The Great Wall of Pay

Now that the cable industry’s “TV Everywhere” online video platform has been established, some programmers are discovering they can become lucrative revenue streams as well as a deterrent to cable cord-cutting.

Time Warner (no relationship to Time Warner Cable) and CBS have decided giving away live sports programming for free is unacceptable and will now charge for online viewing of certain March Madness basketball games.

Since 2006, the basketball tournament, which may include hoops from https://www.megaslam.com.au/adjustable-basketball-hoops/, has been available for free online viewing, but starting March 7, viewers will need to pay $3.99 for full access to all 67 games [and basic cable viewers will need to verify] they are current cable, satellite, or telco TV subscribers. [See clarification below.]

Online viewing of games televised on CBS will be available for free, but the new paywall will block free access to selected games shown on cable networks TNT, TBS, and TruTV in certain cases.

Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes sees charging for online viewing as a substantial new revenue stream.

Monetizing online viewing is a high priority for programmers, even though much of the programming will continue to carry commercial advertising.  Last year, an estimated 2.6 million daily visitors watched March Madness online.  At $3.99 each, that would net the two companies nearly $10.4 million dollars.

The madness will now cost you $3.99

In a separate announcement, Comcast says it will launch a new Netflix-like on-demand streaming service tomorrow for its cable subscribers.

Streampix (free for triple play customers, $4.99/mo for others) will offer on-demand movies and TV series licensed from NBC-Universal, Warner Bros., Sony Pictures, and Disney.

Selected content can be watched while on the go, but a substantial amount of what Streampix is expected to offer is already available through services like Hulu.

Streampix is designed to appeal to customers who currently pay $7-8 a month for Netflix or Hulu+.

The move establishes Comcast’s own “paywall” for a deeper catalog of online video content, supplementing programming it gives away at no charge to “authenticated” cable subscribers.

Comcast will not sell Streampix to non-Comcast customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Comcast Streampix 2-21-12.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg reports Comcast’s Streampix service is unlikely to pose a major challenge to services like Netflix.  (4 minutes)

Clarification:  A reader suggested we better clarify the viewing options.  It gets complicated depending on what kind of video/broadband subscription you have, where you want to watch, and what kind of feed you want:

CBS-televised games: Available for free with no restrictions from CBS website.

Basic Cable games: If you want to watch outside of the home, on certain portable devices, or do not have a combined broadband/cable-TV subscription, you will need to purchase a subscription for $3.99 from the NCAA.  Free streaming is only available to authenticated cable/broadband subscribers watching from their home broadband account on devices pre-approved by your pay television provider.

Open/Full Access: If you want full, unrestricted access you need to pay for the NCAA ® March Madness ® Live™ app ($3.99).  Since this app provides the NCAA’s own video and audio feeds, you don’t need a cable subscription.

...some of that juicy 700MHz spectrum Verizon is getting from the nation's biggest cable companies.

In an ironic turnabout, Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA, last year an acquisition target of AT&T, has filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission opposing Verizon’s spectrum purchase from the nation’s largest cable companies as “contrary to the public interest.”

Verizon Wireless is seeking to acquire a substantial block of unused AWS spectrum that is unlikely to provide any near-term benefits to Verizon Wireless customers (indeed, the company already holds other AWS spectrum and has not even put it to use yet). Rather, the principal impact of the acquisition would be to foreclose the possibility that this spectrum could be acquired by smaller competitors – such as T-Mobile – who would use it more quickly, more intensively, and more efficiently than Verizon Wireless. The acquisitions will limit the deployment of LTE by competitors of Verizon Wireless and the bandwidth available for such deployments.

If these transactions go forward, the end result will be less LTE capacity available overall and reduced competition in the provision of LTE, which would be contrary to the public interest.

T-Mobile, in particular, is upset because it owns no spectrum in the valuable 700MHz range — frequencies that can travel longer distances and easily penetrate buildings.  Verizon Wireless does, and will acquire much more if the FCC approves the deal to transfer spectrum from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cox. [Correction: As one of our readers pointed out, the spectrum being acquired is in the AWS band, which T-Mobile argues in its filing is still suitable for a 4G network deployment.]  T-Mobile argues Verizon does not need the spectrum, and will effectively “warehouse” the frequencies to keep them off the open market.  Without prime spectrum, T-Mobile argues, it will be difficult for the company to deliver a 4G experience to its customers.

