Netflix is coming to Canada.  Sort of.

Canadians will be able to sign up for Netflix’s on-demand video streaming service beginning this fall, but will Canadians be interested in using the unlimited service on their usage-limited broadband accounts?

Netflix is not planning on bringing its rental-by-mail service to Canada, instead relying exclusively on streaming its library on-demand over the Internet. Netflix currently licenses streaming rights for over 17,000 titles in its 100,000 plus library.  How many of those titles with be licensed for Canadian subscribers is not yet known, nor is an exact price for the service.  Netflix will launch for English-speaking Canadians at the outset, with French to come later.  This is the first time Netflix is making its service available outside of the United States.

But many Canadians are questioning the value of Netflix in their heavily-usage-limited country.  Most Canadian ISPs have either chosen or been forced to limit subscribers’ broadband usage.  Even ISPs that want to offer unlimited service find flat rate wholesale pricing nearly impossible to get because of Bell’s stranglehold on the market.  Cable providers like Rogers have implemented their own usage limits to boost revenue and keep costs down.

For Canadians living under an average usage cap of 40-60 gigabytes per month, adding streaming video will only eat their allowance that much faster.

“Netflix and the Canadian press covering this story have ignored the reality of bit-capped Canada,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Jeffrey from Calgary.  “I would be paying $75 a month for a broadband account and be limited in how I could use the service.  The CRTC (Canada’s equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission) has been in the providers’ pockets for years and this is why high bandwidth services bypass Canada or risk failure if offered here.”

Rogers, one of Canada's biggest cable companies, also happens to own one of the largest chains of video rental stores: Rogers Plus

Jeffrey believes Canada’s largest broadband providers, including Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Telus, and Vidéotron will never allow Netflix.ca to gain the kind of foothold it has in the United States.

“These companies all own or control Canada’s cable, IPTV, and satellite TV services, all of which are threatened by an American company like Netflix,” Jeffrey notes. “They’ve already got universal usage limits on their accounts, but these guys will also run to the CRTC and Canadian government to throw up roadblocks over everything from copyright and licensing issues to Canadian content rules and the initially ignored Québécois.”

Jeffrey believes more than anything else, Internet Overcharging schemes will serve their role in keeping would-be competitors under control.

“In Canada, we already had the debate about who gets to use our pipes for free,” he says. “Thanks to the CRTC, only the providers get to use them for free.  Everyone else pays a usage tax to them which fattens their bottom lines while stunting the growth of Canadian broadband.”

In Quebec, it’s much the same story.  Asperger notes Zip.ca, a Canadian rent-by-mail service, can get him 20 new DVD releases a month for around $25.  If he signed up for Netflix, anything beyond five DVD’s a month would put him over his limit forcing him to “pay and pay, and then pay some more.”  With Canadian ISP’s increasing their penalty rates for exceeding usage allowances, the overlimit fee could easily exceed the cost of just sticking with Zip.ca’s by-mail service.

Or, for many Quebecers, the next best alternative is Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, which offers an enormous collection of DVD’s that can be checked out for free.

Canadian press accounts of Netflix’s imminent entry into Canada have largely ignored the limits Canadian Internet providers impose on their subscribers, something readily noted by readers who comment on those stories.  Canadian consumers are well aware of their usage limits, and they avoid services that could expose them to even higher broadband bills.

Those who use their Internet service heavily, unaware of overlimit fees up to $5 per gigabyte, will be educated by bill shock when their next bill arrives in the mail.  After that, no more Netflix.ca for them.

Still, Netflix.ca will probably deliver a challenge to the already-stressed Canadian video rental market where Blockbuster and Rogers Plus duke it out for a dwindling number of renters.  Price cuts have not stopped the erosion of interest in DVD rentals, and Blockbuster is mired in more than $900 million in debt, trying to avoid bankruptcy.

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission's support of industry-promoted Internet Overcharging schemes may limit Netflix's success in Canada.

If Netflix’s streaming library, mostly of titles two or more years old, is deemed sufficient by many Canadians, it could also cause a wave of cancellations of premium movie channels and other cable services.

