While Netflix has grown like wildfire across Canada, providing unlimited streamed video entertainment for $8 a month, a few cable operators at risk of premium channel cord-cutting have responded with their own movie streaming services, at least one that temporarily found itself the subject of controversy when it was introduced a few weeks ago.

Shaw Communications’ Movie Club is that cable company’s answer to Netflix — offering a flat rate streaming service available over broadband or through your Shaw set top cable box for $17 a month ($12 if you forgo HD movies).  For that, Shaw promises unlimited viewing, without any usage caps so long as you stream movies from your cable box and not from your home computer.

But is it worth it?

With the assistance of one of our readers in Calgary, we were able to give Shaw’s Movie Club a trial run.

Availability

Evidently, Shaw Movie Club works best if you live in Calgary or Edmonton, where Shaw has been testing their new “Gateway” system, which is a combination home video terminal/DVR designed to compete with phone company DVR boxes which can record 4-6 shows simultaneously and deliver recordings to multiple sets in the home.  A number of Shaw customers on less-advanced, older cable systems may find the service a lot less convenient to use.  Outside of urban Alberta and in British Columbia, we found instances where customers could request to view Shaw Movie Club titles, but they had to be watched on your cable set top box.  For now, the most aggressive marketing for the service seems to be in Calgary and Edmonton, perhaps for this reason.

The Selection

When we sampled the service, we found about 150 titles available for viewing — hardly a wide selection.  Although many popular, semi-recent movies were available for viewing, the selection was comparable to what one would find from one or two premium movie channels.  Existing premium subscribers may find more than enough to watch from Super Channel or Movie Central On Demand, which are included with your subscription to one or both networks.  In the States, HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime all offer their own virtual “on-demand” channels that let viewers select most of the titles shown on each respective network for instant, on-demand viewing.  Shaw Movie Club felt very much like one of these channels, based on the limited selection.

In comparison, Netflix does not make it easy to count the actual number of streamed movies they have on offer at any one time, but the selection was clearly more substantial on Netflix, with a much deeper catalog.  But Canadians are also punished by Netflix because the service does not yet have agreements in place with studios to stream the same titles to both American and Canadian audiences.  Americans have a much larger selection of titles to stream.  Shaw’s agreements with studios clearly emphasize more current titles, and there are titles available on Shaw’s service that are not available from Netflix.

Winner: Netflix – You have a better chance of finding something to watch on Netflix.

Loser: Shaw Movie Club – But the service may have access to movies you wish Netflix provided.

Shaw's biggest competitor

The Value

At up to $17 a month, Shaw Movie Club is expensive.  In fact, it’s a lot more expensive if you do not subscribe to Shaw’s cable television.  It’s required to sign up for the streaming service.  That seems counter-intuitive to provide video streaming but deny broadband-only customers the opportunity to buy, but not when you consider such services are designed to prevent cable-TV cord cutting, not enable it.  Shaw charges nearly $40 in Alberta for basic cable service, so that’s a steep entry fee to pay before handing over another $12-17 just to stream movies.

For those uncomfortable video streaming on home computers, Shaw’s set top box solution lets you watch shows on-demand directly on your television.

Shaw initially found itself mired in controversy when it appeared they would exempt their video streaming service from their own usage caps — a clear anti-competitive move against Netflix, which does count against your cap.  But Shaw quickly clarified their position to state only set top box viewing was exempt from their caps.  We’re not certain exactly what distinction Shaw is trying to make beyond the political, because data is data — it all arrives on the same cable.  Shaw would argue their video may travel over their “television” bandwidth when delivered to set top boxes and their broadband network when delivered over the Internet.  But Time Warner Cable has shown it can deliver video over its Apple iPad app to cable subscribers over Time Warner’s internal network, which means it costs next to nothing to provide.  We suspect there is nothing technically precluding Shaw from exempting all of its Movie Club viewing from usage caps, beyond the political implications of doing so.

Winner: Netflix – $7.99 a month is an afterthought when you consider how much you can watch.

Loser: Shaw Movie Club – Up to $17 a month is a very steep price to pay for fewer than 200 movie titles to watch.

