Telephone companies will lose up to half of their broadband market share if they insist on sticking with DSL technology to deliver Internet access, according to a new report from Credit Suisse analyst Stefan Anninger.

Anninger predicts DSL will increasingly be seen as the “dial-up” service of the 2010s, as demand for more broadband speed moves beyond what most phone companies are willing or able to provide.  Credit Suisse’s analysis says DSL accounts sold in the United States top out at an average speed of just 4Mbps, while consumers are increasingly seeking out service at speeds of at least 7Mbps.  The higher speeds are necessary to support high quality online video and the ability for multiple users in a household to share a connection without encountering speed slowdowns.

A lack of investment by landline providers to keep up with cable broadband speeds will prove costly to phone companies, according to Anninger. He believes a growing number of Americans understand cable and fiber-based broadband deliver the highest speeds, and consumers are increasingly dropping DSL for cable and fiber competitors.  Any investments now may be a case of “too little, too late,” especially if they only incrementally improve DSL speeds.

Anninger says providers may be able to offer up to 18Mbps in five years by deploying ADSL 2+ or VDSL technology, but by that time cable operators will be providing speeds up to 200Mbps, and many municipal providers will have gigabit speeds available.

The impact on phone company broadband market share will prove bleak for phone companies in all but the most rural areas, Anninger predicts.  He says by 2015, cable companies will have secured 56 percent of the market (up by 2 percent from today), phone companies will drop from 30 percent to just 15 percent, Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-verse, and wireless broadband will each control around 7 percent of the market, with the remainder split among municipal fiber, satellite, and other technologies.

Anninger is also pessimistic about wireless broadband being a wired broadband replacement in the next five years.

A Credit Suisse online survey of 1,000 consumers in August found that less than half would consider going wireless only.  The reasons?  It’s too slow, too expensive and most plans have Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles.

Although cable companies are on track to be the big winners in broadband market share, still have one giant hurdle to overcome — a lousy image.  Just 36 percent of cable customers say they are “very satisfied” with their local provider.  More than 60% of FiOS and U-verse’s broadband customers said they are “very satisfied” with the services these advanced telephone company networks provide.  Consumer Reports has regularly awarded top honors to Verizon FiOS for the last several years.

Independent phone companies and smaller cable operators routinely score at the bottom, typically because they are relying on outdated technology to supply service.

This makes the marketplace ripe for disaffected consumers to jump to an alternative provider.  Unfortunately, as most Americans face a duopoly of the cable company they hate and the phone company that doesn’t deliver the services they want, there is no place for them to go.

Anninger also predicts the risk of broadband reform by reclassifying broadband under Title II at the Federal Communications Commission is now “minimal.”  That suggests Net Neutrality enforcement at the FCC is not a priority.  The Credit Suisse analyst says if action hasn’t been taken by winter or spring of next year, it’s a safe bet the Commission will never re-assert its authority.

Clear made itself unclear about its speed throttle.

Clear, the 4G wireless broadband service backed by Sprint, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable is under fire for selling customers an unlimited use/”no speed limit” service plan that is heavily throttled to as low as 250kbps once customers are deemed “heavy users” by the provider.

Stop the Cap! reader Kevin in Rochester dropped us a note to share his frustration at Clear’s bait and switch marketing that promises one thing and delivers another.

It’s becoming common knowledge – but not common enough – that Clear is throttling their in-home broadband subscribers. For $30 a month, Clear delivers “unlimited 3Mbps” download speed, but after 8-10GB of usage in a month, they cut your speed to 250kbps as a punishment.

Scores of customers share Kevin’s problems, with complaints pouring in on broadband forums and on Clear’s customer support website (which crashed earlier today).  It is not known whether these usage limitations are also imposed on Comcast and Time Warner Cable’s branded 4G wireless services, which are also delivered by Clear’s network.

Remarkably, Clear’s website has marketed its broadband service as free from classic Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles/network management:

Clear's own marketing promises unlimited usage with no speed reductions, unlike those "other" providers, which now also includes Clear itself. (Courtesy: Michael46)

Despite the marketing, Clear’s Rob Lenderman today admitted the company implemented a speed throttle system on Wednesday, Sept. 29 and placed the blame for doing so on peer-to-peer torrent traffic:

Last Wednesday we deployed a new automated algorithm that tries to even the playing field for all users. Essentially we tried to take users that were downloading large amounts of data over a week’s period of time and limit their top speeds during periods of high tower utilization. This system is based on a tower’s current utilization, GB’s downloaded in the past 7 days and current download speeds in the past 15 minutes. it recalculates your max D/L speed every 15 minutes based on these factors. All in there are 48 buckets of max D/L speeds based on these factors.

The expected results of these changes was that a small percentage of users would be slowed down for short periods of time but only during high utilization times on the tower.

