Cox Communications is telling customers if they exceed the company’s usage caps three times over the lifetime of an account, they either must upgrade to a more expensive service plan, make sure they never exceed plan limits again, or face an indefinite loss of their Internet service if they exceed Cox’s limits a fourth time.

Stop the Cap! reader Adam found out about Cox’s Three Strikes Program for himself in an online chat with Claudia, a Cox customer service representative:

Adam: I am concerned with the messages I got about a usage cap. I was told by the salesman that there was no bandwidth cap on our Internet, however this message is very troubling. Please explain this cap to me.
[…]
Claudia: I am really sorry for the lack of information provided to you by our Sales representative.
Adam: Is there a hard cap coming? Is that why we’re getting these messages?
Claudia: That is correct.
Claudia: At the fourth message your services will be blocked, on the previous one they will suggest you to upgrade your plan.
Adam: Fourth monthly, or fourth cumulative?
Claudia: Your Data Usage is reset each month, so it will be your fourth monthly message if exceeding the allowance.
Adam: So four months of going over. Does that counter ever reset?
Adam: Like if I’m bad three months, then good for three. Is it reset?
Claudia: Unfortunately, it is not reset.

Cox, like Comcast, does not charge overlimit fees, but the company does encourage customers who want to use the Internet more than their arbitrary allowances permit to upgrade to a more costly service plan.

Cox’s limits are detailed in an earlier piece Stop the Cap! brought readers a few weeks ago.

Internet Service Providers claim usage caps are important to protect the customer experience from “excessive users” slowing down service in your neighborhood, but as companies like Cox upgrade to DOCSIS 3, the broadband pipeline that results has increased so exponentially, it eliminates the excuse that came with the limits.

Now, ISPs increasingly see another reason to retain usage allowances: fatter profits from tiered usage plans that inevitably drive video-hungry Internet customers into costly upgrades.

Cable, satellite and telco-TV subscribers around the country can now watch most of the hit shows on Turner’s TBS and TNT Networks for free, assuming two things are true:

1. You pay for a package of television channels from Comcast, DirecTV, Dish Network, Cox Communications, Cablevision Systems, Suddenlink Communications, Verizon FiOS, or AT&T U-verse.
2. You are not a Time Warner Cable subscriber.

The new TV Everywhere app, available for phones and tablets, comes free of charge.  Once authenticated as a legitimate pay television subscriber, users can watch hit series and some older shows from both networks.

Once again, Time Warner customers are on the outside, looking in.  The nation’s second biggest cable operator has not been a TV Everywhere team player, preferring to launch its own live streaming iPad application and steering clear, so far, from on-demand, online viewing from most of its partner networks, including HBO.  Time Warner Cable executives have, in the past, alluded to licensing fees and user authentication complications for not launching TV Everywhere on-demand viewing for its customers, but the company has not explained why it has not signed on for Turner’s app.

TV Everywhere, a concept on the drawing board for almost two years, is an attempt by the pay television industry to lock down online video programming for paying customers, in an effort to slow down “cord cutting” by consumers trying to save money on their cable TV bill.  The concept delivers unlimited access to popular cable programming, but only to those who already pay to subscribe.

Many TV Everywhere projects have been soft-launched without much publicity, but that is not true for Turner’s app.  The network has commissioned several clever advertisements featuring various network stars promoting the app, and now Turner wants to educate consumers about how to use it to watch shows online.

The most complicated part of the process is getting “authenticated” by the application for authorized viewing.  Some cable companies like Time Warner want customers to launch access to TV Everywhere programming from the cable company’s website, where customers have already been authenticated when they sign up for an online account.  Other companies are using customer account numbers, PIN codes, or passwords printed on monthly bills to let customers register directly for access.  When the application matches a customer account number or PIN code, the content becomes accessible.  It is typically a one-time-only hassle, but there have been cases where customers have had to grab a recent bill more than once to re-authenticate themselves.

