A Facebook group has been established to oppose Clear's Internet Overcharging schemes

The clock may be running out on Clearwire, America’s “4G-WiMax” wireless broadband provider controlled by Sprint, with close investment ties to Comcast and Time Warner Cable, who both resell Clear wireless broadband under their own brands.

At issue is money — the lack of it, and the wireless company’s cash on hand has grown so perilously low, Clearwire was forced to admit to its investors it may not survive beyond the first half of next year:

Based on our current projections, we do not expect our available cash and short-term investments as of September 30, 2010 to be sufficient to cover our estimated liquidity needs for the next 12 months. We also do not expect our operations to generate positive cash flows during the next 12 months. Without additional financing sources, we forecast that our cash and short-term investments would be depleted as early as the middle of 2011.

The Securities and Exchange Commission rules governing public companies represent a public relations nightmare for anyone trying to put a positive spin on bad news, and Sprint chief Dan Hesse desperately tried to make lemonade out of the financial lemon Clearwire increasingly represents for the wireless company.

“If you get to the point where you don’t have 12 months of cash in the till, even if you’ve got negotiations going on, or what have you, you have to, from an accounting perspective, say you have a going-concern issue,” Hesse said. “That doesn’t mean that Sprint and other partners won’t continue to fund Clearwire.”

With Sprint’s 54 percent stake in Clearwire defining the entity as a subsidiary of Sprint, its demise could risk Sprint’s own financial well-being, something Sprint plans to address in 2011, potentially ending its majority stake in the company.

For Hesse and his cable partners, Clearwire’s financial problems are being spun as a result of the venture’s success.  The company says it cannot afford the rapid expansion it has undertaken to expand its WiMax network into additional cities across the country, and faces serious financial challenges from the subsidies consumers demand when buying smartphones.

Hesse particularly complains about the latest whiz-bang smartphones consumers demand, many costing upwards of $600.  Consumers in the United States don’t pay full retail price.  In return for two year contracts carrying steep cancellation penalties, carriers cut the price of most high end phones to $200 or less.

“Subsidies are going through the roof in our industry,” Hesse said. Nearly 40 percent of Sprint customers use the company’s 4G network, and that number is rising.

Revenues are up 114 percent from a year earlier to US$147 million. But Clearwire’s losses for the last quarter alone amounted to $139 million, or $0.58 per share.

As a result, Clearwire slashed 15 percent of its staff, laying off nearly 600 employees and has indefinitely suspended its expansion plans to bring the network to additional cities.  Clearwire will also shutter many of its planned retail outlets — some already built — and delay the introduction of its own branded smartphone.

But even that may not be enough.

Although Clearwire’s growth has been double the level anticipated, achieving a net gain of 1.23 million subscribers in the third quarter — reaching 2.84 million total subscribers, not all of those customers are sticking around once they begin using the service.

Complaints about the company’s poorly disclosed speed throttling continue to be a regular topic on Clear’s support forums.  At least 1,000 complaints have been logged on Clear’s own support forums and elsewhere online about the speed traps.  A Facebook group opposing the schemes has also been established.

Stop the Cap! filed a formal complaint with the New York Attorney General’s office accusing the company of false and misleading advertising and fraud for claiming customers would enjoy “blazing fast speeds” with no limits or speed throttling, despite the fact company officials later admitted they were throttling customers deemed to be “using the service excessively.”  Dozens of additional complaints from Clearwire customers have been filed with state Attorneys General across the country, as well as with the Federal Trade Commission in Washington.

Just how much is too much has never been made clear by the company, but many users report the speed throttle reduces speeds to 250kbps, often for hours at a time.

Clearwire told Electronista:

Throtting is based on the current utilization for each cell tower, and many low-use towers do not throttle speeds at all. For high-use towers, throttling occurs during peak-use times.

