No broadband for you...

Sometimes even money doesn’t talk… or buy you faster broadband service.

That is a lesson some of New Hampshire’s wealthiest residents — company presidents, top-dollar lawyers, and the trust-fund endowed — in Rindge and Grafton County are learning only too well.

It seems neither Comcast or FairPoint Communications has shown much interest in extending today’s definition of “broadband” to the multi-million dollar homes on Hubbard Road.

“Every year, I start working up the telephone chain, calling people at Comcast. I’m looking for the vice president, or whatever, in charge of infrastructure so I can call him, bribe him, plead with him to connect me,” said Leigh Eichel, who moved to the ritzy cul-de-sac in 2005. “I’ll pay anything!”

Eichel and his friends told their story to David Brooks of the Nashua Telegraph, who used the plight of the 1%’ers to ponder whether broadband should be a universal right.

A century ago, the government decided that mail service to all American homes was necessary and launched Rural Free Delivery. Then it decided electricity was necessary and created regulated utilities that guaranteed connection. It did the same with telephones, creating the universal access fund that collects money from all phone bills to subsidize land lines to the remotest home.

But nothing similar has happened with Internet service, which is mostly unregulated by government. The market has been largely left to its own.

The result is scattered empty spots like Hubbard Road, which should be broadband heaven.

... or you.

Comcast continues, for the seventh year running, to show zero interest in wiring the wealthy enclave.  That left residents trying to make do with satellite broadband, which they cried was too slow and usage-capped.

Eichel finally managed to cajole FairPoint Communications, the bankrupt phone company that bought out Verizon landlines in northern New England, to extend DSL to the neighborhood, but they did it on-the-cheap, leaving residents with sub-par service barely capable of breaking 1Mbps, when they’re lucky.

Welcome to broadband equality of a different kind, whether you are fighting AT&T from a family farm in Wisconsin for better-than-1Mbps DSL or a super-wealthy executive in New Hampshire suffering with FairPoint’s alleged broadband and utterly rejected by Comcast.

Particularly appalling for the well-traveled Hubbard Road residents: the realization that Singapore’s equivalent of a seedy Motel 6 has basic broadband service that beats the pants off New England’s dominant phone company.

Even Money Won't Talk

“I was staying in a budget hotel; there weren’t even windows in the room. Hey, I was spending my own money,” Eichel’s neighbor Rick Slocum told the newspaper. “[They had] 12Mbps broadband — the connection [was] 10 times as fast as my home.”

Brooks concludes New England wants the same thing most of the rest of the country wants — universal fiber-to-the-home access, which delivers 100-1000Mbps, depending on the provider.

They, like most everyone else, will have to wait.  Like AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS, FairPoint’s very-limited fiber offering FAST has reached a limit of its own — the amount the phone company is willing to spend rebuilding their network.  Future expansion plans are now on hold.

Slocum ponders the speed needs America will have in the future, and wonders if even fiber optics will one day need to be replaced for something even faster.

Brooks responds with a prediction.  As long as Comcast and FairPoint are in charge, whatever it is, Hubbard Road probably won’t have it.

The entertainment industry, in cooperation with the nation’s largest Internet Service Providers, joined forces to open a new copyright enforcement center that critics charge sidesteps judicial process, leaving consumers forced to prove they are innocent after they’ve been accused of being guilty.

On Monday, the Center for Copyright Infringement named its executive director and board, and intends to gradually begin serving as a clearinghouse for copyright infringement complaints brought by the nation’s music and movie companies.

CCI has representatives from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon Communications collectively working to streamline enforcement of copyright law and control Internet piracy.

Often known as the “Six Strikes Plan,” CCI participants will coordinate piracy notification warnings for suspected illicit downloads of copyrighted content from peer-to-peer file sharing networks.  Hollywood studios and recording labels will identify those they suspect are involved in illegal file swapping and participating ISPs will notify customers tied to the infringing IP addresses up to six times before reducing a customer’s Internet speed, temporarily disabling the account, or terminating service.

The CCI hopes to bypass the court system and adopt a self-regulation, “in-house” approach to Internet piracy.  Some courts have proven increasingly-reluctant to hand over identifying information to copyright holders based on the sometimes-flimsy evidence of illegal downloading included in supporting affidavits.  Judges in some courts have also become leery of a cottage industry of “settlement specialists” that threaten expensive litigation for alleged copyright infringement that can be resolved with a quick cash settlement.

