EastLink customers in Nova Scotia are getting three things from their local cable company: slightly faster Internet speeds, a higher bill, and insulted.

EastLink has mailed letters to subscribers in certain parts of Atlantic Canada notifying customers they are now getting speed boosts on the company’s lower speed tiers.

Basic Internet customers subscribing to 1.5Mbps service will now see 5Mbps, while those at 5Mbps are getting upgraded to 10Mbps service.

EastLink said the upgrades target its budget-minded customers who are also getting pelted with competing mailers from Bell Aliant, which sells fiber service in the region. But the speed upgrades don’t come for free. In a move EastLink denies is tied to the broadband speed improvements, the company is also notifying customers of its annual general rate increase.

Atlantic Canada enjoys some of the fastest Internet service in the country, often without any usage caps. EastLink offers, in addition to its budget Internet tiers, service at 20, 40 and 80Mbps. Their primary competitor is Bell Aliant, which operates its FibreOp broadband at speeds of 50, 80, and 175Mbps.

“Our customers have told us that they want and need faster internet service,” Isabelle Robinson, media relations with Bell Aliant said about the company’s higher Internet speeds. “Things like file sharing, uploading, video streaming have really become commonplace. The demand for both speed and bandwidth has been exploding.”

Nonsense, responds Jordan Turner, EastLink’s public relations coordinator. He said subscribers often have no comprehension about the broadband speeds they get now, and certainly don’t need anything faster than what EastLink now provides.

“Frankly, that is plenty of speed and all the speed customers need,” Turner told Halifax NewsNet. “When you read what they suggest people are going to do with the Internet, you can already do that with our standard Internet offering. It’s not like, because you have faster Internet, you’re going to watch a three-hour movie in half an hour.”

Again with the domination and control thing.

Dr. John Malone is wasting no time reacquainting the cable industry with the kinds of classic power plays he used while running Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), then America’s largest and most powerful cable operator. Malone’s latest salvo: proposing new broadband pricing schemes that run afoul of Net Neutrality by charging consumers higher broadband prices if they watch online video services like Netflix.

Malone, increasing his influence over Charter Communications before launching the next wave of cable company consolidation, implied the industry is hurting from the lack of power and dominance it used to enjoy when it had an unfettered, territorial monopoly back in the 1980s. Malone told an audience at the annual shareholder meeting of Liberty Global he advocates getting the industry’s mojo back by returning to “value creation” pricing models — code language for new ways to charge customers higher prices or add-on fees.

Malone sees raising prices for Internet service key to bringing the industry back to the golden profits it used to enjoy selling television subscriptions, even as customers faced massive rate increases that doubled, tripled, or even quintupled rates for certain services.

Malone’s assessment of the eight current largest cable operators wiring the country: Snow White (Comcast) and the Seven Dwarfs (Everyone Else). The disorganized agendas of various cable operators are troublesome to Malone, who wants the industry to act in lock step with a unified, cooperating voice. Consumer groups call this kind of friendly cooperation “collusion.”

Malone also thinks it is time to discard reliance on cable television to bring home the revenue and profits Wall Street expects. The industry should instead turn its earning attention to broadband, a product few Americans can live without. Malone believes the cable industry is not only positioned to control content distributed on its TV Everywhere online video platform for authenticated cable subscribers, but also have a say in competing content from Netflix, among others, which are totally reliant on the broadband pipes provided by ISPs.

With Netflix consuming a growing percentage of cable broadband resources, and possibly contributing to cable TV cord cutting, Malone does not advocate crushing its competition. Instead, he wants a piece of the action. How? By demanding online video providers pay for using cable broadband infrastructure. Consumers also face surcharges on their broadband accounts if they watch online video services like Netflix, Amazon, YouTube and other over-the-top-video. Malone also advocates the implementation of Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption billing and usage caps.

Malone’s “world of the future,” is, in reality, not much different from AT&T’s 2005 proclamation that use of AT&T’s broadband pipes should come at a cost to content producers.

Then-CEO Ed Whitacre’s public statements fueled support for Net Neutrality, which forbids broadband providers from traffic discrimination techniques like charging extra for certain content or artificially degrading service for producers who refuse to pay.