A customer’s maximum speed is based on the number of gigabytes of data transferred in the past seven days and the download speeds for the past 15 minutes. Speeds are recalculated every 15 minutes, at which point a throttled customer will be bumped up to a higher speed. Rather than implementing one speed for throttling, the calculations will move customers between 48 different speed brackets.

The worst offenders using peer-to-peer software on Clearwire’s network may face repeated throttling.

Clearwire advertises a faster Internet experience for their 4G service, but many report they receive speeds far slower, even if they have engaged in very little usage.

Many consumers are also unknowingly finding themselves back on Clear’s network even though they signed up with a third party provider.  Clear resells access to its network under a variety of different brands not limited to Sprint, Road Runner Mobile, Comcast Internet2Go, and Best Buy Mobile/Wireless.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Clear Speed Woes 11-10-10.flv[/flv]

This Clearwire customer visits a Clear hotspot location and discovers even on a Wi-Fi network, Clear’s speeds don’t match their advertising claims.  Then, he discovers just how sneaky Clearwire gets in disclosing important information about the company’s wireless speeds customers might want to know before signing up.  (5 minutes)

Peer to peer traffic no longer represents the largest single source (by application) of broadband traffic on the Internet.  Cisco’s Visual Networking Study now finds online video streamed from websites like Hulu and Netflix to account for more than one-quarter of all broadband traffic, displacing file swapping from the number one position.

File sharing activity has routinely been used by providers dreaming of Internet Overcharging as an excuse to introduce usage limits and throttled speeds for their broadband customers.  Peer to peer software allows customers to exchange pieces of files back and forth until everyone manages to secure their own copy.  Cable operators, in particular, have complained this network traffic saturates their shared broadband lines because customers upload far more data than they would without this software.  Up to 44 percent of all upstream traffic from residential accounts comes from peer to peer traffic, according to Cisco.

Providers and their friends have started to give up on their scare stories of peer-to-peer “exafloods” and data tsunamis triggered from too many online users engaged in file swapping.  As we’ve argued for two years now, the glory days of growth in peer to peer are behind us for a variety of reasons:

1. Downloading copies of TV shows and movies, always popular on file sharing networks, has declined now that content producers are finally serving the growing market for on-demand video programming;
2. The growing popularity of downstream delivery direct to consumers has reduced wait times for downloading to near nothing — to the point where some users are abandoning peer-to-peer altogether;
3. An increasing amount of fake files filled with viruses and spyware has made peer to peer-sourced files from underground websites more risky;
4. Copyright enforcement and other legal actions have made file trading less palatable for some.

While peer-to-peer traffic is still growing along with other online usage, online video is growing far faster.

Now some want to move the goal post — blaming online video for “forcing their hand” to implement overcharging schemes.

Broadband Traffic by Application Category, 3rd Quarter – 2010

• The marked categories contain video.

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports writes that he found Sanford Bernstein analyst and cable stock fluffer Craig Moffett telling CNET that if customers cut the cord, cable broadband companies will simply turn around and begin metering broadband customers’ bandwidth. In fact, Karl adds, Moffett goes so far as to insist ISPs will have “no choice” in the matter as streaming services like Netflix gain popularity.

Instead of simply raising prices on cable broadband, Moffett said it’s more likely that cable operators would move toward usage-based pricing. That way consumers who use more bandwidth to stream movies and TV shows end up paying more per month for service than people who may be getting their video from the traditional cable TV network. Time Warner has tested usage-based billing, but the company faced a huge backlash from consumers. Still, Moffett said that broadband service providers may have no choice as bandwidth-intensive video streaming services like Netflix become more popular.

CNET’s Marguerite Reardon calls that scenario a “heads we win; tails we win” situation, especially for cable companies.

