Troy Wolverton had a problem.  He wanted to send 170 pictures to Kodak to arrange to have them printed in time for Father’s Day.  It turned out to be a true labor of love, as he waited hours to send the 800 megabytes of imagery to Kodak’s online processor.

Troy Wolverton writes tech news for the Mercury News in California

As more than three hours passed, Wolverton began to ponder why the upload seemed some poky.  He subscribes to Earthlink, which supplied him with a 3Mbps connection.  Assuming that speed was available for both uploading and downloading, it would have taken less than an hour to get the job done.  But as virtually every customer of an Internet service provider finds, your download speed is many times faster than your upload speed.  In this case, Wolverton was suffering with a 384kbps upload speed to get those photos to Kodak.

In fact, while download speeds have been increasing at a steady clip, many have discovered upload speeds have barely budged, if at all, since broadband service became available in their area, often more than a decade ago.  Rochester, New York is one such example.  Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service was introduced officially in 1998 with a download speed of around 5Mbps, but the upload was just 384kbps.  Today, standard Road Runner service provides 10Mbps for downloads, but the upload speed has remain unchanged, despite more than a decade having passed.

Networks were originally designed to provide more speed for downloading, and less for uploading, based on the presumption subscribers would take more than they “gave” to the Internet.  That remains essentially true today, but subscribers are increasingly relying on their upload connection to send pictures, movie clips, and other larger files to their friends, family, or work.

But broadband companies seem oblivious to this trend. If you look at the plans offered by the Bay Area’s two main providers, Comcast and AT&T, it’s all but impossible to find one in which the upload speed comes anywhere close to the download speed. To get an upload speed that’s faster than a slow download rate, you have to subscribe to one of the pricier plans, like Comcast’s Extreme 50, which gives you a 10 megabit per second upload connect — at a cost of $100 a month.

Comcast and AT&T officials say they are watching consumer Internet usage trends. They note that as their companies have ramped up download speeds, they’ve tended to increase upload speeds as well and will continue to do so. The download and upload speeds they offer are simply a response to market demand, they say, claiming that the vast majority of their customers still download far more data than they upload.

“We’re designing our products based on how we see consumers using them,” John Britton, an AT&T spokesman, told me.

Wolverton thinks the lack of competition also has a lot to do with it.

In terms of Internet access providers, the Bay Area essentially has a duopoly. There are numerous small players such as EarthLink, but Comcast and AT&T dominate — and duopolies tend to not have a good read on real market demand. People often buy one of their products because they don’t have any other choices — not because they meet their needs.

In other words, if the market were more competitive, a company might be able to build a successful business by catering to people who want faster upload speeds.

Just because consumers use their connections to download more data than they upload isn’t proof that they don’t want to upload more. The slow speeds could well discourage folks from doing more uploading. And they may well find a use for faster upload speeds — if they had them.

I’d love to be able to back up the videos, songs and documents on my computer to a server on the Internet. But with my slow upload connection, that’s not really an option because it would take days of uninterrupted uploading to back up any significant portion of my hard drive.

Cable's Fear Factor: the Online Video Threat

[Updated 12:11pm EDT: Scott McNulty from Comcast notes in our comment section that the TV Everywhere concept will count against the 250GB usage allowance Comcast grants residential broadband customers, and suggests the concept is non-exclusive and voluntary.  We debate Scott on that point — see the Comments below the article to follow along and add your thoughts.]

The best kept secret in the broadband industry is now out.  Stop the Cap! reader Lou dropped us a note to say the New York Times has decided to let cable’s big secret out of the bag in an article published today entitled, “Cable TV’s Big Worry: Taming the Web.”  Lou writes, “finally, the mainstream media is pointing out that the real threat to Time Warner Cable and others is Hulu.”

In addition to the obsession to “monetize” content that is currently given away for free online, many in the cable industry believe the best way to tame the web is to control the content and method of distribution.  If you subscribe to a cable TV package, you’re approved.  If you don’t, no online video for you!  Once accessibility is limited to those “authenticated” to access the content, a handful of companies can determine exactly who can obtain their video programming, for how long, and at what price.  For everyone else not going along, discouraging ‘unauthorized’ viewing and disrupting underground distribution are powerful tools for providers to protect their video business model.

