Genachowski

On Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said that he generally supports data caps and tiered broadband pricing plans. The chairman’s comments came during an interview at the Cable Show with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, now the top lobbyist with the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

Genachowski has remained consistent in his cautious support for “industry innovation” that includes usage-based pricing, with a caveat providers should not exploit that at the expense of consumers.  But consumer groups like Free Press already believe usage caps, particularly on wired broadband services, are already bad for consumers, exploit a marketplace duopoly, and are worthy of investigation by the agency.

“All the evidence shows that caps on wired broadband platforms like cable make no sense. They don’t affect network congestion, even in the rare instances where congestion actually exists on these systems,” says Free Press policy director Matt Wood. “Cable companies use them to penalize their subscribers and discourage them from using innovative services that compete with cable TV.”

Free Press reminded Genachowski of Comcast’s recent actions which exempted its own video content from usage caps, while leaving them in place for competitors.

“Comcast’s recent actions show both the harms of these caps and the lack of any legitimate reason for them,” noted Wood. “[Now] Comcast changed course and suspended caps temporarily in all but a few markets — but promised to start overcharging any users there who exceeded these arbitrary limits.”

“The FCC has turned a blind eye to this competition problem. If it wants to see experimentation in pricing that actually benefits consumers, we need a competition policy that creates more experimenters.”

Growing questions are being raised about whether Comcast is violating FCC and Department of Justice policies that prohibit the cable company from prioritizing its own content traffic over that of its competitors.

Comcast’s Xfinity Xbox app offers Comcast customers access to Xfinity online video content without eating into their monthly 250GB Internet usage allowance. Netflix has called that exemption unfair, because its content does count against Comcast’s usage cap. New evidence now suggests Comcast may also be prioritizing the delivery of its Xfinity content over other broadband traffic, a true Net Neutrality violation if proven true.

Bryan Berg, founder and chief technology officer at MixMedia, believes he has found proof the cable company is giving its own video content preferential treatment, in this somewhat-technical finding published on his blog:

What I’ve concluded is that Comcast is using separate DOCSIS service flows to prioritize the traffic to the Xfinity Xbox app. This separation allows them to exempt that traffic from both bandwidth cap accounting and download speed limits. It’s still plain-old HTTP delivering MP4-encoded video files, just like the other streaming services use, but additional priority is granted to the Xfinity traffic at the DOCSIS level. I still believe that DSCP values I observed in the packet headers of Xfinity traffic is the method by which Comcast signals that traffic is to be prioritized, both in their backbone and regional networks and their DOCSIS network.

Berg also contends Comcast’s earlier explanation that its Xfinity content should be exempt from its usage cap because it travels over the company’s private Internet network is also flawed:

In addition, contrary to what has been widely speculated, the Xfinity traffic is not delivered via separate, dedicated downstream channel(s)—it uses the same downstream channels as regular Internet traffic.

Berg

Broadband traffic management is of growing interest to Internet Service Providers, who contend it can be used to manage Internet traffic more efficiently and improve speed and time-sensitive online applications like streamed video, online phone calls, and similar services. But manufacturers of traffic management equipment also market the technology to ISPs who want to favor certain kinds of content while de-prioritizing or even throttling the speed of non-preferred content. The technology can also differentiate traffic that counts against a monthly usage cap, and traffic that does not.

Quality of Service (QoS) technology can be used to improve the customer’s online experience or help a provider launch Internet Overcharging and speed throttling schemes that can heavily discriminate against “undesirable” online traffic.

Berg further found that when he saturated his 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection, traffic from providers like Netflix suffered due to the bandwidth constraints.  Because he flooded his connection, Netflix buffered additional content (slowing his stream start time) and reduced the bitrate of the video (which can dramatically reduce the picture quality at slower speeds). But when he launched Xfinity video streaming, that traffic was unaffected by his saturated connection. In fact, he discovered Xfinity traffic was exempted from his normal download speed limit, allowing his connection to exceed 25Mbps.

While that works great for Xfinity fans who do not want their videos degraded when other household members are online, it is inherently unfair to competitors like Netflix who are forced to reduce the quality of your video stream to compensate for lower available bandwidth.

According to the consent decree which governs the merger of the cable operator with NBC-Universal, prioritizing traffic in this way is a no-no when the company also engages in Internet Overcharging schemes, namely its arbitrary usage cap:

“If Comcast offers consumers Internet Access Service under a package that includes caps, tiers, metering, or other usage-based pricing, it shall not measure, count, or otherwise treat Defendants’ affiliated network traffic differently from unaffiliated network traffic. Comcast shall not prioritize Defendants’ Video Programming or other content over other Persons’ Video Programming or other content.”

