s antenna module looks like a small bookshelf speaker and was more obtrusive than many thought necessary;
• Sezmi’s online viewing options are limited to YouTube and Sezmi-partnered content.  No Hulu or Netflix access is supported.
• Some reviewers felt charging $5 a month for a Sezmi package that only included free, over the air broadcast stations was unjustified when they also had to purchase the required set top box.  Many of these comments came when the box was priced at $299, however.  Sezmi has reduced the price of the set top box by half, so it’s likely the monthly fee includes some hardware cost recovery;
• The cable networks chosen do not include a lot of sports, although the company is currently negotiating with ESPN;
• Love it or hate it, one of America’s favorite cable channels – Fox News, is not included in the lineup although CNN and MSNBC are.  Their asking price may have been too high.

Sezmi’s co-founder probably expects that detailed level of critique considering the company’s business plan targets technology-minded “early adopters” who are well versed on technology and very opinionated about how it works.  They also feature prominently in the group of consumers that are now spending less time watching live television and less-willing to pay the asking price for it.

“The Sezmi offering is geared toward the next wave of consumers who want a very high-quality experience and the latest technology features, but are not willing to overpay for that,” said Phil Wiser, co-founder and president. “We’ve limited ourselves to really focus on that segment who are value-oriented and tech-oriented.”

Those who are value-oriented have responded positively to Sezmi.  Stop the Cap! reader John in Sherman Oaks, Calif., who notified us about Sezmi’s local media blitz says it’s exactly what he was looking for, and he’s enjoying some shows he missed from USA, TNT and Discovery.  But his wife misses her favorite HGTV and Food Network shows, which Sezmi doesn’t carry.

“I told cable to take a hike,” he writes. “I only watch perhaps a dozen channels and Sezmi has most of them covered for about 1/3rd of the cost the cable company charges, not including the fees, taxes, and renting cable’s set top boxes.”

John adds 24/7 access to live news programming was the one thing that held him back from dropping cable before Sezmi arrived.

Sezmi's Los Angeles Coverage Map (click to enlarge)

“I wasn’t going to give up CNN and MSNBC for breaking news,” he said.

Wiser’s comments to the San Francisco Chronicle seem to match John’s perceptions about the service.

“The key thing we realized with Sezmi is that consumers would not be ready to drop a paid TV experience purely for Internet offerings,” he said. “You need a bridge that includes a traditional cable experience with a more on-demand interactivity.”

Although John says he has few problems getting good broadcast signals from Mt. Wilson, where most Los Angeles-area broadcasters maintain their transmitters, some  residents further east in Riverside say their experiences were considerably worse.

“If you walked in front of the antenna, reception would drop out,” wrote one reviewer.  “A rooftop antenna is really a smart idea if you need reliable reception to make sure your shows get recorded,” wrote another.

The potential impact Sezmi could have on cable and phone company pay television packages varies depending on which analyst you choose.

Mike Jude, with Frost & Sullivan, told the Chronicle devices like Sezmi will probably remain niche products that will have trouble attracting interest from traditional cable subscribers.

But Gerry Kaufhold, an analyst at In-Stat, said Sezmi’s innovative approach could find a significant audience especially with more casual TV viewers. He said 15 percent of viewers don’t pay for TV while 35 to 40 percent of cable users pay about $40 for basic cable. Both could find a lot of utility in a product like Sezmi, he said.

“Anyone that gets a big digital cable (package) is unlikely to leave, but people who get basic cable may be willing to make that jump and cut some 20 bucks off their bill,” Kaufhold said. “They can also get people who don’t pay for TV to try it.”

With a Yankee Group study looming that estimates one in eight Americans will disconnect or downgrade their paid TV services by April, devices like Sezmi could threaten industry profits even sooner than some analysts think.

Service Coverage – Click links for respective channel lineups

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sezmi Services Described.flv[/flv]

Sezmi Explained: This series of videos walks you through all of Sezmi’s features and services.  (12 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sezmi Setup.flv[/flv]

Sezmi’s setup is explained in this video, guiding you through the process of hooking up the equipment.  (10 minutes)

Pacific Fibre's planned undersea fiber optic cable set to begin service in 2013. (click to enlarge)

Australia and New Zealand remain the two countries most notorious for Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles.  The lack of international broadband capacity is routinely blamed for limiting broadband usage for consumers in both southern Pacific countries, and now a major undersea fiber optic cable project seeks to end those Internet Overcharging schemes once and for all.