What is the best way to do that?  Internet Overcharging schemes of course.  By raising the alarm that online video growth will create a tsunami-like wave of Internet brownouts and traffic jams, and by trying to pit subscribers against one another based on perceptions of their usage, the message that will be part of any cable industry “education” campaign is that limits, tiers, fees, and penalties are the answer to all of these problems.  Watching Hulu every night?  Naughty. With this 20GB monthly limit, we’ll put a stop to that.  Netflix movie tonight?  Do you really want to risk going over your allowance and incurring “necessary” overlimit fees and penalties that represent more than 1,000% markup over our actual costs?  Wouldn’t it be fairer to your neighbors to watch HBO on your cable package instead?

Is it Fair for Big Trucks to Pay More On the Information Superhighway Because They’ll Wear It Out Faster?

In cities across the country, those interested in Internet Overcharging schemes are already engaged in focus group testing.  We know, because some of our readers have been stealth participants, informing us about all of their pretzel-like logic twisting games designed to convince the public that cable and telephone companies are not going to gouge you again with a higher bill.  Some want to use toll road analogies, others are using gas and electric comparisons, and one had the novel idea of putting a plate of food in the middle of the conference table and asking if it would be fair for just one person to eat 75% of it while the rest “go hungry.”

Unfortunately for them, by the end of the session, two of our readers attending two different panels derailed their efforts and had panels eating out of their hands in opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes, and collected a nice $75 (and uncapped lunch) for their efforts.

The Times piece only adds more evidence to help make the case that Internet Overcharging schemes aren’t about broadband fairness — they are part of a protection racket to protect fat profits earned from selling video packages to consumers.

Aware of how print, music and broadcast television have suffered severe business erosion, the chief executives of the major media conglomerates like Time Warner, Viacom and NBC Universal have made protecting cable TV from the ravages of the Internet perhaps their top priority.

“The majority of profits for the big entertainment companies is from cable programming,” said Stephen B. Burke, the president of Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company.

The major worry is that if cable networks do not protect the fees from paying subscribers, and offer most programming online at no cost — as newspapers have done — then customers may eventually cancel their cable subscriptions.

It’s My Cousin’s Fault

In other words, you and I are probably not the biggest threat the industry faces from the ultimate nightmare of eroding profits.  It’s really my cousin’s fault.  He, like many in their 20s, moved into his new home and didn’t do what many of us routinely did when we moved — start the newspaper service, connect the telephone line, and get the cable TV hooked up.

He did call Time Warner Cable — to only install Road Runner broadband Internet service.  He reads the news online, relies exclusively on a cell phone, and watches DVD’s and online video on his giant flat panel television.

The cable industry is horrified my cousin represents their future.

There is no sign of that happening anytime soon, but a recent poll by the Sanford C. Bernstein research group found that about 35 percent of people who watch videos online might cut their cable subscription within five years.

“We don’t think that it’s a problem now, but we do feel a sense of urgency,” Mr. Burke said.

An Urgency to Overcharge

Like most industries that have grown fat and happy on their traditional business models, the most common first response to a challenge to that model is to resist it.  The cable industry in particular has enjoyed a largesse of profits earned from years of de facto monopoly status in most communities, with the majority of its services being largely unregulated.  Cable rate increases have almost always exceeded the rate of inflation, and the public relations talking points for those rate increases has always been, “due to increased programming costs, which represent the increasing diversity and excellence of the cable channels we provide you….”

With prices for “basic/standard service” cable now approaching $60 a month, many younger customers just aren’t interested anymore.

Watching consumers abandon cable television packages for access through broadband gives executives and Wall Street analysts like Sanford C. Bernstein heartburn.  Until recently, many customers never contemplated the idea of getting rid of video packages and just keeping the broadband service they already have.  Not until Hulu.  That one website now represents a considerable amount of online video traffic from subscribers, and the cable industry isn’t in control of it, much less profiting from it.

Hulu represents a threat to be resisted.