Video Quality

Both services delivered high quality video, even over a remote connection we used to sample Shaw Movie Club.  Shaw’s HD streaming performed with absolutely no technical flaws, evidence they are paying careful attention to deliver video from networks as close to their customers as possible.  Shaw’s HD streaming was often better than Netflix’s online streaming, but Netflix’s network consumes a lot less bandwidth, an important distinction if you have a large family piling on your broadband connection at the same time.  Shaw’s video is a bandwidth piggy, and will eat into your usage allowance fast if you use it over the Internet.

We recommend watching Shaw’s service over your existing set top box whenever possible.  It’s convenient and won’t count against your usage allowance.

A Tie: Netflix and Shaw Movie Club both deliver excellent quality video with no technical flaws experienced.  Shaw Movie Club has a larger selection of HD movies, but that is tempered by the fact watching them will rapidly erode your usage allowance if watching online.

With all of the tumultuous events in the Middle East, the debate over whether to allow Al Jazeera’s English language service on America’s cable systems has begun again, with commentators on the right accusing the channel of being the next best thing to Osama bin Laden anchoring the six o’clock news, and some on the left demanding carriage just to make a point.  But the real question left unanswered is, “how much is this channel going to cost cable subscribers?”

Al Jazeera English managing director Al Ansteys has been negotiating with Comcast and Time Warner Cable, America’s largest cable operators, to find out — and ultimately win carriage of the 24 hour English-language news network on both cable systems.

Arriving at Comcast headquarters in Philadelphia with 13,000 signed petitions for Al Jazeera English, Ansteys said the sheer number of requests should extinguish any doubt that Americans want better coverage of events in the Middle East from the network.

Nearly 8,000 Time Warner Cable subscribers signed petitions and another 1,000 Cablevision subscribers echoed the sentiment.

Time Warner Cable already has experience carrying international news outlets.

The company recently expanded the reach of Russia Today (RT), a 24-hour news network in English based in Moscow and funded by the Russian government.  The channel is the equivalent of an external television service to compliment The Voice of Russia (formerly Radio Moscow), a station familiar to every shortwave radio listener.  Although the Russian government goes out of its way to declare the RT’s journalistic independence, the firewall between the Kremlin and channel’s newsroom has been tissue-thin at times.  Reporters have learned how to cover certain stories, and which ones to avoid.  RT’s news and current affairs programming compliment the foreign policy priorities of Kremlin.

RT’s coverage of the Middle East is occasionally anti-American to the point of stridency.  Some reports on the channel infer the United States government has thrown its former allies under the bus, others claim everything Washington does in the region has to be reviewed by Jerusalem before passing muster.  Message: the Obama Administration’s policies are out of touch, unreliable, and incoherent.  You can get much the same view from Sean Hannity any evening on Fox News, but RT is no right-wing paradise.  Liberal American talk radio host Thom Hartmann has a regular show on RT — The Big Picture.  The news channel also devotes a considerable amount of time talking to fringe commentators across the ideological spectrum, and even has spent time with 9/11 conspiracy theorists.  When that is finished, it’s time for the weather in Minsk.

Russia Today

The presentation is light years ahead of the shortwave service, whose studios still have all the acoustical qualities of a subway station restroom.  Posh British accents and modern graphics make the channel blend in nicely with other international news operations like France 24, CBC Newsworld, BBC World, or CNN International.

But the bigger question is why I, and other Time Warner customers are getting another channel few asked to receive.  Quietly “soft-launched” in western New York on a digital channel in the 100’s, RT’s sudden presence wasn’t likely to draw much attention — and it hasn’t, — all part of its larger plan to expand cable carriage nationwide. If the channel (and others) succeed, it will be able to directly reach American audiences with a Russian point of view, without an American gatekeeper.

As of last month, the effort expanded on radio as well.  New York City area radio listeners can now receive The Voice of Russia 24 hours a day on their AM radio dial, thanks to an agreement with WNSW 1430-AM in Newark, N.J., which has effectively leased out the station to Moscow.

This is the dream many international broadcasters have had for years — reaching an American audience that routinely ignores international voices.  During the Cold War, literally millions of watts were thrown back and forth as western stations fought eastern bloc jamming to deliver the Voice of America and Radio Liberty.  The Soviet Union and their satellites carpeted the shortwave bands with English language programming from stations as diverse as Radio Moscow, Radio Tirana, Albania and the Voice of Mongolia.  But it was a battle few Americans paid attention to, content to listen to local AM and FM stations.

