Despite the loss of more than 128,000 video subscribers, Time Warner Cable more than made up the difference with rate increases on equipment, programming, and broadband to score a 23 percent increase in earnings in the second quarter of 2011.  For the period of April-June, Time Warner earned a profit of $420 million, nearly $80 million more than the same quarter last year.

Cable Television

Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt continued to blame the loss of video subscribers on the housing crisis and economy, suggesting the cable operator’s prices have gotten too high for some customers to handle, and they’ve disconnected cable television service as a result.  Britt also continues to downplay the impact of online video allowing for consumer cord-cutting, suggesting instead that increased competition from phone companies and satellite providers are creating a problem online video isn’t.

As a result, Time Warner is refocusing its efforts on marketing packages to three segments it particularly wants to attract — the very well-to-do, the Latino community, and the income-challenged.

Time Warner officials noted that many of their customers have continued to pare back their packages to cushion against the company’s rate increases.  For the last few years, consumers have cut premium movie channels and extra tier add-ons.  Now customers are targeting Time Warner’s DVR service as a route to a lower cable bill.  Many are returning their DVR boxes to save money, or are not keeping the service as a promotion expires.  Time Warner often bundles DVR service into new customer promotions for no additional charge.

For these income-challenged consumers, Time Warner is promising to develop new packages of services at reduced prices.  That likely means the expansion of the company’s “budget tier” — a package of selected basic cable networks, excluding expensive sports programming, currently testing in two markets for around $50 a month.

But the company is also reporting success with its wealthier customers, many who are adopting Time Warner’s super premium Signature Home service, from which the company collects an average of $220 per month per customer.  Time Warner is also ramping up promotion of its cable services to Spanish-speaking audiences in the Latino community — customers it may have under-served in the past.

The company also reported declines in video-on-demand revenue, principally adult pornography pay-per-view content consumers are now watching on the Internet for free.

Broadband

Among the brightest stars for Time Warner Cable continues to be broadband service, which is increasingly important… and profitable for the nation’s second largest cable operator.  With “pricing strength,” Time Warner has successfully adopted a series of rate increases for Road Runner service, increasing revenues along the way.  The company also reports success with its DOCSIS 3 rollouts, now reaching 60 percent of its cable subscribers.  CEO Britt says the cable company expects to complete DOCSIS 3 upgrades nationwide by the end of 2012.  A noticeable percentage of customers are upgrading to premium-priced, faster speed tiers as a result.

Despite the investment in DOCSIS 3, Time Warner Cable continues to slash the amount of capital it is investing in its network.  So far this year, capital expenditures are down 7.4 percent to $1.36 billion.  Chief Operating Officer Rob Marcus predicts Time Warner will spend no more than $3 billion on its systems in 2011, despite plans to continue broadband upgrades and convert their cable systems to all-digital operations.  So far this year, Time Warner has earned over $2.2 billion from its broadband division alone, up 9 percent from last year.  The company attributes most of that growth to rate increases and customers upgrading their service.

Other facts:

• Time Warner’s wireless mobile broadband has failed to spark much interest from consumers, perhaps because they realize it comes from Clearwire, a company Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt seemed unimpressed with in today’s conference call.  He made a point of telling investors the cable company is under no obligation to invest anything else in the venture;
• Time Warner Cable is taking a new interest in Wi-Fi, deploying networks in New York and Los Angeles, in the hope the company can boost interest in a “quad-play” of cable, phone, Internet, and wireless broadband/Wi-Fi that consumers have taken a pass on thus far;
• The company’s new super data center in Charlotte, N.C., will provide a national “head-end” for IPTV video, currently supplied from a facility in Denver.  This will principally benefit iPad users using the company’s app to stream online video.  The company hopes to eliminate regional and local distribution efforts as a cost-savings measure, consolidating national distribution through Colorado and North Carolina;
• The company’s next version of TWCable TV — the aforementioned iPad app, is due out in a few weeks and will include text searching for individual shows.  Whether it corrects the ludicrous inability for the app to consistently stream video is another question;
• Competition for new customers has been responsible for a number of disconnects.  One satellite provider is pitching Time Warner customers on a $30 a month video package that includes the NFL Sunday Ticket for free.  Verizon FiOS has increased its marketing of Time Warner customers, offering its own triple-play package for $99 a month.  AT&T U-verse has their own triple play packages as low as $89 a month, with a substantial mail-in rebate offer good for over $100.  But Britt warns the lack of change in the “average revenue per subscriber”-numbers from competitors probably means consumers are paying substantially more thanks to fine print-surcharges and fees;
• Time Warner is still trying to sign agreements for its TV Everywhere project, particularly for HBO Go, but the terms are evidently still not acceptable to the cable company.

