Netflix and consumer groups like Free Press are unimpressed with Comcast’s announcement they plan to experiment with an increased usage cap in some markets and temporarily eliminating it in others.

A Netflix spokesperson issued a statement that says the company has dodged the real issue: discrimination against its traffic, which counts towards whatever Comcast usage cap the company eventually settles on, and doesn’t count towards Xfinity TV, which the cable company owns.

“Increasing the data cap is a small step in the right direction, but unfortunately Comcast continues to treat its own Internet delivered video different under the cap than other Internet delivered video,” says the Netflix statement. “We continue to stand by the principle that ISPs should treat all providers of video services equally.”

Free Press and Stop the Cap! share the belief the company’s usage caps are arbitrary and unnecessary and should be eliminated completely.

“Comcast has never had any legitimate reason to cap its Internet customers, and today’s announcement of new overage charges is just another example of the cable giant’s efforts to discriminate against and thwart online video competition,” said Free Press policy adviser Joel Kelsey. “Data caps are not a reasonable or effective way to manage capacity problems, which are virtually non-existent for Comcast.”

Kelsey also believes Comcast is still trying an end run around Net Neutrality.

“While the move to increase its caps is overdue, the notion that Comcast would charge an exorbitant rate for additional bandwidth — while continuing to exempt its own traffic under its Xbox deal — illustrates that Comcast is really trying to discourage subscribers from experimenting with online video alternatives,” Kelsey said. “We call on Comcast to drop the caps and these exorbitant overage fees entirely.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Berg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our View

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

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

Berg provides an example:

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

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

You can’t have it both ways, guys.

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

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

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

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

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

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cox Ads 5-2012.flv[/flv]

Cox Cable has slammed its phone company competition in a series of new TV commercials that call out antiquated and slow DSL. But customers switching to Cox have to endure that company’s unjustified Internet Overcharging schemes.  Cox arbitrarily limits your Internet usage in an effort to maximize profits and reduce costs.  Watching the online video Cox advertises could put you perilously close to your monthly allowance. Exceed it once too often and you may find your account shut off.

Cox executives promise they’ll listen to customers and what they want. Stop the Cap! urges you to participate in our pushback against Cox usage caps. Tell the cable company it does no good selling their broadband service for online video when the company threatens to shut it down if you watch “too much.”  (2 minutes)

Wall Street analysts are predicting the end of free video streaming in the near-term as media and cable companies regain control over online content for themselves.

Cable companies are partnering with content producers to move a growing amount of streamed video content behind paywalls in an effort to protect their core business profits.

The trend is evolving so rapidly, analysts like Laura Martin with Needham & Co. predict the end of free streaming is imminent.  Either customers will pay upfront or use TV Everywhere “authentication platforms” that require evidence of a pay television subscription before being able to watch.

Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford Bernstein, perennially sees cable operators as the most likely winners in the billion-dollar entertainment battle.

“They’re winning the broadband wars,” Moffett says of the cable industry. “Broadband is increasingly the flagship product, not the video distribution business.”

Cable networks and program producers are growing increasingly alarmed at the impact video streaming services like Hulu and Netflix are having on their bottom lines.

Case in point: the fall of Nickelodeon, a popular children’s cable network that used to guarantee high ratings and lucrative ad revenue.  Recently the network has fallen off the ratings cliff.  Some careful analysis found the reason why: Netflix.  Nickelodeon, along with many other cable networks, licensed a number of their series to Netflix for on-demand viewing. In households with young children, parents increasingly choose the on-demand Netflix experience for family viewing over the traditional cable channel.

Moffett

That’s a major problem for content producers and networks, and Moffett quotes industry insiders who predict licensing deals for Netflix streaming will increasingly not be renewed (perhaps at any price) as networks retrench to protect their core business.  What is left will soon be behind paywalls, limited to customers who already subscribe to a pay television service.

That line of thinking is already apparent at Time Warner (Entertainment), Inc., where CEO Jeff Bewkes rarely has a good thing to say about Netflix.  His company refuses to license a significant amount of their content for online streaming because it erodes more profitable viewing elsewhere.

Time Warner only licenses older content and certain “serialized dramas” that have proven difficult to syndicate on traditional broadcast television or cable outlets.  But the company keeps kid shows to itself and its own distribution platforms, like Cartoon Network.

When it does let shows go online, it wants them behind paywalls.

Bewkes applauded Hulu’s recently announced plans to move its service away from free viewing.  Authenticating viewers as pay TV subscribers before they can watch “makes sense” to Bewkes.

“Hulu is moving in the right direction now,” Bewkes said.

Big media companies do not want significant changes to the viewing landscape, where major networks front the costs for the most expensive series, and cable networks commission lower budget programs and repurpose off-network content.  Pay television providers bundle the entire lineup into an enormous package consumers pay to receive. That is the way it will stay if they have their say.