Would you tell this man you are dropping your Comcast video package to watch everything online for free? (Neil Smit, president - Comcast's cable division)

Last quarter, some companies saw the number of subscribers actually drop for the first time ever.  Now Comcast reports in its latest earnings call the same thing is happening to them — losing 56,000 TV package subscribers during the third quarter.  Comcast surveyed some of their customers calling to fire their cable company.  Most of them are not switching to a pay TV competitor, said Neil Smit, president of Comcast’s cable division.  Comcast characterized them as “going to over the air free TV,” but would you tell your cable company you are dropping their video package to watch everything on their broadband service for free?  For a lot of cable customers, that would be tantamount to calling them up and saying you are now getting free HBO on your TV.

Both companies are still denying online video is cutting into their cable TV package business, but it’s an argument some stock analysts have begun to make as they watch cable profits struggling to hit targets.  Watching extra fat profits bleed away because “broadband piggies are watching all of their TV online for free” just won’t do for folks like Mr. Moffett, who will be among those leading the call to slap limits on broadband usage to protect industry profits.  Why leave good money on the table?

But before Moffett encourages cable companies to install coin slots and credit card readers on cable modems, he has another idea: jack up the prices of broadband higher than ever while cutting video pricing, making it pointless for customers to jump ship:

“Cable’s broadband dominance opens the door for renewed share gains in the adjacent video market,” Moffett said in his report. “Cable companies could simply increase their a la carte broadband prices (since in most markets, households have no other choice for sufficiently fast broadband) and simultaneously drop their video pricing, leaving the price of the bundle unchanged, to recapture video share.”

He pointed to an example of this in Albany, N.Y., where Time Warner Cable raised its broadband price by 10 percent for its Internet-only customers to a rate just $2 below its promotional bundled rate for both services. The Internet-only price increased to $54.95 from $49.95. The 12-month promotional rate for video and data was $56.95.

Of course, Albany has Verizon FiOS breathing down Time Warner’s neck.  In late October, Verizon announced it was launching its video FiOS service in Scotia, just outside of nearby Schenectady. Bethlehem, Colonie, Schenectady and Guilderland already have FiOS phone and Internet services available, so getting a TV franchise to deliver competition to Time Warner Cable isn’t a big leap.

In Rochester (where Frontier Communications idea of video is a satellite dish), a similar promotional package from Time Warner runs $84.90 a month.

Highlights of the Cisco Report

• The average broadband connection generates 14.9 GB of Internet traffic per month, up from 11.4 GB per month last year, an increase of 31 percent;
• “Busy hour” traffic grew at a faster pace than average traffic, growing 41 percent since last year. Peak-hour Internet traffic is 72 percent higher than Internet traffic during an average hour. The ratio of the busy hour to the average hour increased from 1.59 to 1.72, globally;
• Peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing is now 25 percent of global broadband traffic, down from 38 percent last year, a decrease of 34 percent. While still growing in absolute terms, P2P is growing more slowly than visual networking and other advanced applications;
• Peer-to-peer has been surpassed by online video as the largest category. The subset of video that includes streaming video, flash, and Internet TV represents 26 percent, compared to 25 percent for P2P;
• Over one-third of the top 50 sites by volume are video sites. There is a high degree of diversity among the video sites in the top 50, including video viewed on gaming consoles, Internet TV, short-form user-generated video, commercial video downloads, and video distributed via content delivery networks (CDNs). Video sites appeared more frequently than any other type of site in the top 50.

A firestorm erupted this week on Broadband Reports over news that Shaw Cable was turning its existing “soft” Internet Overcharging scheme into a “hard” system filled with usage limits and overlimit fees.  One of Shaw’s social media representatives tried to throw some water on the fire:

I’ve seen a lot of discussion here about the new policy, and quite a bit of inaccurate or incomplete information and speculation, so I’d just like to set all of this straight.

Essentially, the system works like this: your package includes an allowance for a certain amount of traffic. If you exceed that traffic for one billing cycle, you will receive a notice on your bill advising you of the fact. We also automatically activate your traffic monitor so that you can monitor your usage from that time forward.