T-Mobile also has a bone to pick with Verizon Wireless and the cable industry over what it suspects is a non-compete agreement:

At least in effect, this has all the hallmarks of a pure horizontal allocation of markets.

From the limited information available, it appears as though Verizon, the majority owner of Verizon Wireless, has agreed (tacitly if not expressly) to halt its extensive efforts to expand into the cable business and the cable companies have, in turn, traded their control of valuable spectrum in exchange for this protection of their cable markets.

It has been publicly reported that, coincident with acquiring the cable companies’ spectrum, thereby eliminating potential new competition in mobile wireless, Verizon ended its FiOS build out plans and terminated its agreement to resell satellite television. This series of acts appears to limit Verizon’s activity as a potential competitor in the video market and limit the cable companies’ role as potential competitors in the wireless market, while at the same time foreclosing competing providers from one of the only available sources of spectrum.

As a result of this “triple play,” competition in both markets will be substantially reduced. The antitrust laws have long condemned such agreements, even among potential competitors.

Not All Frequencies Are Created Equal

Will Verizon ultimately warehouse its newest acquired spectrum?

Unless you are well-acquainted with the wireless industry, all most people know about their cell phones is that they turn them on and a signal strength meter indicates what kind of reception quality you are getting.  In fact, wireless companies use a range of frequencies across several different frequency bands to handle voice calls and data.  As an end user, you never know the difference.  But if your wireless company is forced to use higher frequencies, they often have a harder time penetrating buildings or provide only limited distance coverage.  That’s why AT&T and Verizon customers have a better chance of making and receiving calls in the middle of a supermarket or office building while others lose reception.

Clearwire has an extensive holding of very high frequencies at its disposal — frequencies the company cannot effectively use because they require considerably more infrastructure (ie. more cell towers) to provide an effective service to customers.  Clearwire customers already complain about poor reception inside buildings, a problem exacerbated by the very high frequencies the company has to use for its service.  Verizon and AT&T collectively control the majority of the best, more robust spectrum — the 700MHz band.  Verizon’s LTE network, for example, relies on spectrum that used to be used by high numbered UHF television channels.

Companies like T-Mobile rely on frequencies in the 1700MHz and 1900MHz bands.  While certainly adequate in urban and suburban areas, T-Mobile has to spend more on cell tower deployment and be especially concerned with rural coverage, especially in areas where the terrain makes “line of sight” reception from cell towers more difficult.

While today’s 2G and 3G networks have made due with current spectrum, companies like T-Mobile are having a hard time finding space to launch the next generation — LTE/4G technology — on their current spectrum.  Without LTE, T-Mobile (and others) will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.  The company argues it should have the right to acquire some of the frequencies Verizon intends to capture from the cable industry, especially if Verizon has no immediate plans to use the spectrum.

Some of the wrangling by T-Mobile seems especially ironic because parent company Deutsche Telekom has indicated it wants to sell T-Mobile USA and leave the American wireless market.  It has shown little interest so far investing in a LTE/4G network upgrade.  Additionally, as part of AT&T’s failed merger bid, T-Mobile is expecting to receive frequencies from AT&T as part of the “failed transaction” clause in the original merger proposal.

Not a problem

Who knew America’s largest cable and phone companies were in the broadband shortage business?

Broadband evangelist Craig Settles has been as outraged about this year’s crop of anti-broadband legislation as we have here at Stop the Cap!

He wrote about the implications of allowing state laws to be changed in favor of the big cable and phone companies in a piece published by GigaOM that details where these anti-community Internet bills are coming from:

This push is brought to you by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group of corporate lobbyists who ghostwrite state bills behind closed doors that their pocket legislators then push on the floor. This “model” of anti-muni broadband legislation contains wording that is replicated in these latest bills and newspaper op-eds that attack community broadband.