This graph shows Berg's artificially saturated 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection. The traffic in red represents Xfinity Xbox traffic, which is given such high priority, it allows Berg to exceed his usual download speed limit.

Comcast sent GigaOm a statement that denies the company is doing any such thing:

“It’s really important that we make crystal clear that we are not prioritizing our transmission of Xfinity TV content to the Xbox (as some have speculated). While DSCP markings can be used to assign traffic different priority levels, that is not their only application – and that is not what they are being used for here. It’s also important to point out that our Xfinity TV content being delivered to the Xbox is the same video subscription that customers already paid for and is delivered to their home over our traditional cable network – the difference is that we are now delivering it using IP technology to the Xbox 360, in a similar manner as other IP-based cable service providers. But this is still our traditional cable television service, which is governed by something known as Title VI of the Communications Act, and we provide the service in compliance with applicable FCC rules.”

Our View

Comcast, as usual, is talking out of every side of its mouth. In an effort to justify their unjustified usage cap, they have pretzel-twisted a novel way out of this Net Neutrality debate by paving their own digital highway on a Comcast private drive.

Comcast argues their 250GB usage cap controls last-mile congestion to provide an excellent user experience. That excuse completely evaporates in the context of its new toll-free video traffic. In fact, their earlier argument that its regionally-distributed streaming traffic should not count because it does not travel over the “public Internet” at Comcast’s expense does not even make sense.

Berg provides an example:

A FaceTime call from my house to my neighbor’s—which never leaves even the San Francisco metro area Comcast network, given that both of us are Comcast customers—goes over the “public Internet.”

Yet Comcast’s Xbox streams, which pass from Seattle to Sacramento to San Francisco through all of the same network elements that handle my video call (and then some!) are exempt from the bandwidth cap?

You can’t have it both ways, guys.

DOCSIS 3 technology has vastly expanded the last mile pipe into subscriber homes. If Comcast can launch their own private pipe for unlimited IPTV traffic that travels down the same wires their Internet service does, they can comfortably handle any additional capacity needs to support their “constrained” broadband service without the need to limit their customers’ use.

Usage caps remain an end run around Net Neutrality. Consumers given the opportunity to view content under a usage cap on the “public Internet” or using the “toll-free” traffic lane Comcast created for content from their “preferred partners” will make the obvious choice to protect their usage allowance. Comcast is certainly aware of this, and it is a clever way to discriminate through social engineering. It’s also less obvious. You don’t have to de-prioritize or block traffic from your competition to have an impact, you just have to limit it. Customers who repeatedly exceed their usage allowance face suspension of Comcast broadband service for up to one year. That’s a strong incentive to follow their rules.

Netflix is fighting to force Xfinity traffic to fall under the same arbitrary usage cap regime Netflix endures — a truly shortsighted goal. The real issue here is whether Comcast should be capping any of its Internet service.

Comcast has given us the answer, launching the very bandwidth-intense video streaming it used to decry was contributing to an Internet traffic tsunami.

It’s time for Comcast to drop its usage cap.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson is kicking himself over his decision to allow “unlimited use” plans on AT&T’s wireless network.

Speaking at the Milken Institute’s Global Conference last Wednesday, Stephenson took the audience on a journey through AT&T’s transformation from a landline provider into a company that today sees wireless as the source of the majority of its revenue and future growth.  But the company left a lot of revenue on the table when it offered “unlimited data” for smartphone customers, particularly those using Apple’s iPhone.  It’s a mistake Stephenson wishes he never made.

“My only regret was how we introduced pricing in the beginning… thirty dollars and you get all you can eat and it’s a variable cost model,” Stephenson complained. “Every additional megabyte you use in this network, I have to invest capital. So get the pricing right. Our average revenue [per customer] has been increasing every single quarter since we started down this path.”

Stephenson admitted AT&T’s problems were created by the company itself when it embraced its transformation into a wireless power player.

Years earlier, the current CEO green-lit a new “smartphone” after a visit from Apple proposing a new device that used a touch screen to make calls, launch applications, and surf the wireless web.  It was called the iPhone.