The Ottawa Citizen reports some analysts believe Netflix.ca will cause an earthquake in the Canadian entertainment marketplace.

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst based in London, Ont., believes Canadians can expect a major entertainment industry shakeup this fall.

Levy says Netflix will sound the death knell for movie-rental services such as Blockbuster and Rogers Video and will force a pricing war among traditional cable and satellite TV providers who will be forced to scramble to keep customers.

“Netflix is not some Johnny-Come-Lately to the market. Even though they are new to Canada, they have been so successful in the U.S. that only a Canadian living underneath a rock wouldn’t be aware of their brand,” Levy said. “It’s the most seismic change to the content distribution system landscape that we have seen. It forces the incumbents to change their business model.”

Levy said the arrival of Netflix will allow casual TV watchers to cut their satellite and cable TV bills in favour of Netflix’s all-you-can-eat monthly offering. He said the $9 U.S. a month charged by the company was carefully thought out and he expects to see a similar price on the service later this year.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Netflix Comes to Canada 7-19-10.flv[/flv]

CBC News discussed the introduction of Netflix Canada and how it will work with Netflix vice president Steve Swasey.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV News Netflix Canada 7-19-10.flv[/flv]

CTV News and its Business News Network ran four reports on the impact usage caps might have on the service, what kinds of titles will be available, and what it means for Canada’s entertainment businesses.  (12 minutes)

Greed is still good at Time Warner Cable

Time Warner Cable has tried every excuse in the book to justify their continued interest in Internet Overcharging schemes directed at residential Road Runner customers.  Over a year after Stop the Cap! and its readers helped bury an experiment in overpriced broadband, the notion of doubling or tripling Internet pricing for consumers is still alive and well at the nation’s second largest cable company.

Nate Anderson of Ars Technica explored the thinking of Time Warner Cable’s executives a year later and discovered their desires for overcharging remain as strong as ever, but the excuses they give for wanting to do so have changed.

TWC’s revenues from Internet access have soared in the last few years, surging from $2.7 billion in 2006 to $4.5 billion in 2009. Customer numbers have grown, too, from 7.6 million in 2007 to 8.9 million in 2009.

But this growth doesn’t translate into higher bandwidth costs for the company; in fact, bandwidth costs have dropped. TWC spent $164 million on data contracts in 2007, but only $132 million in 2009.

What about investing in its infrastructure? That’s down too as a percentage of revenue. TWC does spend billions each year building and improving its network ($3.2 billion in 2009), but the raw number alone is meaningless; what matters is relative investment, and it has declined even as subscribers increased and revenues surged. “Total CapEx [capital expenses] as a percentage of revenues for the year [2009] was 18.1 percent versus 20.5 percent in 2008,” said the company a few months ago.

In fact, CapEx has declined for the industry as a whole. As the National Broadband Plan noted, the big ISPs invested $48 billion in their networks in 2008 and $40 billion in 2009. (About half of this money can be chalked up to broadband; the rest of the improvements were done to aid cable or phone service.)

To recap: subscribers up, revenues up, bandwidth costs down, infrastructure costs down. This might seem like a textbook case of “viability”; what were execs like Britt and Hobbs talking about last year when data caps were held up as a necessary safeguard against doom?

Before moving to Time Warner’s Excuse-O-Matic, let’s pause for a moment and reflect on the fact this company has stalled more on Internet upgrades than virtually every other major cable operator.  Even bankrupt Charter Communications has been aggressively pursuing investment in the win-win DOCSIS 3 technology that allows cable operators to sell faster tiers of service -and- reduce congestion in heavy web-surfing neighborhoods.  By effectively “bonding” several cable channels devoted to its broadband service together, the pipeline into even the most hip college neighborhoods can sustain a full-scale assault by Hulu fans streaming high bandwidth video.  Comcast realized this more than two years ago and rolled out its super-fast 50Mbps tier to a dozen cities well over a year ago.  In contrast, Time Warner Cable managed to bring forth its “wideband” offering in just a handful of communities — New York City being the largest, last year.

Internet providers always try to awe an audience with claims about the billions of dollars they invest in improved technology, while forgetting to mention they earn tens of billions in profit on those investments.  The shock and awe of stacks of money piled high on a table is tempered when you see the warehouse holding the rest of the cash standing behind it.