Our earlier coverage, seen below, covers Britt’s remarkable comments about usage-based pricing.  He was certainly off the usual industry playbook today, even going as far as telling investors what we knew all along: bandwidth costs bear almost no relationship to the prices charged for broadband service.  That’s one we’ll tuck away and remember.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt highlights the results from the second quarter, covering cable-TV, broadband, and other products. July 28, 2011. (6 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

News Corp.’s Fox television network has announced it will erect a pay wall that will delay access to popular Fox shows for eight days after airing… unless you are an authenticated cable-TV or other pay television subscriber.

The announcement is the first among the major broadcast networks to keep cord-cutters and those who don’t pay for their television entertainment from conveniently watching shows online.  With most Fox shows formerly available for free on Hulu one day after airing, many viewers simply watch programs online, enjoying a reduced number of commercials along the way.

Now, viewers will have to wait a week before those shows become accessible.  Or, they can pay Hulu $7.99 a month for a Hulu+ subscription and watch right away.  Or sign up for cable television.

The pay wall will be introduced Aug. 15 and was constructed at the behest of the nation’s largest cable, phone, and satellite companies to stop consumers from watching shows online for free.  Local Fox stations don’t mind the change either, if it means you will watch your favorite shows on local stations instead of a national website.

Michael Hopkins, Fox’s president of affiliate sales released a statement explaining the change was designed to “enhance the value” of cable, satellite, and telco-TV subscriptions.  Cable companies have been upset about paying retransmission rights fees for Fox’s local affiliate stations, only to see the network give away programming, for free, online.

Hopkins

“We’re concerned that cord-cutting is going to be a problem,” Mike Hopkins, Fox’s president of affiliate sales, said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “The more you enable it by putting content out there for free without any tether to a pay-TV subscription, the bigger that danger becomes.”

If Fox is the first broadcast network to erect a pay wall, it likely won’t be the last.  Disney’s ABC is exploring adopting a similar strategy, and CBS had withheld much of its programming from online ventures precisely because it believes it dilutes the value of its shows.  It will likely favor a similar pay television approach.

For consumers, the details of how the pay wall will work could become problematic depending on their pay television provider.  DirecTV is quickly working to keep free access to Fox shows for its subscribers after the pay wall takes effect.  But some cable companies like Time Warner Cable have dragged their feet on TV Everywhere online projects, and subscribers, even with cable TV packages, could still find themselves locked out behind the wall, unless they also have a Hulu+ subscription.

The risk of annoying viewers by keeping them away from their favorite shows could easily spark a renewed interest in piracy.  With a commercial newsgroup account, access to peer-to-peer software or file storage sites like Rapidshare or Megavideo, bypassing the industry’s pay-walls is as easy as finding the shows viewers want to watch, legally or otherwise.

Time Warner Cable’s newest version of its iPad app — TWCable TV — has more issues than the New York Times.

Stop the Cap! previously judged the latest version of the app ‘garbage,’ and after several weeks of periodic testing, we’ve found nothing to change our mind.

Now the cable company itself is acknowledging what hundreds of reviewers have bottom-rated: it simply doesn’t work right.

We’ve identified a number of frankly aggravating issues that have presented themselves only in a live environment. Comment threads on Engadget, DSLReports, this very blog and others support our internal findings, too. If you’re experiencing the following issues, please be reassured that they should be fixed in an upcoming patch releasing by the end of this month at the latest:

• The app crashes after iPad awakes from sleep or lock
• HD filter returns incomplete results
• Intermittently, guide listings will overlay other guide listings (text appears overwritten and jumbled).
• The device selector slides off-screen or disappears altogether
• In-guide recording indicators do not appear

We’ve also discovered an intermittent quality issue with our live streaming that we are working to fix right now. This problem is independent of the release 2.0 code bugs, and will be fixed very, very soon.

The end of the month is a week away, and nothing appears to have been fixed just yet.  For Stop the Cap!‘s tests, the most obvious and aggravating problem continues to be streamed video that simply does not work for more than 30 seconds.  That such a core function of the product would remain hopelessly broken and unusable for almost a month is a profound embarrassment, tempered only by the fact the app and service is offered for free at the present time.