Many of the nation’s largest phone and cable companies funnel funds into ALEC, and even sponsor wine-and-dine trips for state legislators and their families as part of a comprehensive effort to get their foot (and later proposed legislation) in the door.

Download this archive of ALEC-written and sponsored state legislation/policies affecting telecommunications and IT.  (16mb .zip file)

Few state legislators fully realize the implications of some of these measures, which can hamstring their state’s broadband networks into “good enough for you” broadband, as determined by Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and others.

ALEC’s dog-and-pony show opens with its corporate backers enhancing their campaign contributions to legislators likely to support their agenda.  ALEC’s lobbyists can then provide “boilerplate” templates for legislation that can be slightly modified and introduced at the state level for consideration.

With a significant increase in campaign contributions targeting friendly legislators, community broadband suddenly becomes a hot topic at the statehouse.

Legislators do not work alone to pass these measures.  As we’ve seen in other states, industry-backed lobbying firms deliver a comprehensive set of support services for the campaign to stop community broadband competition:

1. Talking points for legislators and others opposed to municipal Internet;
2. Professionally produced mailers that can be distributed to every home in a community bashing community networks;
3. Sample letters to the editor intended for local newspapers and easy-to-send letters to legislators asking them to support anti-broadband legislation;
4. Help from seemingly “independent” outside groups that criticize such networks, without disclosing their funding comes, in part or whole, from the cable or phone company.

Settles

Being hoodwinked by the companies that want these kinds of bills passed leave your community’s broadband needs entirely in the hands of providers that have performed so poorly in some cities, local governments have decided they have to provide the service themselves.  Settles illustrates the obvious:

This isn’t about unfair competition by local government. When Wilson’s 12-person IT department can plan, build and manage a network that can deliver speeds (up to a gig) 20 times faster than the best Time Warner Cable offers, that’s competing with superior technology. When Comcast customers switch to Chattanooga’s gig network because of their public utility’s better customer service, that’s competent competition. When tiny Reedsburg, Wis. refuses to compete against the large cable company on price, but beats competitors by offering greater value such as a better selection of Internet services, they compete based on local credibility.

So U.S. communities have to ask themselves, are they going to stay stuck on the train or will they be zipping along at warp speed?

Providers and their industry friends will always argue that you don’t need gigabit broadband speed — what you get from your cable or phone company today is “fast enough.”  Some go as far as to argue current providers are equipped to deliver whatever service customers need, but the demand “just is not there.”

Big Problem.

But as we argued on GigaOM ourselves, the nation’s largest telecom companies have already proven they apparently cannot meet the demand that exists today.  That is because an increasing number of them have started to slap arbitrary usage caps and other limits on their customers’ broadband usage.  Customers don’t want these Internet Overcharging schemes, yet they persist because of what providers effectively admit is a broadband shortage on their networks.

So for a city like Chattanooga, Tenn., which of the following providers should be punished (and potentially even banned) for being in the broadband business:

1. AT&T, which delivers around 6-7Mbps DSL in suburban Chattanooga or up to 24Mbps on its U-verse platform with 150GB/250GB usage limits respectively;
2. Comcast, which delivers up to 50Mbps over cable broadband with a 250GB usage cap;
3. EPB Fiber, which delivers up to 1,000Mbps over fiber optics with no usage cap.

If you are AT&T or Comcast, clearly the provider that must be stopped is #3 — EPB Fiber.  After all, you can’t be in the broadband shortage business when the competitor next door offers a broadband free-for-all made possible from an investment in a superior network that exists to serve customers, not shareholders and investment banks.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAV Savannah Final Meeting With Comcast 2-9-12.flv[/flv]

Comcast has concluded the last of four public meetings to address consumer complaints with the quality of the cable company’s products and customer service in Savannah, Ga.

Dozens of customers filled Armstrong Center to complain about billing, hold times, and service issues. Comcast technicians were on hand and literally followed some customers home to address long-standing problems on the spot.

The public meetings came at the urging of Savannah city officials who have received hundreds of complaints about Comcast’s poor performance in the Georgia city. 

