Mark Cuban, owner of HDNet, maintains a personal blog

Mark Cuban is on another tear this week.  Stop the Cap! reader Michael referred us to the latest.  This time it’s TV Everywhere, the cable industry’s answer to online video they get to own and control.

TV Everywhere is a concept put out by TV distributors that basically says that if you pay for cable or satellite, you should be able to watch the content you want, where you want. Everywhere. To some people this is not a good idea.  As is always the case,  many people think tv programming should be widely available for free on the internet.  Of course the content is never free. Someone has to pay to create it and we purchasers of cable and satellite services pay the subscription fees that pay the content companies and allow them to create all that content. Someone always must pay for free. Its unfortunate that there are some incredibly greedy people who think their entertainment needs should be subsidized. We aren’t talking healthcare, we are talking The Simpsons.  No one in the country has the right for their Simpsons to be subsidized.

I am uncertain why Mark is tilting at windmills here, fighting a battle with arguments that are beside the point.

He should know, as an independent programmer, permitting another cartel for video program distribution online has the potential to place control of that content in the hands of the pay television industry.  Agreements to carry a cable network on a cable system could easily become contingent on participation in TV Everywhere once it becomes more established.  Mark knows all about restrictive carriage agreements.  Some of his networks were trapped in a mini-premium HD tier on Time Warner Cable, despite his wishes to see them a part of the general HD lineup.  Once Time Warner Cable threw his networks off their cable systems nationwide, presumably so would go our online access to it as well.

For consumers, the basic concept of TV Everywhere seems like a positive development, if it brings online video content people want to see without charging them yet another fee on their pay television bill.  Consumers, raise your hand if you have a problem with more online video.

In fact, the loudest concerns about the entire endeavor these days are coming from the content producers and owners themselves.  They are the ones worrying about giving content away.

The Wall Street Journal chronicles the concerns:

While 24 networks are taking part in the Comcast trial, including Time Warner’s Turner cable networks, broadcaster CBS, AMC, BBC America, and Hallmark Channel, Walt Disney Co. (DIS) has so far avoided the “TV Everywhere” experiment because it doesn’t offer the Disney networks enough money in return for allowing their shows to be streamed over the Web.

“A new opportunity to reach consumers is very attractive … [but] we want to do so in a way that delivers proper compensation [to us] for that value,” said Disney Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs, who spoke at the Goldman Sachs media conference on Tuesday.

That brought out Jeff Bewkes, Time Warner CEO, who scoffed at the demands for compensation.  Bewkes reminded Disney who is paying the bills.

“[The content providers are] not the ones who are going to the effort and expense of making this possible,” he remarked. “The ones that are making this possible are the distributors – the telcos, the satellite companies, the cable companies.”

Second, nobody is arguing that TV programming should be given away “free” online with absolutely no compensation.  The existing online video models are primarily advertiser supported.  The advertisers pay the costs to make the service available, and viewers endure online commercials during each ad break.  Some networks want to cram a ton of ads equaling the number a viewer would see on their television (get ready for more Snuggie and door draft stick on tape ads). Others are more realistic and will place a maximum of 30 seconds of commercials during each break.  Finding the right balance will be important — too many ads and consumers will pirate the content to avoid the ads.  Run smaller amounts and consumers will easily tolerate them.

Third, nobody I am aware of is arguing TV needs to be “subsidized.”  What does that even mean?

Besides the skirmish between content providers and the companies that want to distribute TV Everywhere, the concerns I’ve seen expressed include:

• The concentration and control of online video content through a cable industry-controlled authentication system that is long on generalities and short on specifics regarding how it will operate.  How do non-cable subscribers get “authenticated.”  What procedures are in place to protect the competitive data other providers will have to share with any authentication process?  How about customer privacy?  Is there equity of access to TV Everywhere regardless of the pay television service the consumer subscribes to?
• The credibility of the broadband providers’ argument that their networks are already overcrowded to the point they must “experiment” with usage caps, consumption billing, and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  Apparently their networks aren’t nearly as congested as they would have us believe, considering the fact they are participating in a project to place an even greater load on those networks.
• Mark seems to support content portability, namely the ability for a subscriber to place that content on any device for viewing.  Good luck.  Content producers go bananas over content that can be downloaded and viewed on any device or computer, because such open standards are also open to rampant piracy.