Broadband is becoming the single biggest revenue source for cable operators, passing digital phone and well on the way to passing cable television service.  It’s the cash cow that can be milked forever, especially with the limited number of choices most Americans have to obtain the service.

Back to Nate’s story:

Several months ago, while on a business trip to Manhattan, I entered a nondescript building near the Flatiron building and rode the elevator to the top. Inside was one of TWC’s main New York operations centers, hosting an astonishing array of cable and Internet gear. But the real showpiece was the monitoring room, a darkened room with control hardware, computers, and a wall of TVs showing every cable channel currently running out over TWC’s network.

It looked brand new and obscenely expensive. Engineers slipped in and out in silence. A huge pile of boxes on the floor held a new set of replacement TVs. When I make my career shift from ink-stained wretch to Evil Genius, this is exactly the sort of room I will build in order to plot my world domination.

“It’s not a cheap endeavor to run a network like we do,” said TWC’s tweeting VP of Public Relations, Alex Dudley, when I had spoken to him the week before. Here was an obvious reminder of what he meant.

Time Warner Cable’s version of a command and control center, wall after wall fitted for television sets — the Time Warner Cable Sports Bar — impresses only until you realize the company could have paid for it out of the petty cash box.  It’s obvious nobody was watching those televisions last spring as wide-scale protests erupted in four of the cities Time Warner Cable chose for their experimental pricing project.  If they had, they would have apologized to their customers and buried the idea then and there.

At this point, Mr. Anderson began the useless attempt to debate Mr. Dudley, whose job is to sell the agenda of Time Warner Cable (and obfuscate when necessary).  Why has Time Warner Cable’s senior management held onto its dreams of Internet Overcharging like a pit bill, refusing to let go, Anderson asked.  Because of labor costs, Dudley replied.

As Internet use increases, TWC techs, engineers, and executives need to make adjustments such as DOCSIS upgrades at the cable company headend or “node splits” that divide a shared cable loop in two when bandwidth use hits certain metrics. Paying all of these people costs money, and those costs increase as the network is more heavily used.

Last April, when Time Warner Cable was relying on its tweeters like TWCAlex to spin a tale about how their Internet Overcharging schemes would benefit customers and help pay for DOCSIS 3 upgrades (which ended up bypassing cities like Rochester, N.Y., and went to New York City instead — where no such pricing scheme was tested), Alex’s bosses were just completing a layoff of some 1,250 Time Warner Cable employees.  As Internet use was increasing, Time Warner Cable was decreasing the number of its employees from coast to coast.

If Alex is telling the truth, Time Warner Cable needs an employment fund from 8.9 million customers.  Considering many Time Warner Cable cities raised the price on Road Runner service by $5 a month this year, that’s $240 million dollars a year to get the pot started and I’m only counting four million of those subscribers.  If Time Warner Cable hired back those 1,250 former employees, they could each get $192,000 a year from that kitty.  Implement Internet Overcharging schemes that could triple consumers’ rates for an equivalent level of service and they could earn as much as CEO Glenn Britt and then some.

I’m also uncertain how often Time Warner Cable executives are shimmying up phone poles or clearing out wasp nests inside those green cabinets positioned all over town while performing service upgrades and node splits.  It’s far more likely they are spending their time dreaming up new excuses to raise cable rates.

Please deposit 25 cents for the next megabyte of usage

This latest excuse, while certainly novel, is just another bit of nonsense.

Time Warner Cable actually spent more money last year dealing with HD channel rollouts and upgrading their cable systems to support Switched Digital Video to accommodate them.  The company did not exactly slap limits on how often cable viewers can leave their sets on, nor pitted their average TV viewers against viewing piggies who watched too much.  Maybe the coin slot on top of the cable box can be tried in 2011.

In fact, as broadband equipment continues to become more reliable and scaled to manage growing demand, it’s becoming easier than ever to keep broadband lines humming at the cable company.  That leaves Time Warner in the envious position of enjoying increasing profits on service that increases in price while decreasing in cost.  In fact the only thing growing at a faster pace than the company’s broadband profits is the level of incredulity informed consumers have towards cable companies with long lists of excuses to justify rape and pillage pricing.

