{from Engadget)

Carefully laid plans for a surprise launch of the long-awaited next generation of the Slingbox were ruined when shelf stockers at Best Buy mistakenly put units out on store shelves two weeks before the official launch date.

The Slingbox 350 and 500 represent major updates in the Slingbox product line. The devices independently stream video, television, and cable programming to remote computers and wireless devices like smartphones without the kinds of copyright and location restrictions imposed on cable, satellite, and telco TV companies’ “TV Everywhere (Inside Your House)“-offerings. In short, if you can watch a channel at home, you can use the Slingbox to stream it anywhere.

Engadget reports the new models seem capable of offering 1080p streaming, assuming your wireless connection is capable of keeping up. The premium 500 model also adds built-in Wi-Fi, a major improvement over earlier Slingbox units that required either a wired Ethernet connection or a wireless bridge. But the 500 apparently deletes the built-in ATSC tuner, which seems to suggest Slingbox is targeting the device more for streaming personal media collections, not streaming broadcast TV. The 500’s inclusion of built-in USB media sharing and HDMI also seem to point in this direction. The 350, obviously a budget model, relies entirely on component and composite jacks.

The larger problem for Slingbox is coping with broadband and wireless usage caps, which could make streaming HD programming an allowance-eater. Slingbox has routinely dealt with Hollywood studios and other content owners objecting to the streaming of their television programming, but usage caps and overlimit fees could present an even bigger threat to their business model.

Slingbox’s Pro-HD and SlingCatcher models — the two most recent major releases — have been around since 2008. The company has since been largely focused on licensing its technology for inclusion in cable and satellite company set top boxes.

Best Buy realized its error when consumers attempted to buy the new units. They have since been pulled from shop shelving but will be back, slated to go on sale officially for an undisclosed price in the middle of October.

Unfortunately, your usage allowance does not reach Xfinity.

Comcast has introduced more generous usage allowances for some of their premium broadband customers who pay for lightning fast speeds and do not appreciate a one-size-fits-all usage cap.

Broadband Reports has reliable information the rollout of more generous caps, starting in Tucson on Oct. 1, will eventually make their way to other Comcast cities. The newly available caps vary according to the broadband tier chosen by customers:

• Economy: 300 GB
• Economy Plus: 300 GB
• Internet Essentials: 300 GB
• Performance Starter: 300 GB
• Performance: 300 GB
• Blast: 350 GB
• Extreme 50: 450 GB
• Extreme 105: 600 GB

Well, that answers that.

Karl Bode says he is unsure what the cap will be (or if there is one) on Comcast’s newest 305Mbps speed tier, not yet available in Tucson. Comcast’s usage caps only apply to residential service. Customers who refuse to tolerate limits have often switched to one of Comcast’s business broadband tiers, which come uncapped.

Customers who exceed their allowance will pay a price AT&T seems to have successfully introduced as the de facto overlimit fee for American broadband consumers: $10 for each 50GB increment over the limit.

Customers will receive an in-browser notice when they reach their limit. Comcast has a ‘three strikes and you’re out $10‘-policy — giving customers three free “courtesy passes” if they happen to exceed their allowance and do not want to pay an overlimit fee. After that, the fee will be automatically billed.

While some Time Warner Cable customers are drooling at Comcast’s regularly increasing speeds (TWC’s top speed is currently 50/5Mbps), a significant number say not having a usage cap is worth the trade-off.

“Comcast can keep their higher speeds you can’t really use with their usage caps,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Will Pryzinski. “I’m more than happy with 50Mbps from Time Warner so long as the usage limit ripoff stays far away.”

Rogers is serving up its Ultimate Internet service, with speeds up to 150/10Mbps, by challenging some of Canada’s biggest athletes to try and beat the company’s broadband speeds.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Rogers Ultimate Bundle Challenge.flv[/flv]

Tennis Pro Milos Raonic: For Milos’ challenge, we set up a tennis court in a Toronto warehouse, with a “play” button target at one end.  We challenged Milos to serve the ball and hit the target to play a song, faster than we could download it using Rogers Ultimate Internet. Let’s not forget Milos is well known for his powerful serve, reaching 250 km/hr. He has also served more aces than any other player so far in 2012. Does Rogers Ultimate Internet have a chance against a champion like Milos?  (1 minute)

Apparently more often than not, judging from Rogers’ video. But one thing Raonic has going for him, as a human being, is no usage cap. As our loyal reader Alex points out, Rogers’ Ultimate Internet only includes a downright piddly 250GB a month, which is quite a little for customers paying just shy of $123 a month for Internet access. Rogers slaps a $0.50/GB overlimit fee on this tier, with a maximum of $100.

That leaves super-premium customers feeling like they can take Rogers’ screaming fast Internet service on a 15-lane highway with a 250kph speed limit for around five kilometers before hitting the toll booth.

Sprint has launched a new ad series and accompanying web site to warn consumers that choosing Verizon’s new Share Everything data plans can give you a big headache and a higher monthly bill.

“The concept of sharing a monthly data allowance across a family or group of users increases the likelihood for a surprise monthly bill due to data overage charges,” said Caralene Robinson, vice president of brand strategy and marketing communications for Sprint. “Data usage continues to increase and consumers value Truly Unlimited data because it’s simple and straightforward.”