Time Warner Cable’s Jeff Simmermon tries to offer helpful, but very limited advice to the large contingent of users who find the app bug-laden:

Live TV playback – video buffers (displays “loading” message)

(Note, we are currently working to resolve an intermittent video quality issue that could result in excessive buffering of the live feed.)

Did you experience any video quality issues prior to the 2.0 upgrade? If not, has anything changed on the home network recently?

Simmermon

Download a speed measurement tool or visit an iPad compatible speed measure web site to measure speed on the device at the point in the home where live video is being viewed. TWCable TV’s high definition video streams require a sustained 1.5mbps to avoid buffering. Fringe WiFi areas (e.g., a far corner of the house, backyard, etc) may not achieve these speeds.

Contact customer care with a detailed report of which channels are impacted and the frequency of the buffering (e.g., every few minutes, every 5 sec, etc).

We reported this particular issue and note it is hardly intermittent — it’s a constant for us in the Rochester, N.Y., area.  What is particularly odd is the prior version never experienced any of these issues.  We’ve only received guidance that our home network — the one Time Warner Cable technicians installed themselves when we upgraded to DOCSIS 3 technology — might be responsible.  We think not.

Many Time Warner Cable customers have used the company’s blog postings on the app as an opportunity to vent frustration over the cable company’s foot-dragging on online video.  While other cable companies’ TV Everywhere projects are unveiling a second generation of online playback tools, Time Warner is still withholding HBO Go and CNN Networks’ new live streaming of their cable networks’ digital online productions.

One satellite television customer responded bemused with Time Warner’s technical problems: “My DirecTV iPad app just works.”

AT&T warns DSL customers they can watch 10 High Definition movies per month... and use their Internet connection for absolutely nothing else, unless they want to incur an overlimit fee of $10.

AT&T has released a phoney baloney video for their customers purporting to “explain” broadband usage and the company’s completely arbitrary usage limits on DSL and U-verse customers: “A single high-traffic user can utilize the same amount of data capacity as 19 typical households. Lopsided usage patterns can cause congestion at certain points in the network, which can slow Internet speeds and interfere with other customers’ access to and use of the network.”

Too bad these claims are not verified with actual facts.

Meaningless statistics

AT&T’s claim that less than two percent of their customers use 20 percent of available bandwidth is frankly meaningless to the company’s DSL and U-verse hybrid fiber-copper networks.  For years, phone companies made a marketing point that unlike cable broadband’s shared network, their DSL service was never shared with anyone else in a neighborhood.  Therefore, running it at a trickle or full speed ahead should have no impact on any other customer.  The only exception to this rule comes from phone companies that under-invest in their middle mile and backbone networks.  For AT&T, that means trying to serve too many customers on inadequate equipment ranging from a poorly planned network of D-SLAMs, which connect individual customers with a fatter pipeline back to the central office, or an inadequate network between the central office and AT&T’s regional backbones.  Fiber, such as that used by AT&T’s more modern U-verse system, completely solves any capacity issues.  Broadband traffic is only a tiny percentage of the bandwidth consumed by AT&T’s IPTV video service — the one that delivers U-verse TV to your home.  AT&T imposes no viewing limits on customers, of course.

Any actual capacity crunch would only show up during peak usage periods — when AT&T customers of all kinds pile on their broadband connection at the same time. AT&T’s usage cap regime does next to nothing to mitigate that kind of congestion.  Here’s why:

Since AT&T and other broadband companies routinely claim the average use per customer is well under 20GB per month, and only 2 percent of customers are currently deemed “heavy users” by AT&T, that tiny percentage of customers cannot create sufficient drag on AT&T’s DSL network even if they opened up their connections to full speed traffic.  In reality, the 98 percent of “average” users piling on the network during prime time would be the only thing capable of the kind of critical mass needed to create visible congestion.  What uses more capacity?  Two customers using their 7Mbps DSL lines to stream online videos concurrently or 98 customers all using their 7Mbps DSL lines at the same time for virtually any online activity?

The math simply doesn’t add up.

The Congestion Myth

AT&T targets their broadband customers with an unwarranted, arbitrary Internet Overcharging scheme they cannot effectively explain to customers.

As two week’s of hearings this month have demonstrated, Bell Canada’s similar arguments for its usage caps simply come without any evidence of actual congestion.  In fact, company officials modified their position to talk more about peak usage congestion, a problem that cannot be controlled with a usage cap well in excess of the average consumer’s usage.  In fact, only a speed throttle could control network congestion at the times it actually occurred.  AT&T also ignores when its customers are using its network.  Is a heavy user downloading files at 3 in the morning creating a problem for other users?  No.  Are the majority of their average-usage customers all jumping online after school or work creating a problem?  Perhaps, if you believed AT&T even had a congestion problem.