Theoretically the very slow speeds would only last for 15 minutes and then readjust based on tower usage and the last 15 minutes of slower speeds.

The reality is that a very small percentage of users are being set at very low D/L speeds for hours at a time.

We are gathering more data as I write this and we are looking at adjustments to the policy so that the connection becomes more usable. Expect further details this week.

One thing I want to stress is that this algorithm does not apply to towers that have a low utilization which is a large percentage of the towers. Since high utilization is usually at night most users that are seeing slower speeds at night would see increases at other times of the day. We realize this is not ideal but using the system for large downloads outside normal usage hours(evening) will allow you to get higher speeds. This rule applies even if you are not being slowed. Fewer users = Higher speeds.

Expect more details in the next few days as we drill into the details and let you know what changes we will be making to make the experience better.

In the short term you can increase the speeds of your experience by reducing the number of GB sized downloads that take place. Our data shows that running a torrent is one of the reasons that people start to experience slower speeds.

[…]I use the word limit when talking about D/L speeds. Not in terms of amount of data you can download. I can assure you this is being handled at a very high level in the organization as some of the experiences some of you are having is not in the spirit of the program. As for using a P2P you will improve speeds if you run them at off peak hours. As tower utilization drops during those hours the algorithm will release more bandwidth and the apps will pick up speed. In addition fewer users will also yield an increase since the algorithm does not affect low utilization tower at all. So you get a double benefit from using off peak hours for large downloads.

We are looking at how to set the speed limits to ensure things like web browsing and youtube are useful even though large downloads may be limited in terms of speed during peak hours.

We are meeting every day to go over new data and determine a longer term solution instead of just throwing new solutions out there without putting some thought into them.

We apologize for this but we need to get it right and not just change for the sake of change.

RobL

Of course, customers promised repeatedly they would receive lightning-fast, unlimited wireless broadband from the company were unimpressed with the company’s argument that artificially slowing their speeds after as little as 20 minutes viewing Hulu or Netflix to 250kbps for several days qualified as ensuring the subscriber experience.  Many customers report Clear’s throttling is hardly limited only to peer to peer torrent traffic.  Online video streaming, in particular, routinely triggers the speed throttle for customers, something Lenderman admitted might be an issue:

We are looking at the impact of the new policy as we speak and will be reevaluating it shortly to determine what changes might need to be made.

The algorithm we use is complicated and is not intended to shut down users that use the service in a normal manner. It was intended to slow down usage from users that have bit torrents, etc running all day long.

For some of the customers that have complained we have researched it in detail and they were not being slowed by the algorithm. We have to make sure that everything is running properly as it makes no sense for us to limit users so much that the service becomes unusable.

We should have more info on what we plan to change in the next few days as we evaluate the data.

Clear becomes just the latest provider poster child for Net Neutrality in the United States.  While there may be reasonable capacity issues at stake on wireless networks not designed to accommodate 24/7 peer to peer traffic, throttling online video is another matter entirely — it’s one of the services Clear has promoted as possible using their higher speed network.  Artificially slowing a network the company sells as not being hampered by such traffic control measures is a classic case of false advertising.

One vocal Clear customer created this avatar

Customers have noticed and have attacked the company for dishonest business practices, bait and switch marketing, and violating their own internal policies.

Stop the Cap! has not seen any reports of company officials attempting to enforce early termination fees for those exiting contracts early.  Kevin noted his service was turned off as he was on the phone with a representative to process the disconnect request.  The representative also demanded Kevin return his modem.

Most who are dropping service are resuming service with their old providers, mostly cable broadband and telephone company DSL providers.  If online forum posts and Twitter tweets are to be believed, the company is losing hundreds of customers per day over their Internet Overcharging scheme.

Most likely, Clear has turned to vendors like Sandvine for “usage management” equipment that can automatically slow service for those who actually utilize the service they pay to receive.

“It is no longer about the broadband-connected home but about the broadband-connected individual,” said Tom Donnelly, EVP marketing and sales, Sandvine. “Service providers worldwide are looking for tools that enable their subscribers to stay within their service plans regardless of when, where or how they connect to the network.”

Sandvine’s products detect network conditions that trigger policies within the network to help service providers control subscribers’ Internet experience.  The latest version integrates with 3G and 4G networks to throttle speeds based on time of use or volume of data transferred.  A provider sets the parameters and the “network management” solution does the rest, automatically.

Stop the Cap! intends to monitor this situation carefully over the coming days to learn what the company intends to do with its network management scheme.  If they continue to use it, we will do our part and file a formal complaint against Clear with New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for false advertising and misleading business practices.

It is only a matter of time before a law firm begins a class action against the company for similar reasons.  Stop the Cap! encourages Clear customers to use the company’s forum to vocally demand an end to all Internet Overcharging schemes or else you will take your business elsewhere.  You should also demand full credit for the days you experience artificially slowed speeds, and please let us know if you are asked to pay any early termination fee for exiting a Clear term contract.