TV Everywhere can be a consumer value-added service for pay television providers, if it’s handled in a consumer friendly way.  The cable industry does not have an excellent track record of keeping their customers in love with them.  My personal concern is that what TV Everywhere gives away for free to “authenticated” subscribers today will tomorrow be packed with advertising, carry an additional fee for access on your cable bill, and will be just one more excuse to try and ram usage caps and consumption billing down the throats of the broadband customers trying to take advantage of their broadband service.

Communications and Information Technology Minister Hon. Steven Joyce

New Zealand, long ranked near the bottom of the barrel in broadband according to OECD rankings, will embark on a $1.5 billion (NZD) national broadband initiative, with a publicly-owned fiber network as its hallmark.

The plan, which will give urban and suburban New Zealand residents access to speeds faster than commonly available in the United States, will reach three-quarters of the population within the next ten years.  New Zealand has discarded the “wait around for the private sector” approach, which has left the country with stiflingly slow and heavily capped broadband at high prices.  Instead, it will create an open access fiber optic network on which private providers can compete and offer consumers the speeds they desire.  Communications and Information Technology Minister Steven Joyce issued a statement explaining why the government was getting involved:

Private sector companies have decided, on behalf of their shareholders and as a commercial decision, not to invest in a nationwide network of fibre-to-the-home at this point in time.  The government understands this, and so wishes to assist and work with the private sector in improving the business case for ultra-fast broadband.

The government is also getting involved in order to encourage the provision of widespread open access dark fibre services, which will facilitate the best possible competition outcomes in emerging markets and encourage innovation in wholesale and retail services.

For residents in 33 communities across the country targeted for access to the new network, it cannot come soon enough.  For many of them the most important issue, even beyond speed, is an end to what one Henderson resident called “the current crap called ‘data caps.'”

“The speed of the broadband is meaningless compared to the tiny data caps involved.  On the current slow broadband, I use up my 50GB data cap 12-15 days into the month.  Ultra fast broadband would only be useful with no data caps involved, because the existing broadband speed is twice as fast as the cap already,” Lucy in Auckland told the New Zealand Herald.

Rose in Glenfield agrees:

“We have a 20GB data cap that we chew through in about 10-14 days, and then we are stuck on 64kbps or we have to pay another $30 for another 20GB to get through the rest of the month. When are they going to address these kinds of issues,” she asks.

New Zealand has seen the impact of Internet Overcharging schemes for years.  Providers originally introduced ‘data caps’ to reduce the usage on their networks, but have since relied on them, and consumption billing also as a way to collect revenue.  Most residential customers endure usage caps of 20-50GB per month.  After that, some providers dramatically reduce their connections to just above dial-up speed, while others have found new revenue by charging customers $2/GB or more in overlimit penalties and fees.  Some offer additional usage allotments, but at high prices, such as $30 for 20GB of additional usage.

The result has been a dramatically lower adoption of broadband in New Zealand, and many don’t think it’s worth the money.

John Rutter in Howick suggests speed is secondary to dealing with the issue of loathed usage caps.

“I like the idea of a ultra-fast broadband investment initiative but I hope Internet service providers like Vodafone, Slingshot, and Orcon will provide unlimited Internet soon. Unlimited Internet should come first, then ultra-fast broadband,” he said.

The government has received public support for its broadband initiative.  The public benefit is a much faster “public highway” on which private providers can offer service to individual customers.  By constructing a fast pipeline publicly that no provider is willing to provide privately, it creates additional value for consumers who find faster, more reliable service, preferably on better terms.

“Already a number of companies have shown interest in the government’s broadband initiative,” Joyce said in a statement. “It’s time to get on with finding the right partners to build these networks.”

The government “is prepared to accept a less than commercial return” from the partners. It aims to hold less than 25 per cent in the partnered investment vehicles and will resist contributions of more than 50 per cent.

For rural New Zealand, the answer generally won’t come from a fiber-based strategy, Joyce says.  Instead, the government estimates $300 million will be needed from public and private sources for a rural broadband plan.  Significant portions of New Zealand are difficult to reach with traditional broadband networks, and many New Zealand residents in even medium sized outlying towns find themselves on long waiting lists for what service is available.