No matter what Time Warner Cable executives want you to believe, the FCC noted in its broadband plan that international bandwidth has grown 66 percent each of the last five years, all while the costs have dropped by 22 percent per year to handle that traffic.

Consumers do not want these Internet Overcharging schemes.  Time Warner Cable should do itself a favor and drop them, once and for all, just as they have done for their Road Runner Mobile service.  If 3G/4G wireless broadband from Time Warner comes without usage caps, why in the world should cable broadband be any different?

Inouye

Three senior Democrats on the Senate Commerce Committee have characterized the Federal Communication Commission’s national broadband expansion plans as inadequate — firmly rooting America as second class citizens in a global broadband market.

In three separate letters to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the senators criticized the chairman’s plan for broadband targets set too low, both in vision and in speed.

Genachowski’s plan calls for Americans to have universal access to at least 4/1Mbps service no later than 2020, a goal Genachowski described as “an aggressive target.”

But in a letter obtained by CQ, Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) noted that such speed goals were set low in comparison to other countries, many of which are on target to achieve 100Mbps broadband well before 2020.

“What is the FCC’s rationale for a vision that appears to be firmly rooted in the second tier of countries?” Inouye wrote.

Begich

Senator Mark Begich (D-Alaska) wanted to know how Genachowski settled for 4Mbps download speed, noting that seemed to him to be too modest.

In fact, speed goals in the National Broadband Plan were a major point of contention in the National Broadband Plan, with lobbyists from AT&T and Verizon pushing hard for the lowest possible speed goals.  That is because they are the largest traditional landline providers saddled with aging copper wire networks which provide broadband to most rural Americans through DSL.  Most Americans living outside of major population centers rely on phone company-delivered DSL service typically speed rated at 768kbps-3Mbps.  Because DSL service is distance sensitive, a speed target of just 4Mbps requires a considerably lower investment than a target of 20Mbps or higher.  It is likely 100Mbps service, outlined as a goal for at least 100 million Americans, will first be achieved through fiber and cable networks in large cities, and not from phone company DSL service.

The difficulty for rural Americans to achieve a fair shake in broadband was highlighted by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota).  He cited his state’s poor ranking — 42nd in broadband speed, as evidence Americans in rural states suffer with considerably lower quality broadband service.  The FCC’s National Broadband Plan, Dorgan fears, may only recreate the digital divide, only with different levels of speeds.

Dorgan

If 100 million Americans can access broadband services at 100Mbps, a rural speed target of 4Mbps will make new, high bandwidth-dependent Internet services just as off-limits to rural America as basic broadband is today in many areas.

Genachowski promised to review broadband speed targets every four years, making adjustments when necessary to be certain rural Americans receive broadband service comparable to urban areas.

But with the wide disparity in speed goals for urban and rural America, that may be impossible in the short term, especially as telecom industry lobbyists continue to pressure Congress for less regulation and no government mandates.

AT&T’s hurry to end unlimited wireless data plans for its customers, many of which are using popular Apple iPhone and iPad devices, signals AT&T’s overburdened network can no longer handle customer demand.  With the threat of even higher data usage from today’s release of the next generation iPhone, which will highlight bandwidth-intensive video conferencing and streaming, AT&T put the brakes on before new customers even activate their new phone.

With a penalization program in place, AT&T is sending a message to customers contemplating owning the newest generation of smartphones that its network is in no position to actually provide service to those devices, particularly bandwidth-heavy video streaming.

Customers who dare use these video streaming services face the prospect of paying an overlimit fee up to $15 for just 200 megabytes of data.  That’s a compelling reason to think twice about every high bandwidth application. And that may be exactly the point for a network that suffers from congestion problems in several major American cities.

AT&T has consistently ranked at the bottom of consumer surveys done by credible organizations like Consumer Reports, typically because of network capacity issues.  Yet the carrier also charges, on average, the highest out-the-door price among the four major carriers — an average of $134 a month for a two-phone plan with a data package.  That’s $20 higher than either T-Mobile or Sprint, eight dollars more than Verizon Wireless.