Pacific Fibre hates usage caps.  The company, which is one of the partners in a planned 5.12 terabits per second undersea cable connecting the United States with New Zealand and Australia, believes limiting broadband consumption is bad for business — theirs and the digital economies of both nations.  Now the company is reportedly willing to put its money where its mouth is, charging broadband providers a flat rate per customer for unlimited access to its backbone network.

The company believes such pricing will force providers into selling more generous, often unlimited broadband service packages for businesses and consumers.  Providers have routinely blamed insufficient international capacity for restrictive data caps.  But increasing capacity, including Pacific Fibre’s new cable set to begin service in 2013, removes that excuse once and for all.

Co-founder Rod Drury believes there will be so much capacity, if providers continue to engage in Internet Overcharging schemes, most of the newly available bandwidth could actually go unsold.

“Why don’t we flip the model around and go to a per-person charging model and then try to give internet providers as much bandwidth as we possibly can for that?,” Drury told BusinessDay.  “The charges could be segmented by customer type; you could do it for mobile connections, home connections, schools, hospitals and businesses, and set a reasonable price.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Interview With Pacnet CEO June-July 2010.flv[/flv]

CNBC talked with Pacnet CEO Bill Barney, one of the partners in the Pacific Fibre project, about bandwidth needs in Asia and how new undersea fiber cables will meet the growing demands.  (Segment one of the interview was done in June, segment two in July.)  (10 minutes)

Telecommunications Users Association chief executive Ernie Newman said Drury’s idea was long overdue. “The way the world is moving is towards all-you-can-eat-type plans and any move like that has got to be the way of the future.”

But one of Pacific Fibre’s competitors, Southern Cross, which currently provides undersea fiber connections for South Pacific Internet Service Providers, said he wasn’t sure Drury’s idea would work.

Southern Cross marketing director Ross Pfeffer said broadband providers haven’t been justified limiting broadband usage for some time, as newly available capacity has already helped ease the bandwidth crunch.  Instead, critics contend existing providers don’t want to give up the massive profits they are earning limiting usage, maximizing revenue from users who think twice before using high bandwidth services, thus reducing required investments in network upgrades.

“New Zealand internet providers [are] using data caps to segment the retail market and maximize their own revenues,” Pfeffer noted.

Both Australia and New Zealand are embarked on National Broadband Plans to take back some control of their broadband futures from private providers many accuse of monopolizing an increasingly important part of both countries’ digital economies.

Drury’s project, and others like it, may become important components of newly constructed national fiber-to-the-home projects proposed in Australia, and dramatically improved service in New Zealand.

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Underwater cable laying 1936.flv[/flv]

The history of deploying underseas cables is a fascinating one.  Check out this 1936 documentary showing how AT&T made undersea phone cables to connect the San Francisco Bay area.  Back then, companies didn’t use rubber or plastic cable jackets to keep the water out.  They used jute fiber and paper!  Some other companies used gutta percha, which is today best known for root canal fillings, or tar mixtures.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”484″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BBC Cable Under the Sea.flv[/flv]

Before there was telephone service, the challenges of connecting the far flung components of the British Empire were met by underseas telegraph cables beginning in the 1870s.  A fascinating BBC documentary visited Porthcurno, located at the tip of Cornwall, England, where 14 undersea telegraph cables stretched from a single beach to points all around the globe. Then something called “wireless” arrived and threatened to ruin everything.  (8 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fiber Optic Cable.flv[/flv]

But what exactly is “fiber optic cable” and how is it made?  More importantly, how do they store thousands of miles of fiber optic cable on a single ship, ready to drop to the bottom of the ocean?  The answers to both are here.  (12 minutes)

A new report published by the Federal Communications Commission this week finds Americans are being ripped off by their broadband providers who promise speeds 50 percent faster than they actually receive.

In a generically named report, “Broadband Performance,” the FCC finds Americans love spending increasing amounts of time on the Internet, but face providers making bogus marketing claims for speeds they’ll never actually receive.

In 2009, average […] advertised download speeds were 7–8 Mbps, across technologies. However, FCC analysis shows that the median actual speed consumers experienced in the first half of 2009 was roughly 3 Mbps, while the average (mean) actual speed was approximately 4 Mbps. Therefore actual download speeds experienced by U.S. consumers appear to lag advertised speeds by roughly 50%.