You Use Too Much Internet, So We’ll Create Something That Will Make You Use More

To be fair to everyone, we have to get rid of the flat rate plan you’ve enjoyed for more than a decade and replace it with tiered pricing to be “fair” to subscribers because of enormous traffic growth. That what Time Warner Cable customers heard during a planned nonsensical trial of an Internet Overcharging scheme in four American cities, rapidly shelved when consumers rebelled and New York Congressman Eric Massa and Senator Charles Schumer got interested (Rochester, NY was a selected trial city).

It becomes all the more ludicrous as subscribers learn Time Warner Cable’s answer to the traffic jam is to add even more traffic… their traffic… onto their broadband lines.

Evidently online video is only a crisis requiring urgent action when it isn’t their online video.

One idea, advanced most vocally by Jeffrey L. Bewkes, the chairman of Time Warner, and embraced by many executives, would be to offer cable shows online for no extra charge, provided a viewer is first authenticated as a cable or satellite subscriber.

Mr. Bewkes has called the idea “TV Everywhere,” but others in the industry refer to it by other names: “authentication,” “entitlement,” and Comcast has called its coming service “OnDemand Online.”

“If you look at TV viewing, it’s up, even though the questions and stories are all about the role of video games and Internet usage and other uses of time,” Mr. Bewkes said.

The first test of the new system, which will authenticate cable subscribers online and make available programs on the Web for no additional charge, will be announced Wednesday, between Comcast and Time Warner. The trial will involve about 5,000 Comcast subscribers, and television shows from the Time Warner networks TNT and TBS.

It will be interesting to watch whether or not “no additional charge” means such content will be exempted from Comcast’s 250GB monthly usage limit, and whether Time Warner Cable will change their Subscriber Agreement to exempt their TV Everywhere service from the existing language in their agreement permitting Internet Overcharging schemes.  Time Warner Cable already exempts their “Digital Phone” product.

Ixnay on the Coin Chatter Already

The Times piece also raises eyebrows about the potential for collusion and antitrust violations in secretive meetings among industry executives, although they deny it.

The electronic media chiefs, including Mr. Bewkes, Jeff Zucker of NBC Universal and Philippe P. Dauman of Viacom, among others, have been more careful, so as to avoid being accused of collusion: much of the discussions have been on the telephone and in private, one-on-one chats during industry events. Pricing is rarely, if ever, discussed, according to executives involved in the discussions.

“We can’t get together and talk about business terms, but we can get together to work on setting open technology standards,” said Mr. Dauman, the chief executive at Viacom, which owns cable networks like MTV, VH1, Comedy Central and BET.

Although the representations from the industry seem benign, the potential for something far worse is always there.  Control the keys to unlock the door to online video (and the tools to lock out or limit the “other guy”), and you’ve got a plan to make sure people don’t dare drop their cable video package.  Where did the online video go from your favorite cable channel website?  It’s on TV Everywhere, and you don’t get in without an invitation.

One holdout among the major chief executives appears to be Robert A. Iger of the Walt Disney Company. At an industry conference this year he warned that gambits like TV Everywhere could be “anti-consumer and anti-technology” because such a plan would place cable programming behind a pay wall.

So much for “no extra charge.”

It’s Time to Investigate

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), is the House of Representatives’ watchdog on this issue.  He’s already connected the dots and realizes they lead in only one direction — to consumers’ pocketbooks.  Massa has introduced HR 2902, the Broadband Internet Fairness Act, specifically to prevent broadband providers from falling all over themselves to engage in anti-competitive, anti-consumer price gouging, all to cover their bottom lines.

This legislation, and Rep. Massa, needs your immediate support.  Call Congress and ask your representative to co-sponsor this vitally important bill.  The New York congressman is protecting consumers nationwide, and deserves your thanks and support.

Stop the Cap! also now calls on Congress and the appropriate regulatory bodies to begin an immediate investigation into the industry’s “cooperation” to launch TV Everywhere, and other similar projects. Specifically, we ask that an appropriate and thorough review be conducted to ensure that no collusion or antitrust violations have, are, or will take place as a result of this project.  We also call for a review of the “authentication” model proposed by the cable industry to ensure it does not exclude any consumer that subscribes to a competing video provider (satellite, telephone company, competing independent cable company, municipally owned provider, etc.), and that no “free pass” language be permitted that exempts their project from the terms and conditions that they seek to impose on others not affiliated with this project.