Steve in Wellington told the Herald “a lot of towns (like Richmond, Tasman and Rolleston – not just remote areas) have issues where due to lack of exchange space many people cannot get broadband or are on ‘port waiting lists’ waiting for ports to become available. I think the main issue should be ensuring access to broadband full stop. Not just faster for those lucky enough to already have it.”

Rural broadband through wireless is one initiative under consideration.  WiMax technology can deliver fast broadband to rural area, often at faster speeds than traditional telephone company DSL in rural communities.

AT&T’s Definition of Broadband Suitable for Online Gaming

AT&T’s advocacy of a federal standard for lowest common denominator broadband has struck a nerve in the online gaming industry.  Stop the Cap! reader Lance noted in a news tip that the gaming industry is unimpressed.

Upset with AT&T’s suggestion that the Federal Communications Commission should accept a definition of broadband service that is merely suitable for basic web browsing and e-mail service, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), a trade group for the gaming industry, fired off a letter last week opposing AT&T’s bare bones approach to broadband speed and service:

AT&T argued that the baseline definition of broadband should not include what it characterized as “aspirational broadband services” and “myriad sophisticated applications:’ including streaming video, real-time voice, and “real-time, two-way gaming.” It urged the Agency to focus on more “meaningful” services, such as email, web surfing, interacting with Internet-based government services, and online education and training. According to AT&T, these are more pressing concerns for those who do not have terrestrial broadband access currently.

ESA agrees that such services are important. We disagree that the definition should stop there. Americans deserve a higher benchmark. Online video games are a meaningful part of our participative culture. They remove geographic barriers, connecting people from across the country and around the world. They teach cooperation, cultivate leadership skills, and empower users to express their creatiVity. Increasingly, games are used for training purposes and to educate students about complex social issues. If you are starting your gaming journey, get qwertybro gamer gear to have a good gaming experience. Entertaining does not mean trivial.

What AT&T describes as aspirational services are no less important to the future of the Internet than email and web browsing were to the past and are today. Whatever definition of broadband the FCC adopts, it should use a benchmark that opens the potential of the Internet to all Americans. Ultimately, consumers should determine what applications and services they find to be of value.

The ESA has a lot to learn when it comes to the broadband industry allowing consumers to determine what they want from their broadband service.  This is an industry that has several players that do not listen to their customers.  Instead, it engages in PR and astroturf lobbying campaigns to try and convince customers to accept the industry’s own agenda — higher pricing, less “abuse” of their networks, no government oversight or regulation, limited competition, and control of as much content (and the wires that content travels across) as feasible.

The type of gaming consumers expect from their broadband connection.

The ESA should not be surprised by AT&T’s desire to define broadband at the barest of minimum speeds.  AT&T still owns an enormous network of copper telephone wiring.  In rural areas, broadband service definitions based on the lowest speeds are tailor-made for the older phone system capable of delivering only slow speed DSL to consumers.  To define broadband at higher speeds would force AT&T to invest in upgrading its current infrastructure, particularly in rural communities.

Ars Technica ponders the question of whether online gaming is in fact “necessary” to consider when defining a broadband standard, and delves into a discussion about gaming and its value to society.  That misses more important points to consider:

1. With a broadband industry trying to design a broadband standard that is only capable of reasonably serving web pages, e-mail, and other low bandwidth applications commonplace a decade ago, will embracing mediocre broadband speeds help or hurt the United States and the increasingly important digital economy?  How many jobs have been created in new business start-ups that depend on leveraging a robust broadband platform in the United States?  What impact does a “go slow” approach have on American competitiveness and standing in an increasingly wired world?
2. What impact will this industry’s increased noise about Internet Overcharging schemes have on the online gaming landscape?  While many current games such as wager free casinos don’t use much data transmitting game moves back and forth during play, the software and its add-ons and updates can easily contribute to a bigger broadband bill when users update. If you love casino games, mpo888 stands out as a leading platform for online gambling, offering endless hours of entertainment. Even more relevant are the trials for the next generation online gaming services like OnLive, which consume considerable amounts of bandwidth from the moment game play begins.  The ESA would do well not to only consider the implications of slow, mediocre broadband service.  It should also consider the very real threat a heavily usage capped or overpriced consumption billing scheme would have on their future.  Will consumers play games that bring them ever closer to a monthly usage cap, or start a billing meter running the moment play begins?