Not every show will be made available for online viewing.  Many rerun off-network shows shown on TNT and TBS don’t currently include streaming rights.  So while users can watch past episodes of Conan O’Brien, they’re out of luck if they want to watch Friends.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Turner App.flv[/flv]

Watch a selection of spots from the new advertising campaign for Turner’s ‘TV Everywhere’ app.  (4 minutes)

Craig E. Moffett joined Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. as the Senior Analyst for U.S. Cable and Satellite Broadcasting in 2002.

Craig Moffett, perennial cable stock booster, predicts AT&T’s move to implement usage limits on its broadband customers will provide cover for cable operators to rush in their own Internet Overcharging schemes, starting with budget-priced usage plans.

Moffett released a research note Monday claiming Charter Communications, Cox Communications, and Time Warner Cable are among the first most likely to move towards limiting their customers’ broadband usage, with Comcast standing on the sidelines, at least for the moment.

Moffett thinks AT&T’s announcement is excellent news for wired providers, who could reap enormous new profits on top of some of the world’s most expensive broadband packages.

“AT&T’s move provides air cover that makes it easier for all of them to follow,” Moffett told his clients. “We view the move as good news for all the terrestrial broadband operators.”

Moffett believes usage caps have everything to do with stopping the torrent of online video.  He notes AT&T’s caps are set high enough to target AT&T customers who use their connections to watch a considerable amount of video programming online.

“Only video can drive that kind of usage,” Moffett writes.

Moffett has repeatedly predicted any challenge to pay television models from online video will be met with pricing plans that eliminate or reduce the threat:

“[I]f consumption patterns change such that web video begins to substitute for linear video, then the terrestrial broadband operators will simply adopt pricing plans that preserve the economics of their physical infrastructure,” Moffett said. “Of course, any move to preserve their own economics has far-ranging implications. Any move towards usage-based pricing doesn’t just affect the returns of the operators, it also affects the demand of end users (the ‘feedback loop’).”

A company claiming to own a broad patent covering ‘storage and retrieval playback systems’ has sued six large cable companies claiming they are infringing its patents.

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications, Bright House Networks, Charter Communications, and Cablevision have all been accused of violating patents that could cover their respective video-on-demand systems.

Pragmatus, whose website is “under construction,” acquired the patents from Intellectual Patents, which has extracted more than a billion dollars in licensing fees on broad-based general patents.  Law.com calls both firms “patent trolls,” because they exist largely to collect money from deep pocketed technology companies.

The lawsuit covers patents 5,581,479 and 5,636,139 which describe technology that uses “information service control points” that send blocks of data to remote stations.  That could cover just about any server.

As proof of infringement, the legal filing simply includes the URL’s of websites that promote video-on-demand services.

Many lawsuits eventually settle out of court quietly, with licensing deals that extract a portion of each subscriber’s monthly payment and send it on to companies like Pragmatus.

Harry Cole, who has dealt with these nuisance suits before, says they are a product of a broken patent system.

“[A patent trolls does] not produce anything. It does not sell anything bought or processed, nor does it buy anything sold or processed, nor does it process anything sold, bought or processed, nor does it repair anything sold, bought or processed … All the company does is speculate on patents, which it purchases on the secondary market in the hope that one such patent will hit it big.”

A controversial proposition on the ballot to extend a 1970 telecommunications tax to cell phones and “digital phone” service that largely did not exist when the tax was originally enacted has created a war of words between Chula Vista, Calif., mayor Cheryl Cox and the cable company that bears her last name (but no relation) — Cox Cable.

The proposed tax extension would broaden the types of telecommunications services that are subject to it, including Cox Cable’s “digital phone” service and broadband.  Cox officials appeared at city council meetings to oppose the tax, saying it would result in higher bills for customers.

But when Cox went on the air with “informational ads” the mayor accused of undermining support for Proposition H, Cox and the cable company started trading barbs in the local media.

Now the controversy has drawn the attention of San Diego’s local ABC affiliate.  On Monday, Mayor Cox accused Cox Cable of punishing the city by withdrawing free Internet access at the end of the year for City Hall, public libraries, and public safety agencies including the fire and police departments.

Mayor Cox called the timing of Cox’s announcement suspicious, coming the same day she did an interview complaining about Cox on San Diego’s KGTV-TV.