Ranked rock-bottom for voice quality, downright lousy for customer service, and only average for its other services, AT&T has simply not kept up.  Yet AT&T raked in more than 13 billion dollars in profits in wireless last year.  The New York Times reports AT&T has at least 33 million smartphone customers, many committed to AT&T’s required $30 data plan.  That represents more than $900 million dollars per month in revenue — $10.8 billion dollars annually, and that’s for data services alone.

Yet the percentage of the company’s investments committed to expanding its network, measured under AT&T’s 2009 annual financial report, has not kept up with its enormous iPhone customer base, on AT&T’s network since 2007.

Source: AT&T's 2009 Annual Report -- AT&T's capital investments in its network and service don't keep up with the enormous increase in its Apple iPhone customer base introduced to AT&T service. Last year showed a dramatic reduction in investment when compared with 2008. AT&T is not exactly plowing all of its wireless profits back into its wireless business.

According to TownHall Investment Research, between January 2006 and September 2009, AT&T spent about $21.6 billion, or $308 per subscriber, on its wireless network. During that same period, Verizon Wireless spent about $25.4 billion, or nearly $353 per subscriber.  Verizon has outspent AT&T each of the past three years on service upgrades without the revenue benefits a stampede of iPhone-owning customers brings.  That gap has now grown into a nearly $4 billion dollars difference between the two providers in infrastructure upgrades.

“This is the story of a wireless carrier that is determined not to invest enough to meet the demand of users, but has decided to manage its network as a scarce resource,” says Chris Riley, policy counsel for Free Press. “This is what Wall Street loves: Reduce your expenditures and increase your revenues.”

In a barely competitive wireless marketplace, AT&T can afford to force customers to pay dramatically higher data costs in the months and years ahead, especially for iPhone customers who must use AT&T if they want a subsidized phone.  Even if a customer leaves, AT&T will earn up to $325 in cancellation penalties.

That iPhone exclusivity agreement with Apple has been an unlimited goldmine for AT&T. AT&T’s wireless business drives AT&T’s overall profitability, generating 57 percent of its operating income according to Gerard Hallaren, director of research at TownHall.

AT&T’s days of unlimited wireless data plans for smartphone customers officially end June 7th when the company launches new wireless data plans that all come with usage caps attached:

• DataPlus $15 a month and limited to 200 megabytes  of data.  If you exceed it, your overlimit penalty is $15, good for an additional 200 megabytes.
• DataPro $25 a month gets you just 2 gigabytes of data.  The overlimit penalty for those exceeding it is $10 which buys an additional 1 gigabyte of usage.

AT&T Smartphone customers will also be able to add tethering under the $25 DataPro plan for an extra $20 per month, with DataPro’s usage allowance applied.

Current AT&T customers can remain on their current unlimited Smartphone data plan indefinitely, even if they change or upgrade phones according to AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel.  That concession probably helps AT&T preserve anticipated demand for next week’s new iPhone launch.  Without it, customer demand could be tempered by the realization a phone upgrade could cost you your $29.99 unlimited usage plan.  If you were considering getting an AT&T phone with unlimited data, you have until June 6th to sign up for service under that plan.  After that date, you’re out of luck indefinitely.

AT&T is promoting the end of unlimited wireless broadband as a benefit to customers, claiming that 98 percent of its Smartphone customers use on average less than 2GB of data per month.  But that represents today’s usage.  AT&T’s decision to eliminate an unlimited option they claim 98 percent of their customers never exceeded would be curious without understanding the next generation of Smartphones will provide dramatic improvements in high bandwidth video streaming that will dramatically start eating into those low usage allowances.  The company’s next generation of faster wireless broadband will also include low limit plans, which makes them untenable as a home broadband replacement for all but the most casual users.

For new iPad customers, the $25 per month 2 GB plan will replace the existing $29.99 unlimited plan. iPad customers will continue to pre-pay for their wireless data plan and no contract is required. Existing iPad customers who have the $29.99 per month unlimited plan can keep that plan or switch to the new $25 per month plan with 2 GB of data.