Industry maven Dave Burstein does not, and Burstein talked to two chief technology officers at AT&T who told him wired broadband congestion is a “minimal” problem for the phone company.

Upgrades and Cord-Cutting, Delayed

Two things usage caps can do is help your company delay necessary upgrades to meet customers’ broadband needs, whether they are “heavy users” or not.  AT&T has shown itself historically to be slow to invest, and cheap when it does.  AT&T’s wireless network is bottom-rated by consumers thanks to inadequate network capacity.  The company elected to upgrade on-the-cheap to an IPTV platform that still relies on copper phone lines to deliver service that simply cannot compete in quality and capacity with Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network.  But investors love the fact the company counts every penny, even if it means inconveniencing and overcharging customers for their services, usually offered in duopoly or monopoly markets.

AT&T’s usage caps on U-verse are even less credible than those imposed on their DSL service.  U-verse is a fiber to the neighborhood network with near limitless capacity for broadband and video.  In fact, the only “congestion” comes from the copper phone lines that limit how much bandwidth can be supplied to your individual home.  But no matter how much you use, you will not affect your neighbors because your copper phone line is shared with nobody else.  In fact, the biggest chunk of U-verse’s bandwidth is reserved for their video services, which makes arguments about excessive Internet usage on that pipeline un-credible.

What AT&T’s usage cap does assure is that you will not drop that video package from your U-verse service anytime soon.  That lucrative revenue from expensive video packages cannot be forfeit without a fight, and a nice deterrent in the form of an arbitrary usage cap does wonders to keep that cord cutting to a minimum.

Meters That Don’t Measure

One of the worst ongoing problems with Internet Overcharging schemes like AT&T’s is the broken usage meter.  Stop the Cap! has received hundreds of e-mails from AT&T DSL and U-verse customers who report AT&T’s usage meter is either unavailable, broken, or is wildly inaccurate.  With absolutely no independent oversight, and no consistently accurate usage measurement, charging anyone overlimit fees with a broken meter doing the counting is unconscionable.  Yet AT&T may well try.  The company has already been sued by one law firm for what it alleges is an unfair usage meter on the company’s wireless service — a meter that consistently overcounts usage in AT&T’s favor.

AT&T admits they cannot even accurately measure their own customers' usage.

Once getting over the broken meter, customers are directed to a pointless usage-estimator — the ones that tell you about how many tens of thousands of e-mails you can send and receive under AT&T’s cap regime.  In fact, these statistics are irrelevant for the vast majority of customers who never think of sending 10,000 e-mails or exchanging 2,000 pictures or songs.  That’s because customers do not use the Internet to exclusively do those things.  Even with the guestimator, they are left checking a broken usage meter to ponder whether or not they can watch one more show or download another file without incurring a $10 overlimit penalty (or more).  That “generous” limit AT&T touts suddenly doesn’t look so ample when the company gets to the wildly popular activity of streamed video.  AT&T’s own video warns you can only watch 10HD movies a month over your broadband connection — and absolutely nothing else.  No web browsing, e-mail, or photos or music.  Ten movies a month.  Still thinking of dropping your U-verse video subscription now?

Yet AT&T has the nerve to claim, “Our goal is to provide you with the best Internet service possible.”  Really?

Thankfully, not every member of the investor class is thrilled with nickle-and-diming broadband consumers for usage that costs the providing company next to nothing.

The Economist excoriated AT&T for its unwarranted usage limits on its blog earlier this year:

The use of caps allows providers to dish out bandwidth with one hand and take it away with the other. The companies have vastly increased the capacity of various copper, coaxial and fibre lines, but artificially separate out a portion—at least half and often much more—for video which a set-top box or a broadband modem spits out as an apparently distinct service. Cable firms simultaneously push out hundreds of digital channels, while telecoms firms rely on multiple digital streams from live broadcast or cable TV or on-demand pay-per-view. It is as though the water main were divided as it entered the home and a steady, modest stream was made available for showers and at the tap, while most of it was always at the ready for a coin-operated washing machine.