Sprint argues that customers have enough trouble differentiating the usage of the applications they run themselves. When sharing a data plan with other members of a family, it can quickly become impossible to know exactly who is consuming what. That makes it easy to exceed a monthly usage allowance, which results in costly overlimit fees. Tracking usage and the inevitable arguments that will result at the dinner table make Verizon’s new share plans a real headache in Sprint’s view.

Sprint proposes that customers switch to their Truly Unlimited data plan, which has no limits and also costs less than Verizon’s shared data plan. Sprint also continues to sell budget plans that offer a calling allowance in return for a reduced price. Verizon now only sells unlimited voice minutes bundled into their Share Everything plans.

Unlike most carriers who boast customers can send millions of e-mails or visit hundreds of thousands of web pages with a low allowance data plan, Sprint explains what a 1GB limit really means when customers use increasingly popular streaming services and apps. It turns out Verizon’s 1GB allowance plan does not deliver that much.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sprint Say No to Sharing – Family Meeting.flv[/flv]

Sprint launches its “Say No To Sharing” and “Say Yes To Sprint” campaign with this “Family Meeting” ad, which shows a family debating how to divide up their shared data plan and avoid overlimit fees.  (1 minute)

Phillip “The Company Paid by Suddenlink to Issue a Third Party Guarantee Makes All the Difference” Dampier

When Stop the Cap! and Broadband Reports reader Simon contacted us about Suddenlink’s fact-free usage measurement tool that managed to rack up nearly 23GB of usage for one West Virginia customer on the same day his service was out for most of the evening, he probably did not think one customer catching the cable company’s fingers in the usage cookie jar would make much difference.

But it did.

Suddenlink spokesman Pete Abel, initially responding to complaints about the usage tool’s accuracy, told Light Reading last week its meter was “consistently accurate, as was demonstrated in the tests we ran before we launched this program.”

Four days later, the company effectively disavowed that, put the meter’s built-in overlimit fee scheme on hold and plans to hire a third party company to “validate the accuracy of its system,” after finding it was faulty after all.

Suddenlink won’t say what is causing the inaccuracies, but blamed “unusual” circumstances for the problem. The company is now refunding customers billed overlimit fees of $10 per 50GB and waiving future charges until its system is reviewed and validated by “a trusted third party.”

Stop the Cap! believes that does not come close to satisfying the company’s responsibility to its customers for accurate billing.

Suddenlink has never demonstrated it actually needs an Internet Overcharging scheme with usage limits and overlimit fees. The company proves that when it claims only a “relatively small number of customers” were ever billed overlimit fees. With no demonstrable usage problem, the company’s need to implement its Project Imagine “Allowance Plan” is sorely lacking.

Easy as counting anyway we like.

Additionally, the accuracy of providers’ usage measurement tools has proven highly suspect, and not just with Suddenlink. All of the companies caught with inaccurate meters always strongly defend them, until overwhelming evidence suggests they should not. Even super-sized companies like Bell Canada (BCE) and AT&T have enforced usage limits with meters the companies later had to disavow. Suddenlink is only the latest.

The scale in your grocery store is checked and certified. So is the corner gas pump, your electric meter, water meter, and gas meter. Why should broadband usage be any different?

Consumers are right to suspect Suddenlink’s usage meter. No official regulatory body verifies the accuracy of usage measurement tools and whatever company Suddenlink chooses to “verify” its meter has a built in conflict of interest — it works for a company that depends on a certain result in its favor. Suddenlink clearly has no business in the usage measurement business when it insists on the accuracy of a meter it disavows just a few days later.

With only murky details available to consumers about what caused the problem and why Suddenlink did not see it until a customer managed to catch them in the act, there is little confidence the company will actually solve a problem it never realized it had. There is also nothing to assure us — “third party guarantee” or not — it cannot happen all over again.

Suddenlink customers need to reach out and tell Suddenlink its “Allowance Plan” is completely unacceptable. Tell the cable company you don’t want to worry about their unverifiable and proven-inaccurate metering program. Ask them why you should remain a customer when they spend time and money on a scheme that the company itself admits is not really needed — targeting just a small number of “heavy users.”

Suddenlink’s customer service team does not think much of customers who use their broadband service a lot, as this recent “Who’s On First” exchange illustrates:

Lisa (Suddenlink): “Well, you show heavy OVERUSAGE of the Internet, you drew 14GB of data yesterday.”

Customer: “Okay, let’s back up, explain to me how I drew 12GB of data when my power was off and I wasn’t home on June 30.”

Lisa: “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “If you have sooo much faith in your meter, explain to me how I drew 12GBs of data on June 30, while I didn’t have power, and wasn’t home.”

Lisa:  “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “I’m asking, how did I draw 12GB of data without power to my house?”

If Suddenlink has a problem with a handful of users creating problems for other subscribers on its broadband network, it has always reserved the right to contact those customers directly and work out the problem one on one. That is a far better solution than inconveniencing all of their customers with endless rounds of “usage roulette,” where the big winner could find themselves with Bill Shock from overlimit fees, whether they actually deserve them or not.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Internet v. Cable 8-20-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC interviewed Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent in August 2010 on how his company intends to deal with “invasive online video,” threatening to erode cable-TV profits. Kent proved Suddenlink doesn’t really need any extra money from overlimit fees — the days of big spending on capacity are over, but the money is nice to have anyway.  (8 minutes)