Since the bill arrives, of necessity, after your billing cycle ends, we give you a cycle’s grace between the period when you exceeded and when we start charging. That is to say that if you exceed in billing cycle one, you’ll receive your bill part of the way through billing cycle two, and so we won’t start charging for excess traffic until billing cycle three.

As to how much bandwidth will cost, here’s how it works:

If you exceed your monthly traffic allowance, you’ll receive a bill for $1 per GB for Extreme and above, $2 per GB for High Speed and High Speed Lite. Considering how much media, etc, you can obtain in 1 GB, $1 is not expensive.

However, if you plan to exceed by a considerable margin, data packs are also available, and what these do is allow you to increase the traffic allowance by the following amounts:

• $5 for 10 GB
• $20 for 60 GB
• $50 for 250 GB

So this gives you the option to increase your monthly traffic allowance to meet your needs. It’s also considerably less expensive than the standard $1-$2 per GB rate.

The best part about the data packs is that you can apply them at any time up to three days before the end of your billing cycle. So if you discover that you’ve exceeded your included usage allowance, and still have three days to the end of the billing cycle, just give us a call (or chat) and ask that we add the appropriate data pack for you.

[…]I’ve seen some posts here suggesting that this new policy has been financially motivated to avoid upgrading our networks. That’s actually not the case. In fact, just a few weeks ago we increased the included usage for all of our services by 25%, just in time for NetFlix. If you want to think about it in financial terms, just consider how much more bandwidth the network would need to allow a 25% increase for every customer, and how much that kind of network upgrade would cost. It’s pretty clear that our motives are not financial. If they were, increasing the included usage would not be very sensible, would it? It would, after all, considerably reduce the number of customers exceeding their monthly traffic allowance, would it not?

I hope that this clarifies the situation, but if there are any questions, please do feel free to ask.

James – Shaw

Shaw tinkers with their Internet Overcharging scheme

In part, this rebuttal was also directed to Stop the Cap!, because we are actively participating in that discussion.  Shaw’s argument about usage limits and how the company’s implementation of them benefits their customers is familiar to many of our readers who fought off usage caps proposed by Time Warner Cable last year.  Somehow, the same company that sets unjustified limits and penalty prices on already-overpriced broadband service is doing customers a real favor by offering alternative pricing plans for heavier users that reduces war-crime profiteering to pickpocketing.

That’s logic Stalin might have appreciated, but most customers already burdened with high cable and broadband bills won’t.

Our response:

Don’t you just love it when Internet Overchargers always claim their new gotcha fees are never about the money?

“James” from Shaw offers a classic example of what happens when your broadband provider implements a scheme to boost your broadband bill and then claims it’s good news that the company has some options to keep those overlimit fees from stinging too badly.

When Internet Overchargers tell you it’s not about the money, it’s really ALL about the money.

Here's what happens when a third provider ruins a Canadian broadband duopoly

Who knew that an invisible border that makes unlimited Internet possible in Vancouver, Washington makes it impossible in Vancouver, B.C. Using Shaw’s argument, providers south of the border are headed straight for bankruptcy court while companies like Shaw barely hold on with “free usage upgrades” of existing limits.

But of course the financial reports for shareholders Shaw’s social media mavens don’t talk about tell the real story. Shaw enjoys considerable revenue from their broadband division thank you very much, and plans to do even better now that they can achieve ‘revenue enhancers’ from their enforced Internet Overcharging schemes.

That’s another way of saying Shaw’s Wallet Biters are back for more of YOUR money.

Whether it’s 20 cents per gigabyte (at least a 100 percent markup) or $2 (rape and pillage pricing), these schemes are hardly good news for Shaw customers. Indeed, if Shaw was truly concerned about saving their customers something under their cap ‘n tier regime, they’d deliver those “usage paks” to customers automatically instead of forcing them to call the company to add them when they go over the limit. If you remember to ask, Shaw gets extra profits they can take to the bank. If you forget, Shaw throws a Money Party on the extra high everyday overlimit rates.