Senator Schumer’s long history of consumer protection would make him an excellent choice to lead such an investigation.

Once again, Net Neutrality must be the law of America’s online land.  Only with the assurance of a level playing field can we be certain no provider will attempt to exert influence or special favor over content they own, control, or distribute.

Frontier Essentially Accuses Time Warner Cable of Being a Shakedown Artist

Early indications of a more challenging second quarter of 2009 may be what’s behind the sudden speed increases and new promotions being run by providers, who are also counting on signing new customers, now that moving season is in full swing.  A roundup of promotions and service adjustments customers may find enticing them:

AT&T

U-verse Internet Max customers received free upgrades last week in most areas, boosting broadband download speeds from 10Mbps to 12Mbps.  AT&T previously announced a slowing of U-verse deployment for economic reasons.  AT&T competes with cable operators offering video, voice, and broadband service.

Cablevision

Cablevision Systems continues to offer new customers taking at least a combined broadband and phone package a $200 American Express gift card through June 30.  The company already announced major increases in premium speed levels, and promises no limits on consumption.

Comcast

Reduced pricing in highly competitive Washington, DC market for premium 50Mbps service to under $100, for customers signing up for at least two Comcast services (video, voice, and/or broadband)

Frontier

A substantial mailing offering discounts and giveaways was sent through postal mail to consumers in many Frontier service areas.  Frontier is using a cable-critical mailer depicting their cable competitor as “Rob” and “Bill.”

Rogers (Canada)

Rogers, which earlier increased rates for subscribers, announced a “free speed increase” to its “Hi Speed Internet Express” package, from 7Mbps to 10Mbps, and “Internet Lite” from 1Mbps to 3Mbps.  Rogers limits its customers typically to 60GB of consumption per month for standard levels of service.  Much lower limits are placed on economy packages.

Time Warner Cable

Time Warner Cable is continuing to mail customer postcards and other mailings promoting its existing service packages, but this week also attempts to pick up customers trapped in Frontier term contracts by agreeing to cover early contract termination penalties, up to $200.  Time Warner Cable is also hinting that cable customers will soon be able to use Tivo software for their Digital Video Recorder (DVR) boxes, which permit customers to record programming.

Verizon

Verizon announced substantial speed increases throughout their service area. The company also has engaged in a price war with Cablevision over gift cards. Verizon offered $150 gift cards to new customers signing up for a service bundle (although Cablevison beat their offer by $50).  The company also began promotional giveaways to customers signing a contract agreement.

To date, AT&T continues tests limiting consumption to as low as 20GB per month in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.  Comcast has a straight limit of 250GB of consumption per month for residential customers nationwide.  Frontier defines “acceptable use” at 5GB consumption per month, but does not enforce it at this time.  Rogers limits consumption based on the level of speed selected by the customer.  Most customers face a 60GB monthly limit.  Time Warner Cable tested, but temporarily shelved, tiered pricing and consumption limits.  Other providers not listed have no Internet Overcharging schemes in place.

Verizon FiOS, the fiber to the home service from “the phone company” in many areas around the country, today formally announced it was increasing broadband speeds for customers to provide them with better service.  FiOS often provides the fastest Internet speeds in the markets they serve, prompting speed, service, and occasionally even price wars wherever Verizon competes with cable companies.

Verizon’s strong competition makes cable think twice about conducting Internet Overcharging experiments with talk of limits, tiers, and other anti-competitive, anti-consumer pricing.

“From its inception just five years ago, Verizon FiOS has transformed the American broadband and home-entertainment experience by delivering innovative services that our competitors can’t match,” said Mike Ritter, chief marketing officer for Verizon Telecom. “Today FiOS leaps forward again with faster two-way broadband speed options that free customers to fully participate in today’s interactive, multimedia Web.”