AT&T’s first iPhone, Stephenson said, was not a major problem for AT&T and did not even launch on the company’s growing 3G network. In 2007, the Apple iPhone came pre-loaded with a selection of apps and used AT&T 2G network to move data.  Stephenson said Apple’s launch of a new iPhone in 2008 that worked on AT&T’s 3G network, along with a new App Store that allowed customers to do more with their phones, changed everything.  By 2009, AT&T’s network was overloaded with data traffic in many areas.

“[There] were volumes [of traffic] that nobody had ever anticipated and we had anticipated big volumes of growth,” Stephenson said.

In Stephenson’s view, AT&T’s solution to the traffic problem early on should have been a change to the pricing model, eliminating flat rate service at the first sign of network congestion.

“I wish we had moved quicker to change the pricing model to make sure that people that were consuming the bandwidth were paying for the bandwidth and [instead] we had a model where the high end users were being subsidized by the low end users,” he said.

Stephenson acknowledged the company has service issues in large American cities like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and blames them on a combination of voracious wireless data usage and spectrum shortages.  However, industry observers also note that many of AT&T’s service woes may have come from an unwillingness to invest in sufficient network upgrades as aggressively as other carriers, which have not experienced the same level of network congestion and the resulting steep declines in customer satisfaction AT&T has endured for the last three years.

But the ongoing congestion problems have not hurt AT&T’s revenue and profits.  Stephenson admitted that in 2006, AT&T earned almost nothing from wireless data and made between 30-32% margin selling voice and texting service.

“Today, we’re a $20 billion data revenue company and we’re operating at 41-42% margins,” Stephenson said.

Despite that improved revenue, AT&T says if they don’t get spectrum relief soon, they are going to keep raising prices on consumers. Stephenson said the company has been increasing prices across the board on data plans, new smartphone ownership, those upgrading phones, as well as reducing certain benefits for long-term customers. Stephenson said these actions were taken because spectrum has become a precious resource and bandwidth scarcity requires the company to tamp down on demand.  But that’s not a message he delivers to Wall Street, telling investors AT&T’s key earnings and increased revenue come from price adjustments and metering data usage.

Stephenson also fretted there is too much competition in America’s wireless marketplace.  That competition is eating up all of the available wireless spectrum, threatening to create a spectrum crisis if the federal government does not rethink spectrum allocation policies, he argued.  Stephenson believes additional industry consolidation is inevitable because of the capital costs associated with network construction and upgrades. He said he was uncertain whether AT&T will be able to participate in that consolidation after failing to win approval of its buyout of T-Mobile USA.

Stephenson believes the days of heavy investment in wired networks are over. Stephenson has systematically sought to transition AT&T away from prioritizing wired services in favor of wireless, a position he has maintained since his earliest days as AT&T’s CEO. The company’s decision to end expansion of U-verse — AT&T’s fiber-to-the-neighborhood service, and concentrate investment on wireless is part of Stephenson’s grand vision of a wireless America.  Stephenson noted the real fiber revolution isn’t provisioning fiber to the home, it’s wiring fiber to cell towers to support higher data traffic.

But that traffic doesn’t come to users free. Instead, Stephenson believes leaving the meter on guarantees lower rates of congestion because it makes customers think about what they are doing with their phones. It also brings higher profits for AT&T by charging customers for network traffic.  Stephenson believes that assures the returns Wall Street investors demand, attracting capital to front network investments.

With that in mind, Stephenson still believes AT&T can help solve the data digital divide, where poor families cannot afford to participate in the online revolution. Stephenson said it can be managed by handing the disadvantaged sub-$100 smartphones and $20 data plans, assuming they can afford those prices.

What keeps Stephenson up nights?  Worrying about business model busters that manage end-runs around AT&T’s profitable wireless services.

“Apple iMessage is a classic example,” Stephenson noted. “If you’re using iMessage, you’re not using one of our messaging services, right? That’s disruptive to our messaging revenue stream.”

Stephenson remains fearful its network upgrades will improve wireless data service enough to allow customers to switch to Skype for voice and video calling, depriving AT&T of voice revenue.

But the CEO seems less concerned than some of his predecessors that content producers are enjoying “free rides” on AT&T’s network.

“We in this industry have spent more time bemoaning the thought that Google or Facebook may use our network for free, and it just hasn’t played out that way,” Stephenson said. “I mean they do use it for free, they’re getting a bargain, and that is fine.”

“I believe what will play itself out over time, is that the demand model will change this behavior,” he said. “We’re already at a place where some companies that deliver content are coming to us and saying ‘we would like to do a deal with you where you would give us a class of service to deliver our content to your customers.'”