Increasing speed on the internet portion, which would allow consumers to give up on TV subscriptions, is balanced by capping volume. If a consumer does not monitor usage, his internet access can be withdrawn or, in AT&T’s case, overage fees of $10 charged for every additional 50 GB of usage. […] [That] $10 charge applies whether the limit was breached by 1 MB or a smidgen under 50 GB.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Usage.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s new video on broadband usage is based on facts not in evidence and only adds to consumer confusion about arbitrary Internet Overcharging schemes.  (4 minutes)

Netflix has dramatically raised prices for their customers who subscribe to both unlimited streaming and renting DVDs-by-mail, several months after their last rate increase.

The company today announced it was unbundling discounts for its plans that include both online video streaming and DVD rentals-by-mail.  Under the old pricing, customers could watch an unlimited amount on online content and still get one DVD at a time mailed to them for $9.99 per month.  Effective today, that same plan will cost $15.98 — a $6 monthly increase.

According to Netflix’s Jessie Becker, the company is effectively pushing customers through pricing to either renting all of their DVD’s by mail or going with unlimited streaming.  Doing both will carry a significantly higher price.

“We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into separate plans to better reflect the costs of each and to give our members a choice: a streaming only plan, a DVD only plan or the option to subscribe to both,” Becker writes on Netflix’s blog. “With this change, we will no longer offer a plan that includes both unlimited streaming and DVDs by mail.”

That’s not exactly true, however.  Netflix is still selling combined plans, just at substantially higher prices.  A three-DVD-by-mail plan that includes unlimited streaming used to cost $19.99 a month, but will now be priced at $23.98 a month, a four dollar increase.

The new pricing does not include the very steep price increases forecast by Wall Street for unlimited streaming.  Content creators, especially large Hollywood studios, expect to aggressively negotiate for dramatically higher fees to renew contracts for Netflix video streaming rights.  Most anticipate Netflix will need to raise streaming prices to cover those costs in the near future.

Customer reaction?  Overwhelmingly hostile, with many threatening to cancel service in favor of Amazo, Hulu, or even Redbox.

Among the comments:

◊ This is a 60% price increase. Netflix sure has some audacity to think they can get away with a 60% price increase in this economy. I currently have the $9.99 one-DVD plus streaming plan. Sept 1st I will have to pay $15.99 ? Not gonna happen. I’ll cancel one or both services. There are other options (I have Tivo, Apple TV, Amazon Prime, etc.) Netflix has peaked. They are going to blow it.

◊ You can spin this any way you want, Netflix, but it comes down to simple greed. With limited new content on your streaming service, I will be definitely be canceling that and will probably cancel DVD service as well just on principle. Time to sign up for Hulu Plus! Go ahead and change your name to Blockbuster, because with more stupid decisions like this, it’s only a matter of time before you go by the wayside like they did.

◊ 60% increase, practically overnight, to get the same service I get now? That sucks. If I rented more than one or two DVDs a month, it might be worth it, but I only use the DVDs as a fallback when the movie I want isn’t on streaming, and they often take several days to arrive. If you had your entire catalogue on demand, then I could pick between two options, but you’re forcing me (and a lot of other customers) to pay full price for both in the hope of getting one complete service. You already increased prices at the beginning of the year, and this kind of hike six months later is unacceptable. Hulu is starting to look very good.

◊ Congratulations. You’ll probably be losing our household subscription. We’re long-time members (since 2002) on the Unlimited 3-disc plan. We just started streaming more because we finally have a game system set up in the living room. However, with these “changes” we’ll no longer be able to afford both. So why bother to keep either? Thanks, a lot, Netflix. I really bloody hate you. And that’s sad because until this year, I didn’t have many complaints about your company. Why the hell can’t you just leave things as they are? If things aren’t broken, don’t fix them. 🙁

◊ The only way I will be sticking with Netflix then is if they offer newer titles and ALL titles in just streaming. Because I’m not paying 15.98 for what I get now at 9.99. This doesn’t make sense. THe only reason I signed up is because I thought “9.99 a month. I can do that.” but 15.98 a month with my minimum wage job, having to pay for college, gas, insurance, cell phone. I’m not adding an un-needed 15.98 a MONTH netflix bill. Count me out.

◊ So, my 2-at-a-time with streaming and Blu-ray plan currently costs $17.99 (up from $16.99 last year and $13.99 when I first joined in 2008). Under this new scheme, I get no new features or services, but I have to pay $22.98? Um, no thanks… I think I’ve had enough.

◊ The whole point is that we use the streaming primarily and only order a DVD when you don’t have it available for streaming… thus the $2 per month for DVDs makes perfect sense.  You guys have really messed up here.