Under the terms of Cox’s franchise agreement with the city, Chula Vista was supposed to receive free Internet service through 2019, but now the cable company is reneging on the deal, a charge Cox Cable vigorously disputes.

Mayor Cox

With Chula Vista’s current budget crisis, the cash-strapped city is weighing the $30,000 a year it will cost to obtain the service at Cox Cable’s business rates, which could cause the city’s 1,012 computers, most available to the public, to lose access Jan. 1st.  Mayor Cox is also concerned the police department will lose its own connection, which it uses to communicate with other police departments and the Department of Justice.

The tax at the center of the debate, known as the City’s Utility Users’ Tax or U.U.T., amounts to 5 percent and is charged primarily to landline telephone customers.  Because of the way the tax ordinance was worded in 1970, technology changes that have taken place since have allowed more residents to escape paying the tax by switching to cell phone service or “digital phone” Voice Over IP service offered by Cox Cable or other broadband providers.

As a result, potential revenue earned from the tax has dropped over the years, especially as residents disconnect landline service.  With Chula Vista facing a $4 million deficit in the city budget, city officials are looking for new revenue sources.

Proposition “H,” before local voters Nov. 2nd, would keep the rate at 5 percent, but extend the tax to other telecommunications services, including:

• Wireless communications
• Text Messaging
• Prepaid/Postpaid telecommunications
• Private communication services
• Paging
• VoIP
• Toll free numbers

“Proposition H is all about continuing to fund the services we all benefit from: maintaining streets and parks, keeping libraries open, and the police protection and fire services that keep us safe,” Mayor Cheryl Cox wrote in a recent guest editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

City officials are warning that without the estimated $5.6 million in estimated revenue from the tax, the city will have to cut services to cover the budget shortfall or raise other taxes.

Like many cash-strapped communities and states who have watched tax receipts plummet from dramatically lower property tax collections and increases in funding mandates, Chula Vista is trying a combination of budget cuts and tax increases to cover the difference.  But local voters are in no mood for tax increases, and last year rejected a proposal to raise the area’s sales tax by one percent.

Judging from the well-organized opposition campaign, local voters may be on track to disappoint the city a second time.

Mayor Cox’s editorial advocating approval of the tax extension even met resistance from the newspaper it was printed in:

But business and taxpayer organizations question that claim and contend the long-term tax hike could be much bigger than 5 percent as new communications devices come to the fore. They argue Chula Vista hasn’t done enough to shore up its finances long-term to deserve voter support of a tax increase.

On balance, we agree. While city leaders have overseen some $40 million in budget cuts and eliminated 259 jobs, they mostly have been AWOL on one of the most crucial issues in modern government finance: the extreme cost of public employee pensions.

[…]This framing of the debate is not fair to Chula Vista taxpayers who now cover the entire cost of pensions that allow city firefighters and police officers to retire at age 50 with 90 percent of their final annual pay and general employees to retire at age 60 with 90 percent of annual pay.

These policies must be recognized as unsustainable and then be drastically changed. Only when that happens will Chula Vista’s leaders have the credibility to ask voters to raise their own taxes.

Vote no on Proposition H.

The San Diego South Chamber of Commerce ridiculed the tax as a “dash for cash” and many area small business associations are also opposed.

While the debate rages, the mayor’s office accused Cox Cable of being too cute by half by pretending to be a “neutral” party.  The cable company claimed its ads were “informational” and did not take a position either for or against the proposition.

But KGTV notes the ad only mentions groups opposed to the tax — no supporters, and ends with the tagline, “Proposition H: It’s not what it seems.”

An expenditure report obtained by 10News shows Cox Communications spent more than $2,400 on the Proposition “H” ad and additional literature. The report also lists money going towards Proposition H opposition. A Cox spokesman said they wanted to choose “neutral” but had to chose between “support” and “opposed” on the filing.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Chula Vista Debate 10-20-10.flv[/flv]

Three reports from KGTV-TV San Diego trace the dispute over the tax over the last few months.  Also included is a portion of a video from a taxpayer’s group opposed to the telecom tax.  (13 minutes)