Malone’s incendiary ideas may be letting too much of the cat out of the bag, say some observers worried Malone’s rhetoric will remind people he was once labeled “the Darth Vader of Cable.” His statements could attract unnecessary attention that could be used to organize opposition.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that broadband providers and content producers were already secretly cutting deals to exchange bandwidth for money without the public scrutiny Malone’s comments will generate.

The newspaper reports some of the biggest Net Neutrality proponents around, particularly Google, are quietly paying millions to large cable companies to guarantee their content reaches customers as quickly and smoothly as possible.

Among the top recipients: Comcast, which collects $25-30 million a year and Time Warner Cable, which nets “tens of millions of dollars” from Google, Microsoft, and Facebook.

The payments are buried in the murky world of “interconnection agreements” governing the backbone pipes carrying huge amounts of web traffic from popular websites and those owned by large telecom providers. Originally, content and broadband providers agreed to peering arrangements that would trade traffic without payment to each other. But as bandwidth-heavy online video began to turn those shared connections into lopsided floods of movies and TV shows headed into subscriber homes against a trickle of content coming back from broadband customers, the cable and phone companies began crying foul.

Netflix has so far navigated around paying Internet Service Providers directly to support their video content. Instead, it is building its own specialized content distribution network intended for ISPs to more effectively and efficiently deliver high bandwidth video. Connections to the Netflix network are free of charge to participating providers, but many ISPs are demanding to be paid.

Some content providers are fearful if they don’t pay, the free “peering” links will become hopelessly overcongested and slow web pages and services to a crawl.

For Verizon customers, that may have already happened as Netflix streams began stuttering and buffering earlier this month.

Cogent, which supplies Verizon with a considerable amount of Netflix traffic, immediately pointed the finger at the phone company for artificially degrading the Netflix viewing experience. Verizon promptly shot back:

Cogent is not compliant with one of the basic and long-standing requirements for most settlement-free peering arrangements: that traffic between the providers be roughly in balance. When the traffic loads are not symmetric, the provider with the heavier load typically pays the other for transit. This isn’t a story about Netflix, or about Verizon “letting” anybody’s traffic deteriorate. This is a fairly boring story about a bandwidth provider that is unhappy that they are out of balance and will have to make alternative arrangements for capacity enhancements, just like any other interconnecting ISP.

Cable giants like Malone see the battle as one the cable industry will have a hard time losing, because it is the only technology present in most communities that can handle the traffic and the growing demand for faster speeds.

Cable operators think content companies have a license to print money, especially since their success is built partly on broadband networks they don’t own or pay for delivering content to customers. At the same time, content companies fear they could be forced out of business if the cable industry decides to give itself preferential treatment.

[flv width=”504″ height=”300″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Paying ISPs to Move Content 6-20-13.flv[/flv]

Reporters from The Wall Street Journal discuss the secret payment arrangements between content producers and some of America’s largest ISPs. (4 minutes)

Time Warner Cable’s decision to spend $11 billion to broadcast Los Angeles Lakers and Dodgers games at an estimated cost of $50-60 a year per subscriber is the subject of a class action lawsuit from fed up customers.

The plaintiffs are upset cable subscribers across Southern California will have to cover the cost of the 20-year deal with no option to opt-out of the sports channels because they are bundled into the most popular cable package.

The suit, filed this week in Superior Court alleges at least 60 percent of subscribers have no interest in the sports programming, but will collectively cover $6.6 billion of the deal and never watch a single game.

Time Warner Cable is also accused of forcing AT&T U-verse, Charter Cable, Cox Cable, DirecTV and Verizon FiOS to sign restrictive contracts that compel the companies to include the sports channels on the basic lineup.

Ironically, Time Warner Cable itself regularly complains about the increasing cost of programming and contract terms that force it to bundle expensive sports channels inside the basic tier instead of offering customers optional, added-cost sports programming packages.

Both sports teams are also named as defendants in the suit because they were aware that all subscribers would face rate increases as a result of the deal.