“The content guys that have been so loud about these issues [Net Neutrality] are now the ones coming to us saying we want these models,” Stephenson argued. “I’ve always believed that is what would play out.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Global Conference 2012 A Conversation With ATT’s Randall Stephenson 5-1-12.flv[/flv]

Stop the Cap! edited down Randall Stephenson’s appearance at last Wednesday’s conference.  Stephenson faces few challenges as he presents his world-view about AT&T pricing, spectrum allocation policies, network investments vs. data traffic growth, his vision for AT&T’s future, and how much customers will be forced to pay for today’s “spectrum crisis.”  (28 minutes)

“Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem. Every two and a half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening. We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.” — Martin Cooper, inventor of the portable cell phone

Despite the fear-mongering by North America’s wireless phone companies that a spectrum crisis is at hand — one that threatens the viability of wireless communications across the continent, some of the most prominent industry veterans dispute the public policy agenda of phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, Bell, and Rogers.

Martin Cooper ought to know.  He invented the portable cell phone, and remains involved in the wireless industry today.  Cooper shrugs off cries of spectrum shortages as a problem well-managed by technological innovation.  In fact, he’s credited for Cooper’s Law: The ability to transmit different radio communications at one time and in the same place has grown with the same pace since Guglielmo Marconi’s first transmissions in 1895. The number of such communications being theoretically possible has doubled every 30 months, from then, for 104 years.

National Public Radio looks back at the earliest car phones, which weighed 80 pounds and operated with vacuum tubes. Innovation, improved technology, and lower pricing turned an invention for the rich and powerful into a device more than 300,000,000 North Americans own and use today. (April 2012) (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

A traditional car phone from the 1960s.

The earliest cell phones have been around since the 1940s.  St. Louis was the first city in the United States to get Mobile Telephone Service (MTS).  It worked on three analog radio channels and required an operator to make calls on the customer’s behalf. By 1964, direct dialing from car phones became possible with Improved Mobile Telephone Service (IMTS), which also increased the number of radio channels available for calls.

In the 1970s, popular television shows frequently showed high-flyers and private detectives with traditional looking phones installed in their cars.  But the service was obscenely expensive.  The equipment set customers back $2-4,000 or was leased for around $120 a month.  Local calls ran $0.70-1.20 per minute.  That was when a nice home was priced at $27,000, a new car was under $4,000, gas was $0.55/gallon, and a first run movie ticket was priced at $1.75.

With many cities maintaining fewer than a dozen radio channels for the service, only a handful of customers could make or receive calls at a time.  The first “spectrum crisis” arrived by the late 1970s, when car phones became the status symbol of the rich and powerful (the middle class had pagers). Customers found they couldn’t make or receive calls because the frequencies were all tied up.  Some cities even rationed service by maintaining waiting lists, not allowing new customers to have the technology until an existing one dropped their account.

Instead of demanding deregulation and warning of wireless doomsday, the wireless industry innovated its way out of the era of MTS altogether, switching instead to a “cellular” approach developed in part by the Bell System.

[flv width=”412″ height=”330″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Testing the First Public Cell Phone Network.flv[/flv]

In the 1970s, when the first cell phone “spectrum crisis” erupted, the Bell System innovated its way out the the dilemma without running to Congress demanding sweeping deregulation.  This documentary, produced by the Bell System, explores AMPS — analog cell phone service, and how it transformed Chicago’s mobile telephone landscape back in 1979.  (9 minutes)

“Arguing that the nation could run out of spectrum is like saying it was going to run out of a color.” David P. Reed, one of the original architects of the Internet

Instead of one caller tying up a single IMTS radio frequency capable of reaching across an entire city, the Bell System deployed lower-powered transmitters in a series of hexagonal “cells.”  Each cell only served callers within a much smaller geographic area.  As a customer traveled between cells, the system would hand the call off to the next cell in turn and so on — all transparently to the caller.  Because of the reduced coverage area, cell towers in a city could operate on the same frequencies without creating interference problems, opening up the system to many more customers and more calls.

Inventor Martin Cooper holds one of the first portable mobile phones

In Chicago, Bell’s IMTS system only supported around a dozen callers at the same time. In 1977, the phone company built a test cellular network it dubbed “AMPS,” for Advanced Mobile Phone System.  AMPS technology was familiar to many early cell phone users.  It was more popularly known as “analog” service, and while it could still only handle one conversation at a time on each frequency, the system supported better call handling and many more users than earlier wireless phone technology.  By 1979, Bell had 1,300 customers using their test system in Chicago.