What Shaw forgets to tell you is the cost to deliver increased usage and bandwidth to customers is ALWAYS dropping, and dropping fast. The price charged to move 10GB of traffic not too long ago moves 100GB today. So it’s hardly rough on Shaw to expand yesterday’s unjustified limit to today’s higher, still unjustified limit.

When one also considers yesterday’s “soft cap” is about to become tomorrow’s budget-busting “hard cap,” few Shaw customers are calling 1-800-FLOWERS to send a thank-you bouquet to Calgary.

Having been to Calgary, I know the people in Alberta and elsewhere across western Canada know a ripoff when they see one. They ask, “why is our broadband so overpriced and usage limited?” They wonder where the CRTC has been. They wonder why countries in Asia and even eastern Europe are now beating the pants off Canadian broadband with faster speeds at lower prices.

The fact is, Shaw pulls these overcharging tricks on their customers because they can. The broadband duopoly in Canada from cable and phone companies deliver punishing usage limits on Canada that are being banished in other countries around the world. Even notorious cappers like Australia and New Zealand are finally ridding themselves of broadband that is always capped, always throttled.

What would be sensible is that Shaw, a multi-billion dollar major player in Canada would plow some of their enormous profits into network capacity upgrades that can accommodate the needs of Canada’s growing knowledge economy, not inhibit its growth. Then, earn additional profits by selling even faster speed tiers and content customers can access over those networks.

Considering even Shaw admits only a small percentage of customers create traffic problem on their networks, it’s not hard to see the company’s new reliance on hard Internet Overcharging is designed to capture new revenue from those hitting their caps, thanks to the increasing number of broadband customers using their fast connections for high bandwidth content.

And hey — bonus: it also discourages those customers from even considering pulling the plug on their cable package to watch everything online.

Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, shows off the company's growing reliance on broadband streaming, moving away from its original DVD-by-mail rental business.

Last week, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings was showered with questions from Wall Street during the company’s third quarter-results conference call.  At the top of the agenda — the company’s shifting business model away from DVD rentals-by-mail gradually towards instant on-demand streaming over broadband networks.

At issue is how Netflix can survive a broadband industry that controls the pipeline Netflix increasingly depends on for its continued existence.

Hastings tried to assuage his cable competitors by telling investors the company is hardly a threat to cable-owned movie channels and basic cable.  But he admits ultimately the company will be in a real mess if Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles limit the amount of content customers can affordably access:

“We have some vulnerability depending on capped usage and what happens. Comcast has a cap, but it’s 250 gigabytes and so most users feel that they have an unlimited experience, and it gives us plenty of room to deliver a high-def stream. On the other hand, AT&T Mobile data on an iPad is now capped at two gigabytes, [and that’s] not enough room to deliver hours and hours of high-def.  We are definitely sensitive [to the issue] in the long term [whether] the industry ends up at 250 gigabytes or two at the other extreme.”

There is some limited evidence Netflix’s success in Canada is already being tempered by usage limits near-universally imposed in the country.  Rogers, a major cable company in eastern Canada, even reduced usage caps for certain tiers of service around the same time Netflix announced its imminent arrival north of the border.

Barry McCarthy, Chief Financial Officer notes fewer Canadians are converting their free trials of Netflix’s streaming service into paid subscriptions.

“We anticipate we are seeing slightly lower conversion rates in Canada than we see in the U.S.,” McCarthy told investors.

As Netflix moves towards higher quality video streams, the amount of data consumed increases as well.  In Canada, that eats into broadband usage allowances, and fast. As soon as customers start receiving warnings they are nearing their monthly usage limit, or receive a broadband bill with overlimit fees, Netflix is likely to lose that customer.