Blockbuster, Inc. announced this morning it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection under a plan that cuts nearly $1 billion in debt and delivers a financial rescue package to help reorganize its operations.

The company, based in Dallas, faced insurmountable challenges from online video, piracy, pay-per-view, Netflix, and most recently Redbox — video kiosks strategically placed in supermarkets and drug stores.

But despite the bankruptcy filing, which wipes out the company’s shareholders, Blockbuster said it would keep its 3,400 company-operated and franchise stores, its DVD by-mail business, and online operations open for business.  Those holding Blockbuster coupons and gift cards need not worry — the company will continue to honor both.  Some unprofitable store locations may be closed later.

Netflix and Redbox are among the biggest contributors to Blockbuster’s financial demise.  Netflix’s 15 million customers dwarf Blockbuster’s 2.6 million customer rent-by-mail operation.  Redbox has more than a 13,000 store kiosk advantage over Blockbuster.

Shareholders blamed Blockbuster CEO Jim Keyes for the company’s financial position.

“Jim Keyes is the main reason Blockbuster is in this position today due to his denial of being in a business model that did not work anymore,” said Niko Celentano. “If Jim Keyes would have seen the changes that were evolving in this industry in the past few years, Blockbuster would not have been in the courts today filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy.”

Epix, the pay-TV channel from Viacom, Lions Gate and MGM, will -not- be coming to Time Warner Cable lineups anytime soon.

Why? Because the network ‘cheapened themselves’ when they agreed to get in bed with Netflix, which will offer online video streaming of the three studios’ movies just 90 days after appearing on the channel.

Time Warner Cable Chief Financial Officer Rob Marcus said the network did itself no favors with that deal.  He told attendees at the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Media, Communications & Entertainment Conference that Epix’s online video deal “devalued the channel.”

Epix may have irritated the cable company for another reason — it streams much of its content online for its subscribers to watch anytime they like, outside of the industry’s TV Everywhere project.

Indeed, the majority of cable operators seem to share Time Warner’s sentiment, as the new HD pay channel faces a virtual embargo from the industry’s big players, including Comcast and DirecTV.  In fact, Epix’s four million subscribers come primarily from just three companies — Verizon FiOS, DISH Network, and Cox Cable.

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Introduction to Epix.flv[/flv]

A short introduction to Epix.  (1 minute)

Forget about peer-to-peer torrents, file sharing networks, and download sites.  They are so yesterday.  Newsgroups?  That’s so last month.  No, today’s targets of Hollywood’s copyright cops are online video streaming sites that make watching pirated movies and television shows simple.  So simple, many viewers may not even realize they are watching illicitly.

At issue are video streaming sites that take uploaded video files and use them as part of one-click streaming entertainment portals.

Websites like Megavideo deliver thousands of shows and movies to viewers who want to watch online.  These sites bypass video “pay-walls” that limit viewing thanks to an army of volunteers who capture copies of programming and then upload them to file storage sites.  Previously, those who wanted to watch had to download multi-part files and use software to put the pieces back together.  With online streaming of that content, it’s as easy as watching Hulu.

The Los Angeles Times lifted the lid on the world of underground online viewing in a piece that sounds the alarm for the next generation of video piracy:

Streaming video is the most visible sign of how Internet piracy has evolved since the days of Napster and its imitators. The new digital black market combines “cyberlockers,” such as Megaupload and Hotfile, which piracy experts say hold stores of pilfered content, with linking sites such as TVDuck and TVShack.cc, which act like an underground version of TV Guide, helping people locate bootlegged TV shows and movies. Some of these linking sites even contain reviews and recommendations that lend a patina of legitimacy.

[…]File-sharing remains the primary source for pirated digital copies of songs, movies, TV episodes and video games. But use has stagnated as media companies have enjoyed greater success in crippling or shutting down popular sites such as Mininova and Isohunt, said Eric Garland, chief executive of BigChampagne, a media tracking firm. Streaming and downloading from so-called cyberlockers are on track to surpass peer-to-peer use by 2013, according to the Motion Picture Assn. of America, Hollywood’s lobbying arm.

[…]The fear is nonetheless palpable throughout the entertainment industry. Executives worry that improvements in Internet speeds and in the software that compresses movie files into easy-to-distribute packages are making matters worse.

“It’s made streaming a lot less clunky than it was even three years ago,” said Darcy Antonellis, president of Warner Bros. Technical Operations.

[…]To strengthen the government’s hand against online piracy, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and senior Republican member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on Monday introduced a bill that would give the Justice Department more tools to track and shut down websites devoted to providing access to unauthorized downloads, streaming and sale of copyrighted content.