[…] The “up to” speed, however, does not provide an accurate measure of likely end-user broadband experience. That experience depends on multiple factors, including the actual speed that consumers realize, taking into account the impact of network congestion; and other metrics like the availability of the network, latency, jitter and packet loss. In other words, consumers need a better, publicly agreed upon measure of broadband performance that reflects the network operation and end-user experience.

No surprises here - the FCC found fiber delivered the fastest broadband speeds with wireless and satellite service delivering the slowest

Providers in several countries have been called to account for marketing claims that never seem to be realized by customers.

For years, providers have relied on the weasel words “up to” to escape charges of outright misrepresentation of their products.  The FCC doesn’t believe the status quo properly informs consumers about true broadband speeds, especially when comparison shopping.

Some of the widest gaps between advertised and actually delivered speeds came from telephone company DSL service.  Many phone companies define their maximum speeds based on theoretical maximums, not the actual average speeds encountered by customers.  While some providers claimed up to 10Mbps service, they only actually delivered up to 3Mbps to many customers.

The report recommends new disclosures, including average actual speeds delivered to customers, what kind of speeds customers can expect during peak usage times, and what speeds consumers will encounter while using certain online applications.

Speeds can make all the difference for certain classes of broadband users, also defined in the FCC report:

➤ Advanced. These consumers use large amounts of data and tend to use the highest quality voice, video, and other cutting-edge applications.

➤ Full media. These consumers are moderately heavy users of broadband and mobile applications, seeking to access high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video communications but, typically not in the most cutting-edge forms.

➤ Emerging multimedia. These consumers utilize some video and graphical content but still see the Internet primarily as a way to communicate and access news and entertainment in a richer format than found in offline content.

➤ Utility. These consumers are largely content to access the Internet for basic news, communication, and basic entertainment.

The New America Foundation thinks the gulf between promises and reality has grown so large, it’s time to bring “The Schumer Box” to broadband.  Named after Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the “Schumer Box” was made a part of every credit card application and cardholder agreement.  It breaks out in large print fact-based disclosures to consumers about what kind of service and pricing to expect.  The Foundation wants consumers to have truth-in-labeling introduced for Internet users who will be able to comparison shop providers more effectively.

One consumer group wants a credit card-style disclosure of broadband speeds and policies

While the FCC’s findings may not reach the level of credit card-style disclosures, the agency does recognize there is a significant problem with providers misrepresenting their broadband speeds.

The report also found consumers are increasing their amount of monthly usage, often correlated to the speeds they receive.  Those with the fastest broadband accounts consume the most (and typically also pay the most for service).  Those with slower speeds consume less.

That finding supports the contention among many consumer groups that today’s speed-based broadband tiers fairly compensate providers for customer usage.  Those who use the most pay the most for the fastest speeds. Those who use the least pay lower prices for lower speed tiers.

The agency also rated fiber to the home America’s fastest broadband technology, followed by cable broadband, then DSL service, and finally wireless/satellite-delivered service.

Reardon is fine with this vision of your online future.

Marguerite Reardon confesses she’s confused.  She doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about regarding Google and Verizon teaming up to deliver a blueprint for a corporate compromise on Net Neutrality.  In a column published today, Reardon is convinced she’s on a debunking mission — to deliver the message that rumors of the Internet apocalypse are premature.

As I read the criticism of Google and Verizon’s supposed evil plan to demolish the Internet, and as I hear about “protests” of several dozen people at Google’s headquarters, I scratch my head and wonder: am I missing something?

The Google-Verizon Net neutrality proposal I read last week doesn’t sound nearly as apocalyptic as Free Press, a media advocacy group, and some of the most vocal critics out there have made it sound.

In fact, most of proposal sounded a lot like a plan FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski offered nearly a year ago, which many Net neutrality proponents seemed to support.

In short, Google and Verizon say they agree to a set of rules for the Internet that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or degrading lawful content on the Internet. Broadband providers would also not be allowed to take action to impede competition.

This is pretty much what Genachowski has proposed.

OK, terrific. There is agreement.

But wait, Net neutrality zealots are still unhappy.