Judge James F. Holderman of the Northern District of Illinois ruled against one litigant who demanded ISPs divulge the identities of every participant exchanging bits and pieces of a copyrighted work in a so-called “BitTorrent swarm,” because they were involved in a conspiracy.  Holderman dismissed that argument.

Such tactics have allowed some settlement specialists to demand settlement payments from a larger group, substantially boosting revenue at little cost to them.

CCI’s executive director Jill Lesser says laws no longer favor copyright holders.

“While laws that protect intellectual property remain strong and enforcement efforts continue, technology has tipped the balance away from the interests of most creators and artists,” Lesser said. “The ease of distribution of copyrighted content has helped create a generation of people who believe that all content should be free.”

CCI’s so-called “Copyright Control System” will bypass the courts entirely, as entertainment companies coordinate directly with major ISPs agreeing to enforce copyright compliance.

Lesser says consumers will still have a fair process to challenge notices of alleged infringement.  But it will cost at least $35 for consumers to argue their case.  Additionally, as a self-regulated, industry-controlled body, consumers’ rights of appeal are undetermined.  The arbitration process will be administered through the American Arbitration Association.

Why would ISPs want to become involved in a copyright control regime?  To reduce their own expenses and legal risks.  Copyright holders and their agents have peppered service providers with compliance and identification demands for years, creating full time positions processing the paperwork.  By adopting a clearinghouse and developing a streamlined process to handle complaints, service providers can cut costs and avoid possible litigation against themselves.

Still, both the entertainment industry and ISPs seem to be open to listening to consumer advocates.  Lesser was formerly involved with People for the American Way, a group sensitive to privacy rights.  Serving on the advisory board are Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge and Jerry Berman, founder of the Center for Democracy and Technology.  Neither have direct authority over the group’s enforcement efforts, but Sohn told Ars Technica she hoped her involvement would give a voice to consumer interests and maintain transparency in the enforcement process.

Comcast has changed its explanation why the company’s XFINITY TV service, streamed over Xbox 360 has been made exempt from the company’s 250GB usage cap.

Last week, the company claimed the service traveled over the company’s “private IP” network, exempting it from usage restrictions.  That created a small furor among public interest groups and Net Neutrality supporters because of the apparent discrimination against streamed video content not partnered with the country’s biggest cable operator.

Stop the Cap! argued what we’ve always argued — usage caps and speed throttles are simply an end run around Net Neutrality — getting one-up on your competition without appearing to openly discriminate.

Now Comcast hopes to make its own end run around the topic by changing the language in its FAQ:

Before:

After:

Although the words have changed, the story stays the same.

The key principle to remember:

Data = Data

Comcast suggests its Xbox XFINITY TV service turns your game console into a set top box, receiving the same type of video stream its conventional cable boxes receive.  The cable company is attempting to conflate traditional video one would watch from an on-demand movie channel as equivalent to XFINITY TV over the Xbox.  Since the video is stored on Comcast’s own IP network, the company originally argued, it creates less of a strain on Comcast’s cable system.

AT&T's U-verse is an example of an IP-based distribution network.

But the cable industry’s inevitable march to IP-based delivery of all of their content may also bring a convenient excuse to proclaim that data does not always equal data.  They have the phone companies to thank for it.

Take AT&T’s U-verse or Bell’s Fibe.  Both use a more advanced form of DSL to deliver a single digital data pipeline to their respective customers.  Although both companies try to make these “advanced networks” sound sexy, in fact they are both just dumb data pipes, divided into segments to support different services.  The largest segment of that pipe is reserved for video cable TV channels, which take up the most bandwidth. A smaller slice is reserved for broadband, and a much smaller segment is set aside for telephone service.

AT&T and Bell’s pipes don’t know the difference between video, audio, or web content because they are all digital data delivered to customers on an IP-based network.  Yet both AT&T and Bell only slap usage caps on their broadband service, claiming it somehow eases congestion, even though video content always uses the most bandwidth. (They have not yet figured out a way to limit your television viewing to “maintain a good experience for all of their customers,” but we wouldn’t put it past them to try one day.)

What last mile congestion problem?

Comcast’s argument for usage limiting one type of data while exempting other data falls into the same logical black hole.  Comcast’s basic argument for usage caps has always been it protects a shared network experience for customers.  Since cable broadband resources are shared within a neighborhood, the company argues, it must impose limits on “heavy users” who might slow down service for others.

We've heard this all before. Former AT&T CEO Dan Somers: "AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of (its) veins."