As for Al Jazeera English — it is a credible news operation measured against today’s definition of “cable news” and delivers top rate coverage of the Arab Spring — the ongoing transformation of governments across the region.  If anything, their coverage revels in the new democratic possibilities open to the region. It’s not the BBC, but then again what passes for cable news in the United States these days isn’t either.

Al Jazeera makes the assumption you are already familiar with the region, and risks talking over the heads of those who are not, but wild claims that the network is some propaganda arm of Osama bin Laden or other assorted Islamic extremist groups just don’t match the programming.  In fact, one is much more likely to see anti-American rhetoric on RT than on Al Jazeera English, which is completely preoccupied with events closer to the Arab world.

The tone is far more Fareed Zakaria than Glenn Beck.  If you don’t know who those people are, you aren’t going to watch the channel anyway.  And there is the larger point — do we need more channels on the budget-busting cable dial?

Should Al Jazeera be allowed on America’s cable and satellite lineups?  Of course, especially if there is room for channels like RT or CCTV9, the Beijing-based 24-hour English language network from the People’s Republic of China, both seen on many Time Warner cable systems.  But they’d better come free of charge or sold a-la-carte if they are not.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTXF Philadelphia Comcast Al Jazeera Debate 2-24-11.flv[/flv]

WTXF-TV in Philadelphia aired this screamfest debate over Al Jazeera English in the United States that completely misses an important point: who is going to pay for it? (6 minutes)

One of the biggest impediments to freeing up space on cable television systems is the amount of analog television programming viewers still watch over televisions not connected to set top boxes.  Time Warner Cable customers, already weary from paying $7 or more a month per television to rent digital boxes could eventually be in luck, if they own certain televisions made by Sony or Samsung.

The cable operator announced at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show it would begin testing delivering cable television directly to some television sets equipped to receive the Internet.

Time Warner Cable’s test of IPTV would deliver the cable lineup over its broadband network, which removes the need for an expensive and unsightly cable box.

Since the cable company would only deliver the channels customers were authorized to receive, boxes with complicated digital tuners and encryption schemes would be unnecessary.  For the first time in years, consumers could once again get the full cable lineup just by plugging a single cable into the back of their television.  No boxes, no TV set remotes rendered useless, no cableCARDs, and no more tangled cables behind the set.

The company could also eventually dump their DVR boxes, which require regular service to maintain and replace worn out hard drives.  The future of DVR’s is “cloud storage,” — your recordings would be stored at the cable company on their equipment, ready for on-demand access.

Could the days of the set top box be numbered?

The new IPTV service can also deliver advanced graphics and provide better on-screen programming guides, and even open up the potential to integrate Internet applications with the television experience.

IPTV already exists today with AT&T’s U-verse, which delivers all of its video programming over the same bandwidth their phone and broadband services rely on.  But U-verse still has a box attached to each television in the home.

Consumers could end up saving plenty if they got rid of expensive rented cable equipment.

But there are some downsides — the biggest being the currently limited number of televisions equipped to handle Time Warner’s proposed implementation of IPTV.

IPTV has often also opened the door to concerns from content producers about stream security — could a consumer capture perfect digital copies of movies over the cable company’s IPTV network?  And what happens politically if the cable company tries to deliver unlimited cable TV over the same broadband network it tried to limit in the past.

Cable providers and phone companies are trying to keep video subscribers happy in hopes they won’t drop service.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable both announced last week they are trying to build virtual cable systems that would deliver their channel lineups live to tablet computers, starting over home Wi-Fi networks.  Verizon and AT&T are also working on similar features.

No significant expansion for FiOS in 2011, say company officials.

A Verizon spokesman has confirmed Verizon will not be expanding its FiOS fiber to the home service into new areas in 2011, except in those communities where the company already signed franchise agreements.

It’s the second year of Verizon’s hold on fiber expansion, instituted because of objections by Wall Street, a difficult economy, and a less optimistic view by Verizon’s new management that fiber has the capacity to quickly return on investment.