This website is run on a voluntary and non-profit basis.  Our ability to reach you, the reader, comes as a benefit of an open and free Internet.  I can criticize and speak my mind openly and freely even about my own Internet Service Provider, because on today’s Internet the gatekeeper is your own motivation to write and publish content, and the motivation of the reader to consume it.

In the last few years, some Internet Service Providers have argued it is time to change this winning formula.  They are upset that groups and businesses are creating and distributing content over “their wires” without “paying a portion of the costs for those wires.”  No matter that you and I already pay those costs when we sign up for service with that provider.  Now they want content providers to be willing to pony up money to be assured that their content will reach you, the customer.  Don’t agree to pay?  They can’t guarantee your content won’t be slowed to a crawl by too many outside groups trying to use “their pipes for free” and you and I will be left with Internet service that provides super fast connections to those that pay, and a whole lot of waiting around to access those that don’t.

There is bipartisan support for the just introduced Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. It would finally make Net Neutrality the law. It’s urgently needed during this time of provider bad behavior, from Internet Overcharging schemes to efforts to control broadband content distribution. Our friends at SaveTheInternet have a petition to sign, but it’s also important to reach out directly to your member of Congress and tell them to support H.R. 3458. It protects the Internet as we know and love it today.

All-you-can-eat buffets, steak dinner vs. salad check splitting, electric and water service meters, toll highways with trucks vs. Mini-Coopers….  The justifications for Internet Overcharging representing “fairness” in broadband pricing have involved just about every analogy the broadband industry can come up with, all designed to make you think sticking a bigger bill to someone else down the street will somehow make your broadband bill smaller.

To convince sucker people into “billing fairness” that doesn’t actually reduce your pricing but could dramatically increase it is a tricky proposition.  To make it work, they have to convince you of a broadband boogeyman up the street who is using up all your Internet and making you pay for it.

As the Re-Education effort continues among the astroturfer and industry PR crowd, the one service broadband providers strenuously avoid comparing themselves to is your local telephone or cell phone provider.  That’s ironic, considering telephone companies move your calls around much the same way Internet traffic moves from point to point.  It’s the closest comparative service around, but your Internet provider doesn’t dare use it in their analogies, because the entire argument for Internet Overcharging schemes falls apart when they do.

While some in the broadband industry want to take your flat rate pricing away, the telephone and cell phone industry is working harder and harder to move to flat rate pricing. Many traditional phone companies now peddle their own unlimited nationwide calling phone plan for $20-40 a month.  Even some of the same broadband providers that want to take away your unlimited broadband service continue to mail blizzards of postcards and saturate the airwaves with marketing for their “talk all you want” unlimited phone plans.

In the mobile phone industry, an all-out price and feature war has erupted, as providers offer practically unlimited local and long distance calling.  No more buckets of minutes to count, no more overage penalties, no more worries about putting off calling until the evening or weekends to protect your minute allowance.

In the past week, major providers have fallen all over themselves with new unlimited calling plans.  Let’s take a look at today’s mobile calling landscape:

AT&T: Last Wednesday, AT&T launched A-List, primarily in response to Sprint’s new Any Mobile, Anytime (see below).  A-List lets customers add up to five numbers on an individual plan or up to 10 shared numbers on a FamilyTalk plan for unlimited calling to and from any phone number in the United States.  The new feature begins September 20, and customers can change their A-List members at any time.  Since customers often make the vast majority of their calls to a select group of people, it’s easy to get virtually unlimited calling that doesn’t exhaust your minute allowance.

Boost Mobile: Back in January, Boost Mobile, the prepaid mobile phone service using the Nextel system (certain areas also provide Boost on Sprint’s network), launched a $50 unlimited calling plan that also includes unlimited handset data use, unlimited text messaging, unlimited walkie-talkie use, no roaming, no hidden fees, no contract and no credit check.