“Just because consumers would rather get individual channels a-la-carte, on-demand, and streamed — only what they want to pay for — [if they think] that is inevitably the way the world if going to evolve, not so fast,” Moffett said. “It may be the way consumers want it and it may be the way technologists want it, but the media companies have a say here.”

“There is no way they are going to voluntarily unbundle themselves,” Moffett said.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Moffett on Cable Operators 4-30-12.mp4[/flv]

Craig Moffett talks about the current state of the media business on Bloomberg News.  He sees trouble ahead for online video streaming, as powerful media and entertainment content distribution companies reposition themselves to better control their content… and the revenue it earns.  The big winners: Cable operators, Hollywood, and major cable networks.  The losers: Consumers, Netflix, Hulu, and free video streaming. (11 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Martin Sees End of Free Streaming TV Content 5-4-12.mp4[/flv]

Laura Martin with Needham & Co. predicts the imminent demise of free video streaming. Media companies can’t handle the loss of control over their programming, and the erosion of viewers (and ad revenue) it brings.  Martin tells Bloomberg News she sees a future of paywalls blocking access to an increasing amount of online video content.  (5 minutes)

Canadian cable, phone, and satellite providers have done a better job stymieing would-be “cord-cutters” than their counterparts further south in the United States.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) annual report on the country’s telecom companies shows all of them remain exceptionally profitable, keeping pay TV customers far more effectively than American providers. Total revenues climbed from $12.5 billion to $13.5 billion in just one year, as price hikes, Internet Overcharging schemes like usage-based billing, and lack of competition continue to takes its toll on Canadian wallets.

The biggest winners were the biggest telecom companies in Canada — Rogers Communications, Bell Canada (BCE), and Shaw Communications, which all saw profits soar 8.2% to $11 billion.  Costs increased about 10.7% in 2011, fueled by network upgrades and rampant hikes in programming costs — an interesting state of affairs considering Rogers and Bell own or control a substantial number of the programmers demanding higher payments.  Most of those increases were passed on to customers in the form of rate hikes.

Although Canadians are increasingly interested in streaming online video, virtually every major Internet Service Provider in the country has effectively prevented customers from dropping cable television service in favor of broadband-only access.  They manage it with usage caps and usage billing on their broadband products.  With streamed video accounting for a substantial drain on customers’ monthly usage allowances, Canadians are unlikely to cancel cable TV in favor of watching all of their favorite shows online.

In fact, the number of Canadian households that subscribed to a cable company’s basic television service actually increased by 2.8% in 2011 to reach 8.5 million.  Experts say the country’s transition to digital over the air television may account for some of that increase, but a few high broadband bills with overlimit fees for “excessive Internet use” can effectively drive online video fans back to traditional cable TV as well.

Satellite television in Canada remained flat,  with a virtually unchanged 2.9 million Canadians relying on Bell and Shaw satellite service for television entertainment.

But everyone is paying more to watch.

In 2011, cable companies paid $2.1 billion in wholesale fees to the pay and specialty services they distribute, an increase of 10.2% over the $1.9 billion paid the previous year. The fees paid by satellite companies rose by 2.8% in one year, going from $894.4 million to $919 million.

That leaves vertically and horizontally-integrated conglomerates like Bell in the perfect position to extract higher programming payments.  Those costs are passed down to Canadian consumers and blamed on “greedy programmers,” despite the fact those programmers are owned in part or outright by Bell.

A Rogers retail rental store

Rogers is also well-suited to remain a part of the Canadian entertainment experience.  The company owns cable systems, wireless phone networks, programmers, and even home video stores. However Stop the Cap! reader Alex notes Rogers has been closing a number of those video stores over the past few months.

“This gives customers one less choice for renting movies, basically forcing them to use Rogers On Demand instead,” writes Alex.

Rogers On Demand comes with a higher price, too.  In-store rentals from Rogers are priced at 2 for $9 or 3 for $15.  A recent look at Rogers’ video on demand website, Rogers Anyplace TV, shows most movie titles priced at $4.99 each.  With Rogers closing 40 percent of their retail rental outlets, movie fans have had fewer competitive choices for movie rentals.

One potential new contender coming to Canada – kiosk video rentals.  Although services like Redbox are now commonplace in the States, they are virtually unknown in the north.  Jim Gormley, former owner of Jumbo Video is back with Planet DVD.  With just 2% of Canadians renting movies from kiosks, Gormley believes there is plenty of room to grow, especially as Rogers scales back its video rental business.

Planet DVD has a pilot project running with supermarket chain Sobeys to place kiosks in front of nine store locations.  The first kiosk was erected in early March in front of a Sobeys store in Mississauga, Ont.

A new release at a Planet DVD kiosk is priced at $3 for a one-day rental.  That’s less than what most video stores charge, but more than double what Americans pay at a Redbox kiosk.