For upstate New York, the end-effect of Verizon’s decision is an odd patchwork of partially-built FiOS-capable communities, mostly in suburbs amenable to Verizon’s franchise terms. Some suburbs have access to FiOS broadband and phone service, but not television.  Others have access to all three services, while many other areas have nothing but Verizon’s ordinary copper phone lines.

“If you are big on fiber, there are some outlying towns with real estate agents that list whether or not their properties have Verizon FiOS, and whether that includes television service,” says Lysander, N.Y. resident Jeff, who reads Stop the Cap! “Our town was just glad Verizon picked us for upgrades and we didn’t ask too much of the phone company, quickly agreeing to a TV franchise agreement.”

But residents in the city of Syracuse are less happy — they won’t get competitive video from Verizon and are stuck with a Time Warner Cable wired monopoly because the city “dragged its feet” on franchise negotiations.

“When it comes to bigger cities, they see Verizon’s knock on the door as an opportunity to cash in on freebies from the phone company, like upgrading their video studios for government access channels, paying substantial franchise fees, and agreeing to carry channels the city government wants on Verizon’s cable system,” Jeff says.  “When the first cable systems came to town, it was the same story; some communities dragged their feet for years trying to extract more.”

Of course, cities don’t have to wait for Verizon to take care of their growing broadband needs.  They can build their own fiber networks and deliver world class service themselves, or open the new networks up to private competitors to deliver bigger bang for your broadband buck.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse FiOS availability not planned for Syracuse during 2011 1-6-11.flv[/flv]

WSYR-TV in Syracuse reports it will be a long wait for many in central New York waiting for fiber to the home television service. (Warning: Loud Volume) (1 minute)

QUBE's "revolutionary" interactive wired remote control, from 1978 (courtesy: QUBE-tv.com)

Happy Thanksgiving to all Stop the Cap! readers.

While we take a break from our usual reports, let’s turn the clock all the way back to 1978, an era before broadband (or dial-up for the most part) and even before most of the basic cable networks know today existed.  Cable television was not even an option yet in many communities, although discussions about the concept were well underway.

In Columbus, Ohio Warner Cable constructed an experimental two-way cable system called QUBE, which brought 30,000 homes in the city access to interactive, locally-produced programming.  Viewers could vote on different topics, share their opinions, answer quizzes, and order individual pay-per-view movies — a new concept for most people back then.

Cable television in 1978 didn’t deliver CNN, TNT, ESPN, or any of dozens of other cable networks that are household names today.  Instead, most delivered clear signals of broadcast television stations received over the air from a master antenna mounted high above the local cable company, supplemented with text-based information channels running newswires, sports scores, financial tickers, weather and other wire service reports.  Locally produced government, public access and educational programming covered much of the rest of the channel lineup.  Cable radio hooked up to home stereos and delivered improved FM radio reception and some privately run cable radio stations.

QUBE was no different in this respect.  The bulk of the programming people watched came from local broadcasters and imported stations from Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Athens — all selected from a wired remote control.  It total, QUBE carried 30 channels, 10 of which were premium or pay per view.  The concept was so revolutionary, some folks traveled from miles around to record sample programming off the system and share copies of videotapes with other cable enthusiasts.

QUBE was not a financial success for Warner, however.  The costs to produce interactive programming, building brand new cable systems, and purchasing the equipment to run them, caused Warner to accumulate $875 million in total debt by 1983.  It abandoned the concept a few years later because new cable networks and superstations were rapidly signing on, creating a huge number of new viewing options that effectively drowned out the locally-produced interactive shows.  Cable would remain a one-way medium, at least for awhile.

Watching the enthusiasm of Ray Glasser, who produced the video included below, all over a 30-channel cable system was fascinating, as was watching the assortment of television stations sampled from more than 30 years ago.  And check out those supermarket prices listed on one of the text channels Ray previews.  After a series of sales and ownership transfers, Warner Cable still exists in Columbus.  But today, we know it better as Time Warner Cable.

[flv width=”422″ height=”327″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Qube.flv[/flv]

A video tour of Warner Cable’s QUBE system in Columbus, Ohio, produced in 1978 by Ray Glasser.  (50 minutes)