Cricket: Cricket has always had a business plan catering to the prepaid user looking for generous or unlimited calling.  The company heavily emphasizes its package bundles, such as their $45 monthly plan that offers unlimited calling, unlimited text, video and picture messaging, unlimited mobile web browsing, and free 411 service.  The downside is their more limited coverage area, operating primarily for customers in urban and adjacent suburban areas, and providing almost no rural coverage at all.

MetroPCS: Similar to Cricket, MetroPCS aggressively prices unlimited calling plans and bundles in its more limited service areas.  For $40 a month, customers enjoy unlimited long distance calling, unlimited text and picture messaging, and web access.  That pricing is comparable to many wired phone lines with a package of phone features without unlimited long distance.  MetroPCS operates with a similar approach to Cricket – provide good coverage in the urban and suburban areas they focus service on, but usually ignores rural or more distant suburban areas.

PlatinumTel: Operating on the Sprint network, PlatinumTel is another prepaid provider offering unlimited calling, but with some important differences.  For $50 a month, customers enjoy unlimited calling to any domestic phone numbers, unlimited text messaging, etc.  But the service also provides unlimited roaming off their network, so if you get outside of Sprint’s coverage area, but are able to get a signal from another provider, you can still make and receive calls without incurring huge roaming fees.  You also get 100MB of included data (a small additional fee adds more data).

Straight Talk (from TracFone): If you’ve been to Walmart, you have probably seen TracFone phones and prepaid top-up cards at their stores.  TracFone is another provider that operates on someone else’s cellular network.  Their Straight Talk service operates on the robust Verizon Wireless network, providing excellent coverage in most areas except most of Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, Mississippi and western Texas.  A $45 monthly fee brings unlimited minutes and text messages, but only 30 megabytes of data for data-enabled phones.

Sprint Nextel: Already offering unlimited calling to other Sprint mobile customers, the third largest national mobile phone company last week introduced Sprint Any Mobile, Anytime. It allows you to call and receive calls from any cell phone on any network in the USA unlimited for free. You’re not limited to just one network or one calling circle. The feature is now automatically added to the Sprint Everything Data plans starting at either the $69.99. The plan also comes with unlimited text messaging and data. The new Any Mobile, Anytime will be especially popular with younger people who have already abandoned traditional landline telephone service and rely exclusively on mobile phones.  You literally cannot exhaust your minute allowance calling these people.  In fact, the only way to burn your minutes under this plan is to roam outside of Sprint’s network or call people on traditional wired phone lines.

T-Mobile: T-Mobile offers the myFaves Minutes plan, which gives customers unlimited minutes to any five numbers of your choice on any network, mobile or landline (excludes toll-free/900 numbers).  It’s easy to use T-Mobile as an unlimited wireless phone provider assuming the majority of your minutes are spent talking to up to five numbers every month.

Verizon Wireless: Already offering unlimited free calling to other Verizon Wireless customers (there are a ton of those), the company also introduced Friends & Family in February. With an eligible plan, customers have unlimited calling to a select group of numbers outside their standard mobile-to-mobile calling group, including landlines. This gives single line accounts up to 5 numbers to choose from on plans with 900 or more minutes, and family plan accounts up to 10 numbers to choose from on plans with 1,400 or more minutes.

Virgin Mobile: Virgin Mobile relies on Sprint’s network, and with Sprint Nextel’s planned purchase of Virgin Mobile, which the company hopes to complete this November, it may soon become Sprint Nextel’s in-house prepaid service.  Virgin Mobile introduced its Totally Unlimited calling plan on April 15.  For $50 a month, customers get unlimited calling.  For an additional fee, unlimited texting is added, along with mobile data options.

It’s difficult, at best, to make the kind of analogy the broadband industry wants to regarding “paying for what you use” when one of their closest cousins is competing hard to give you “all that you want for one price.”

Update: 9/15 — Jayne Wallace, a representative for Sprint Nextel, wrote to clarify “Sprint Nextel has not yet purchased Virgin Mobile…we do expect the deal to close in November. As of now, we are publicly held. Also since you mention broadband, we’ve also applied the pay as you go pricing here with Broadband2Go, the only nationwide prepaid broadband product available.”  The article text under Virgin Mobile has been adjusted to reflect the planned purchase.