AT&T offers up the common practice of boasting about how much you can do with a usage-limited account, based on the thousands of e-mails you'll never send, the 500 pictures you'll never take, or the 20 - one minute YouTube clips you'll never watch. Notice they never seem to include figures for streaming multimedia applications like music, movies, and TV shows or playing more bandwidth-intensive games. To do so would only upset customers further.

AT&T says customers can continue to use unlimited amounts of data when they access it over the company’s Wi-Fi network hotspots.

Wall Street is happy with AT&T’s elimination of unlimited plans, sensing higher profits and reduced costs will follow.

“The new plans appear well designed to reduce undue network stresses,” Craig Moffett, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein told The Wall Street Journal.

Analyst Philip Cusick at Macquarie Securities also told the Journal AT&T may see lower growth in data revenue in the short term as a result of the new changes, but will gain leverage over the heaviest data users, improving its ability to manage its network and charge for capacity. Tiered plans may also pull more customers into data plans, he said.

But because current customers can choose to remain on the grandfathered unlimited plan, existing heavy data users accused of chewing up AT&T’s wireless network can continue to do so as long as they remain customers.  AT&T will only be capping future customers who sign up on or after June 7th.

For those outraged by AT&T’s decision, fleeing to Verizon Wireless for unlimited data may not be an option for too much longer either.

Verizon Wireless Chief Executive Lowell McAdam indicated in an interview with the Journal last month that he, too, is looking at pricing based on use.

“The old model of one price plan per device is going to fall away,” McAdam told the newspaper, adding that he expects carriers to take an approach that targets a “bucket of megabytes.”

One company that doesn’t plan to end an all-you-can-eat wireless data buffet is Sprint, which now sees its unlimited data plan as a potential marketing asset.

A Sprint spokesperson spoke the words you were already thinking:

“We’re giving customers a better value. With data usage growing, customers don’t want to worry about going over their limits.”

Some customers upset that AT&T only sold an unlimited plan welcomed the lower cost options because they didn’t spend a lot of time using the data features of their phones, but several wondered why the company didn’t simply introduce lower cost options -and- leave the unlimited plan in place for those who wanted it.

Overall, AT&T is getting an earful from angry customers over the announcement — even those who don’t exceed 2GB per month.  They sense greed and overcharging.   A sampling:

If 3% are using data “a lot” now, then in another two years, it’ll be 15% and then 60%. Simply put, this is gouging customers, where pricing is decided by dudes in a board room looking at charts and graphs and sales numbers, figuring out how to gouge people for maximum profit.

Obviously AT&T is killing the unlimited plan to cut down on usage and to raise their profits. I also believe it is heavy handed to eliminate the unlimited access plan. If anything, offer other plans and raise the price of the unlimited plan. It will be interesting to see of the other players follow suit and also kill their unlimited plans (can you say “price fixing”? Sure you can!).

AT&T is always full of good ideas, like that Microcell thing. Hey, we can’t give you good service you paid for, so we are going to ask you for more money for this piece of equipment to supplement the service you are not getting.

Just another greedy ploy to make more money. They are selling air. The charges are ridiculous and this is one industry that should be under government control.

My spouse and I pay half of what AT&T would charge us for excellent Palm smartphones on Sprint. We also get turn-by-turn GPS included–something AT&T AND Verizon both charge extra for. Sprint’s network is top-notch. I can’t fathom why people continue to waste money on Verizon and AT&T.

If you’ve got a smartphone or you tether your computer, you really have no idea how much bandwidth your device is consuming. Even worse (or better if you are the phone company) customers can’t control the bandwidth that their devices consume. How often does your email client check for new messages? Can you even stop your computer from downloading a security update? What about that last application you installed, can you stop it from calling home every time you launch it? Do you even know that it does track and report your usage? That’s a huge difference between phone services and data services. You KNOW when you’ve dialed a number and talked for 10 minutes. You can’t control all the data consuming applications and services on your devices… and trying to bill customers for something that they can’t control the usage or cost must be illegal. Surely someone will address this problem soon. Surely.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN ATT Goodbye to unlimited data 6-2-10.flv[/flv]

CNN Money reports on AT&T saying goodbye to unlimited data plans for iPhones and iPads.  (1 minute)