But in a world where DOCSIS 3 technology and a march to digital video distribution is well underway or near completion at many of the nation’s cable operators, the “last mile” bandwidth shortage problem of the early 2000s has largely disappeared.  In fact, Comcast itself recognized that, throwing the usage door wide open distributing bandwidth heavy XFINITY TV over the Xbox console cap-free.

As broadband advocates and industry insiders continue the debate about whether this constitutes a Net Neutrality violation or not, a greater truth should be considered.  Stop the Cap! believes providers have more than one way to exercise their control over broadband.

Naked discrimination against web content from the competition is a messy, ham-handed way to deal with pesky competitors.  Putting up a content wall around Netflix or Amazon is a concept easy to grasp (and get upset about), even by those who may not understand all of the issues.

Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles can win providers the same level of control without the political backlash.  Careful modification of consumer behavior can draw customers to company-owned or partnered content without using a heavy hammer.

Simply slap a usage limit on customers, but exempt partnered content from the limit.  Now customers have a choice: use up their precious usage allowance with Netflix or watch some of the same content on the cable company’s own unlimited-use service.

Nobody is “blocking” Netflix, but the end result will likely be the same:

• Comcast wins all the advantages for itself and its “preferred partners”;
• Customers find themselves avoiding the competition to save their usage allowance;
• Competitors struggle selling to consumers squeezed by inflexible usage caps.

It is all a matter of control, and that is nothing new for large telecom companies.

Back in 1999, AT&T Broadband owned a substantial amount of what is today Comcast Cable.  Then-CEO Dan Somers made it clear AT&T’s investment would be protected.

“AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of [its] veins,” Somers said, referring to streamed video.

Obviously Comcast agrees.

While Comcast is generously taking the caps off for Xbox customers looking for Comcast Xfinity On Demand content, those looking for HBO Go will not find it available period. Time Warner Cable doesn’t cap their customers, but they are not offering HBO Go for Xbox users either (as well as those with set top streaming boxes like Roku).

Microsoft announced this morning Comcast Xfinity, HBO Go, and MLB.tv apps for Xbox Live were now available, but both cable operators have decided HBO Go on the Xbox is not right for them, at least for now.

Microsoft updated their website to confirm neither cable operator, serving tens of millions of customers, were among the providers supporting HBO Go on the gaming console. The service is available to customers of AT&T, Bend Broadband, Blue Ridge Communications, Cablevision, Charter, Cox, DirecTV, Dish, Grande Communications, HTC Digital Cable, Massillon Cable/Clear Picture, Mediacom, Midcontinent Communications, RCN, Suddenlink, Verizon, and Wow!

Oddly, Stop the Cap! readers tell us they can access HBO Go on Comcast’s iPad and iPhone apps, which hold some hope HBO Go will show up eventually on the gaming console.

Time Warner Cable is another story.  We’ve previously noted they’ve shown no interest in allowing streaming video and game consoles access to premium movie channel content, although they do support some access through phone and iPad apps.

Verizilla

The Communications Workers of America has a new, decidedly low-budget video decrying a spectrum swap between America’s largest cable companies and Verizon Communications that will leave Verizon Wireless stores pitching cable television service from one of Verizon’s cable company competitors.

To the CWA, this is nothing less than the birth of Verizilla, a new monster of a telecommunications company that has capitulated on competing with Big Cable and will instead devour the wireless communications marketplace for itself.  The CWA interest is obvious: many of its employees are responsible for constructing and maintaining Verizon’s now-stalled FiOS fiber to the home network.

From the CWA:

The deal, struck behind the closed doors of America’s corporate boardrooms, poses a threat to consumers and workers. If it goes through, it will be the death knell for competition between cable and telecom companies. Verizon Wireless, Time Warner, Comcast, and other cable companies will become a giant, unregulated quasi-monopoly. Verizon will have no incentive to challenge cable by building FiOS into new areas — meaning less competition, consumer choice, and higher prices for consumers.

Less FiOS also means fewer jobs building, maintaining, servicing, and installing the network. This deal will create a corporate behemoth that will use exclusive quad-play market power to shrink its future workforce.

Worst of all, Verizon Wireless and the cable companies are refusing to come clean about the details of the deal. Even as the FCC and Department of Justice review it, we still don’t know what it means for consumers or workers.

The CWA has so far collected more than 135,000 signatures on its petition opposing the current form of the deal. 

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

America, say hello to Verizilla, wreaking reduced investment havoc on Verizon service areas across the northeastern United States.  (2 minutes)