“We are committed to continuously improving the services that we offer and the way we deliver the service, said Andrew Macke, vice president of government and community affairs. “There’s ongoing efforts to improve that, but certainly as we value our relationship with the city, we’ll continue to work with them to highlight some of the things that we’re doing but also address some of the common themes.”  (2 minutes)

A Philadelphia community group is accusing Comcast of keeping its low-income budget Internet program a secret and denying needy families access for the flimsiest excuses.

Action United, which fights for low and moderate income Pennsylvanians, dropped off complaints with federal officials in Philadelphia from residents who are upset because they never heard of the discounted Internet access program or were disqualified from applying.

Comcast’s Internet Essentials offers families who qualify for the federal student lunch program access to 1.5Mbps broadband for around $9.95 a month.  But an informal survey by the group found scores of residents who never heard of the program and would have applied if they had known it existed.

The group, which says it has 44,000 members in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Allentown, says it could find only two families among its members that actually qualified to sign up for the service.  Some were disqualified because they didn’t participate in the school lunch program, others because they already have Internet service or had a long-forgotten past due bill.

“I feel as though the Internet service will help my son to progress in math, reading, spelling,” Dawn from North Philadelphia told CBS Philadelphia. But she says Comcast refused to sign her up.

“They told me I had a back bill from 10 years ago, so I was not qualified,” Dawn said.

As Stop the Cap! reported in September, Comcast’s program is effectively designed to reap positive publicity for the cable company while discouraging customers from applying and actually obtaining the service.

Action United protests the digital divide in downtown Philadelphia. (Courtesy: Action United)

Action United says area schools, an obvious place to promote low cost Internet for students, knew nothing about the program.

Comcast counters it sent mailings about Internet Essentials to 4,000 school districts, which covers 30,000 schools.

The group originally planned to protest Wednesday in front of Comcast’s corporate headquarters in Philadelphia to draw attention to the problem.  Earlier today, Action United announced it had reached an agreement to meet with Comcast executives to discuss the program and help cut some of the red tape for families experiencing trouble applying.

Comcast’s decision to offer budget Internet service came as a result of negotiations with the federal government to approve its merger with NBC-Universal. Critics contend Internet Essentials is too restrictive and requires applicants to navigate through a cumbersome qualification process.  After approval, the program only provides discounted service for a period of three years and can be terminated if a family falls past due on their account.

From the byzantine terms and conditions for enrollment in the Comcast Internet Essentials program:

The program is only available to households that (i) are located where Comcast offers Internet service; (ii) have at least one child who receives free school lunches through the National School Lunch Program (the “NSLP”) and as confirmed annually while enrolled in the program; (iii) do not have an overdue Comcast bill or unreturned equipment; and (iv) have not subscribed to any Comcast Internet service within the last ninety (90) days (sections 1(i)-(iv) collectively are defined as “Eligibility Criteria”). This program is not available to households that have children who receive reduced price lunches under the NSLP. The program will accept new customers for three (3) full school years, unless extended at the sole election of Comcast. Comcast reserves the right to establish enrollment periods at the beginning of each academic year in which it accepts new customers that may limit the period of time each year in which you have to enroll in the program.

2. In order to confirm your eligibility for the program, Comcast will need to verify that your children receive free school lunches through the NSLP in the initial enrollment year and each subsequent year you are enrolled in the program. In order to confirm eligibility, participants in the program will be required to provide copies of official documents establishing that a child in the household is currently receive free school lunches through the NSLP. Each year you will be required to reconfirm your household’s current eligibility by providing Comcast or its authorized agent with up-to-date documentation. If you fail to provide documentation proving your eligibility in the program, you will be deemed no longer eligible to participate in the program.

3. You will no longer be eligible to participate in the program if (i) you no longer have at least one child living in your household who receives free school lunches under the NSLP; (ii) you fail to maintain your Comcast account in good standing; (iii) Comcast ceases to provide the Covered Service to your location; or (iv) your account opened under the program is closed. A change in address may result in your account being closed, even if you continue to receive Comcast services at a different address. Program participation also may be terminated if the Covered Service is upgraded, altered or changed by you for any reason. If you are no longer eligible for the program, but continue to receive the Covered Service from Comcast, regular rates, and any other applicable terms and conditions will apply to the Covered Service.