AMPS considerably eased the “spectrum crunch” earlier systems found challenging, and subsequent upgrades to digital technology dramatically increased the number of calls each tower could handle and allowed providers to slash pricing, which fueled the spectacular growth of the wireless marketplace.

Yesterday it was voice call congestion, today it is a “tidal wave” of wireless data.  But inventors like Cooper believe the solution is the same: engineering innovation.

“Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem,” Cooper told the New York Times. “Every two and a half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening. We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.”

Cooper believes in the cellular approach to wireless communications.  Dividing up today’s geographic cells into even smaller cells could vastly expand network capacity just like AMPS did for Windy City residents in the late 1970s. Using especially directional antennas focused on different service areas, placing new cell towers, innovating further with tiny neighborhood antennas mounted on telephone poles, or building out Wi-Fi networks can all manage the data capacity “crisis” says Cooper.

New technology also allows cell signals to co-exist, even on the same or adjacent frequencies, without creating interference problems. All it takes is a willingness to invest in the technology and deploy it across signal-congested urban areas.

Unfortunately, network engineers are not often responsible for the business decisions or public policy agendas of the nation’s largest wireless companies who are using the “spectrum crisis” to argue for increased deregulation and demanding additional radio spectrum which, in some cases, could be locked up by companies to make sure nobody else can use them.

[flv width=”600″ height=”358″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY Times Mobile Carriers Warn of Spectrum Crisis.flv[/flv]

The New York Times offers this easy-to-follow primer on wireless spectrum and why it matters (or not) in the current climate of explosive growth in mobile data traffic.  (3 minutes)

“Their primary interest is not necessarily in making spectrum available, or in making wireless performance better. They want to make money.” — David S. Isenberg, veteran researcher, AT&T Labs

Innovation, not wholesale deregulation, allowed the Bell System to solve the spectrum crisis of the 1970s by creating today's "cell system" that can re-use radio frequencies in adjacent areas to handle more wireless traffic.

Spectrum auctions bring billions to federal coffers, but actually deliver a hidden tax to cell phone customers who ultimately pay for the winning bids priced into their monthly bills.  It also makes it prohibitively expensive for a new player to enter the market.  Already facing enormous network construction costs, any new entrant would then face the crushing prospect of outbidding AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Bell or Rogers for the frequencies essential for operation.

As the New York Times writes:

When a company gets the license for a band of radio waves, it has the exclusive rights to use it. Once a company owns it, competitors can’t have it.

Mr. Reed said the carriers haven’t advocated for the newer technologies because they want to retain their monopolies.

Cooper advocates a new regulatory approach at the Federal Communications Commission — one that mandates wireless phone companies start using today’s technology to amplify their networks.

Cooper points to one example: the smart antenna.

Smart antennas direct cell towers to focus their transmission energy towards the specific devices connected to it.  If a customer was using their phone from the southern end of the cell tower’s coverage area, why direct signal energy to the north, where it gets wasted?  New LTE networks support smart antenna technology, but carriers have generally avoided investing in upgrading towers to support the new technology, expected to be commonplace inside new wireless devices within two years.

T-Mobile calls these technology solutions “Band-Aids” that won’t address the company’s demand for more frequencies to manage its network.  But that kind of thinking applied to the mobile phone world of the 1970s would have maintained the exorbitantly expensive IMTS technology discarded decades ago, since replaced by innovation that made more efficient use of the spectrum already on hand.  That innovation also transformed wireless phones from a tool (or toy) for the very wealthy to an affordable success story that now threatens the traditional wired phone network in ways the Bell System could have never envisioned.

[flv width=”412″ height=”330″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Its a Whole New System.flv[/flv]

It’s A Whole New System: AT&T and other wireless phone companies might want to learn the lesson the Bell System was trying to teach their employees back in 1979: Meet Change With Change.  This company-produced video implores the phone company to do more than the same old thing.  No, this video is not “PM Magazine.”  It is about innovation and actually listening to what customers want. With apologies to Mama Cass Elliot, there was indeed a New World Coming — the breakup of the Bell System just five years later.  Don’t miss the diabetic-coma-inducing, sugary-sweet jingle at the end.  Then reach for a can of Tab.  (10 minutes)

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.