Hmmm… “zealots?”  Reardon probably just angered the majority of CNET’s readers, who now find themselves labeled as crazed Internet online freedom fighters — net fundamentalists who want absolute protection against big Internet Service Providers tampering with their Internet Experience.

Where can I get my membership card?

Reardon’s “debunk” consists of her narrow, inaccurate definition of Net Neutrality pounded into a pre-conceived notion of what is and is not possible in a competitive broadband marketplace.  In short, she’s satisfied we can all move along… there is nothing to see here:

What Free Press and Public Knowledge don’t seem to realize is that AT&T and Verizon already offer differentiated services today with enhanced quality of service to business customers. Verizon’s Fios TV and AT&T’s U-verse TV services are also examples of managed Internet services that are delivered to consumers. And the last time I checked, no one, other than their cable competitors, has complained about AT&T and Verizon offering competition in the TV market.

The truth is that if Verizon and AT&T wanted to cannibalize their broadband business with premium broadband services, they’d already be doing it. But they aren’t, because there hasn’t been a market for it.

The reality is that consumers are in control of what type of services are offered. If the public Internet can adequately deliver a service for free, then there’s no need to pay for it. But if someone can provide a better service over a dedicated network and there are consumers willing to pay for it, then why shouldn’t it be offered? Isn’t that why some people subscribe to a 768Kbps broadband service for $15 a month, and others pay $100 for a 50Mbps service?

So let’s debunk the debunk.

First, Net Neutrality is not about stopping broadband providers from offering speed-based tiers of service.  In fact, that’s the Internet pricing model we’ve all come to know and love (although those prices are just a tad high, aren’t they?)  Free Press and Public Knowledge do not object to ISPs selling different levels of broadband speed tiers to consumers and businesses to access online content.

Net Neutrality isn’t about stopping ISPs from selling some customers “lite” service and others “mega-super-zippy Turbo” service — it’s about stopping plans from some ISPs to establish their own toll booths on the Internet to charge content producers twice — once to upload and distribute their content and then a second time to ensure that content reaches a particular ISPs customers on a timely, non-speed-throttled basis.  Consider this: you already pay good money for your own broadband account.  How would you feel if you sent an e-mail to a friend who uses another ISP and that provider wanted to charge you 20 cents to deliver that e-mail?  Don’t want to pay?  That’s fine, but your e-mail might be delayed, as paying customers enjoy priority over your freebie e-mail.

A lot of broadband customers may never understand the implications of giant telecom companies building their own toll lanes for “preferred content partners” on the Internet because they’ll just assume that stuck online video or constantly rebuffering stream is the fault of the website delivering it, not their provider intentionally pushing it aside to make room for content from companies who paid protection money to make sure their videos played splendidly.

Second, Reardon need only look to our neighbors in the north to see a non Net Neutral Internet experience in Canada.  There, ISPs intentionally throttle broadband applications they don’t want users running on their networks.  They also spank customers who dare to try what Reardon insists Verizon would never stop — using their broadband service to watch someone else’s content.  With the application of Internet Overcharging like usage limits and consumption billing schemes, cable companies like Rogers don’t need to directly block competitors like Netflix.  They need only spike customers’ broadband bills to teach them a lesson they’ll not soon forget.

Within days of Netflix announcing their imminent arrival in Canada, Rogers actually reduced the usage allowances of some of their broadband customers.  If you still want to watch Netflix instead of visiting Rogers pay-per-view cable menu or video rental stores, it will cost you plenty — up to $5 per gigabyte of viewing.

Reardon seems to think giant providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast care about what their customers want and wouldn’t jeopardize the customer relationship.  Really?  She herself admits she hates paying for hundreds of channels she never watches, yet providers are deaf to complaints from customers demanding an end to this practice.  What about the relentless price hikes?  Wouldn’t that drive off customers?  Perhaps… if customers had real alternatives.  Instead, with an effective duopoly market in place, subscribers pay “the man,” pay an almost identical price from the “other guy,” or go without.

Providers understand their power and leverage in the marketplace.  Until serious competition arrives, it would be a disservice to stockholders not to monetize every possible aspect of broadband service in the United States.

The check against this naked aggression on consumers’ wallets is from consumer groups who are fighting against these big telecom interests.

Before dismissing Net Neutrality “zealotry,” Reardon should experience the Internet in Canada and then get back to us, and more importantly those consumer groups she flicks away with disdain, and join the fight.