Verizon is doubling-to-quadrupling the upstream connection speeds and increasing the downstream connection speeds of its most popular FiOS Internet offerings. The company has raised the connection speed of its entry-level FiOS Internet service from 10/2 megabits per second (Mbps) to 15/5 Mbps, and has raised the connection speed of its flagship, mid-tier offering from 20/5 Mbps to 25/15 Mbps. In New York City, on Long Island and in other New York City suburbs, FiOS Internet is even faster with a new entry-level connection speed of 25/15 Mbps, and a new mid-tier offering of 35/20 Mbps, available only in bundles.

According to a survey of residential broadband users in the U.S. by the market intelligence firm In-Stat (“US Broadband Speeds on the Rise,” In-Stat, Feb. 2009), the average upstream connection speed used by cable broadband customers is 2.68 Mbps. Verizon is offering speeds two-to-seven times faster than this typical cable upload speed.

Verizon’s standard service plan offers new customers in many areas some dramatic improvements, leaving services like Time Warner Cable and Comcast in less competitive areas in the dust:

Verizon FiOS Standard Service (outside of NYC/Long Island) (was 10Mbps/2Mbps) is now 15Mbps/5Mbps
Time Warner Rochester Standard Service remains 10Mbps/384kbps
Price per month $45 (TWC charges $5 less if you are a cable customer)

Verizon FiOS (‘Faster’ Plan) (outside of NYC/Long Island) (was 20Mbps/5Mbps) is now 25Mbps/15Mbps
Time Warner Rochester Turbo Plan remains 15Mbps/1Mbps
Verizon plan is $65 per month, Time Warner Turbo is cheaper but has much slower upload speeds, and runs around $50 a month.

The new speeds are available to new customers or those existing customers who wish to upgrade to a new contract with Verizon (one year term commitments are common for FiOS).  But customers who sign up for a bundle package of telephone, broadband, and video service will also receive a free Flip Ultra Camcorder or Compaq Mini Netbook.

Of course, where Verizon FiOS does not compete, expect more of the same from incumbent providers, who continue to contemplate ways to extract more money from customer’s wallets for the exact same, comparatively slow service.

North Coventry Township Station 64 Fire Engine - Ready to Respond to Comcast Mishaps Anytime

“I called Comcast because I wanted the kitchen TV hooked up to cable,” she said, describing how the digital TV converter box hadn’t worked as planned. “They said no problem, we can do it, no extra charge.” Tyson was already a Comcast subscriber before the incident Monday.

“They drilled right into the electrical box,” Tyson said in disbelief, looking over at the side of her home where a long black burn mark extended up to the roof from a burnt electrical box and meter.

Verizon must be enjoying the irony.  Just a few days ago, we shared with you the ad that Comcast was running in Pennsylvania showing reckless Verizon FiOS installers tearing up yards and engaging in what can only be described as ‘dangerous antics’ by the telephone company’s installers.  Verizon wants those ads pulled for being out of bounds.

After The Mercury published an article detailing one 83 year old North Coventry woman’s plight (her house is now uninhabitable), Comcast may have to yank the ad just to save face.

Tyson, who was in her house while the cable man worked outside, said she heard “two loud blasts — ‘Boom, Boom’ — then I came out of the house to see what was going on.”

“It was burning like mad,” she said, when the serviceman ran up to her and asked if she had a fire extinguisher, which lay spent on Tyson’s front lawn as fire crews worked.

Tyson may have been lucky as fire officials found the arcing had sparked a fire in wood behind the electrical box in the basement which spread to the floor joists. But the majority of damage was to the electrical system.

“The house is not liveable until the electric is redone,” Schaeffer said. There also was no water for the home since the well pump won’t work without electricity, according to officials.

Jean Tyson’s home sustained approximately $20,000 in damage.  She, and her dog, are now staying at a neighbor’s home until repairs can be completed.

If North Coventry was wired for Verizon FiOS, they should be swooping in to offer her a free Verizon FiOS account, thus proving yet again that payback is a ….

To punish Comcast for being naughty, we bring you one additional FiOS ad, pointed out by our reader Smith6612, featuring Michael Bay.  It’s definitely worth the entertainment value:

Thanks to Broadband Reports for calling our attention to this story.