Cable and phone companies in Canada are already warning customers that online video is a major culprit of exhausted usage allowances.  Both are also happy to remind their customers they are happy to sell them access to unlimited video — through cable or telco TV subscriptions.  Rogers owns a major chain of video rental stores as well.

What can Netflix do about usage capped broadband?  Not much, admits Hastings.

“There is a not a lot of improvement in compression techniques. But what we can do is just deliver a lower bit stream, a lower quality video experience. So, for example, not too high-def. So, that’s one possible way to partially mitigate that impact,” Hastings said.

Netflix will soon face increasing competition, especially from the cable industry’s TV Everywhere projects, and they won’t deliver a lower quality video experience.

Time Warner Cable and Comcast this month both formally introduced their respective video on demand services.

Comcast’s Xfinity online service arrives after months of beta testing.   Comcast customers can watch video selections from nearly 90 movie and television partners, including programming from HBO, Viacom, and Paramount.  Ultimately, the online video service is expected to deliver access to dozens of cable channels and individual programs from studios and networks at no charge to those who subscribe to a cable television package.

Time Warner Cable took a more modest approach last week by introducing ESPN Networks to its cable subscribers who register with the cable company’s MyServices website.  The new customer portal allows subscribers to review and pay their cable bill, add new services (but not cancel existing ones), remotely program DVR boxes, and also verifies subscriber status for future cable subscriber-only online video programming.

Netflix may soon find itself at the mercy of the cable and telephone companies which deliver broadband access to the majority of Americans.  Not only is it difficult to convince customers to pay a monthly fee for programming the cable industry may eventually give away for free, it may be downright impossible for Netflix to survive if those providers decide to squeeze the customer’s pipeline to unlimited Netflix content.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast Xfinity Ad Spot 10-2010.flv[/flv]

Comcast Ad Introducing Xfinity Online.  (1 minute)

The Washington Post editorial page yesterday published a self-serving piece that openly advocated the approval of a merger between NBC-Universal and Comcast, creating one of America’s largest and most concentrated media companies.  But considering who owns the Post, the editorial might as well have been written by Comcast CEO John Roberts.

Containing only a non-specific disclosure that the newspaper “has interests in broadcast and cable television,” the editorial laments interference from “advocacy groups” that oppose the merger, claiming they are “poor prognosticators of the effects of large media mergers.”  The newspaper found no problems with media concentration in the United States, which itself should be an indictable offense, until one realizes the company that publishes the newspaper is, itself, a concentrated media company.

The Washington Post and Cable One are both owned by the same company.

The newspaper owns Cable One, a particularly nasty, low-rated cable operator that spied on its broadband customers and overcharges them for broadband service through a complicated Internet Overcharging scheme.  In fact, Cable One is the cable company that brought America the “$10/GB overlimit fee,” a low blow for the company’s customers on the so-called “economy tier,” which delivers pathetic 1.5Mbps service with a maximum limit of just 1GB!  This is the kind of cable company that proves sometimes dial-up service -is- better.

As far as the Post is concerned, the FCC will keep America safe from any uncompetitive market-power-enabled-abuses from a Comcast-NBC behemoth, itself a stunning statement from a newspaper that claims to know what is really going on in Washington.

Even our readers know complaining to the FCC about anything is like talking into a black hole.

When it comes to the Washington Post editorial page, profits come first, and Cable One can generate them with its own abusive pricing practices.

For the rest of the country, the irony of a dead-tree-format newspaper finger-pointing at advocacy groups (that don’t own cable companies), accusing them of getting the future wrong is a mighty rich irony.

The reality-based America I live in thinks media is already too-consolidated, too shallow, and increasingly abusive and too expensive.  The Post‘s advocacy of a mega-merger like Comcast-NBC only points to just how out of touch the newspaper is getting these days.  As Americans clamor for more media diversity, more competition, and more choices at lower prices, the Washington Post is just fine with the exact opposite.  But then you’d expect that from a company whose business plan depends on it.