“TWC’s bundling results in Defendants making huge profits, much of which is extracted from unwilling consumers who have no opportunity to delete unwanted telecasts,” the complaint states.

The suit claims there is no legitimate reason Time Warner Cable and the sports teams could not have offered the new networks only to customers that wished to pay for them. The suit wants the bundling of the sports networks stopped and customers given refunds for the higher television bills that resulted.

Time Warner’s “Because We Can” One-Time Charge applies to new customers signing up for certain promotions.

Time Warner Cable has increased the monthly rental fee for its leased cable modem from $3.95 a month to $4.99 a month and has introduced a “one-time charge” of $19.99 applicable to certain Internet service new customer promotions.

CEO Glenn Britt earlier commented that Time Warner Cable had room to grow its modem lease fee:

“It was received with a minimum of push-back and we’re still actually charging less than Comcast ($7/month), so I think there is room to charge more going forward. People can buy their own if they want and a small percentage of customers have chosen to do that which is fine with us.”

For now, the increase only applies to new customers, but Stop the Cap! expects it will also eventually apply to current customers as part of the next round of rate increases. The Internet Modem with Free Home Wi-Fi, available to customers ordering 30/5 or 50/5Mbps service costs $14.99 a month.

Time Warner Cable has pulled back on customer promotions since the beginning of the year and has begun shifting its pricing for its most profitable service — broadband, to capture price-sensitive customers who have been unable to previously afford Internet-only service from the company.

Time Warner has introduced a new “Lite” tier offering 1Mbps service for $20 a month and has made the 3Mbps “Basic” service the staple of many of its bundled promotions.

Stop the Cap! strongly encourages Time Warner Cable customers to buy their own cable modems and avoid the rental fees. Customers can also bypass the rental fee by signing up for Earthlink service through Time Warner Cable.

Our top modem choice remains the Motorola SB6141, which can be found at the “Buy It Now” price on eBay as low as $77.99 with free shipping and no upfront sales tax for most buyers. This model does not include Wi-Fi, but most people don’t need it — a router generally provides Wi-Fi connectivity on its own.

We highly recommend purchasing DOCSIS 3-ready modems to avoid obsolescence issues.

The most recent list of “acceptable” modems that can be activated with your Time Warner Cable broadband service are:

We know what you are watching.

AT&T’s efforts to expand its U-verse platform to more communities is all about improving AT&T’s growing revenues in the broadband business and further monetizing customers’ broadband usage.

Those are the views of Jeff Weber, AT&T’s president of content and advertising sales. Appearing at last week’s Nomura Global Media Summit Conference, Weber also admitted AT&T is using viewer data collected from U-verse TV set-top boxes to help decide what networks to carry and which can be dropped because of lack of viewership.

Weber appeared at the conference to talk about the implications of Project Velocity IP — AT&T’s investment in expanding its U-verse platform and its proposal to transition rural landline customers to AT&T’s wireless service.

AT&T claims when the project is complete, two-thirds of its landline customers will have access to U-verse, and 99 percent of AT&T’s wireline service areas will be covered by AT&T’s mobile network.

Weber’s job primarily focuses on AT&T’s U-verse TV service — dealing with all the networks on the lineup and selling advertising time.

Although television programming is an important revenue generator for AT&T, broadband revenue is the real focus behind AT&T’s U-verse expansion.

“At the core, it is about improving the fundamental broadband business, extending our footprints to be able to cover more of our customers,” Weber said. “Because our core belief is that the broadband business is [going to be] a very good business for a long time.”

Weber

One way AT&T can further increase revenue is to limit broadband usage and charge overlimit fees for customers who exceed their monthly allowance. AT&T currently limits DSL customers to 150GB of usage per month, 250GB for U-verse broadband. The overlimit fee is $10 for each additional 50GB of usage. At present, both the usage limits and overlimit fees are not broadly enforced in many areas.

“I think very clearly incremental broadband usage is going to drive incremental revenue,” explained Weber. “Part of that assumption is that as traffic continues to grow, you need to be able to monetize that traffic in some way, shape or form. At the end of the day, it’s a pretty efficient market and a really efficient way for customers to pay. In almost every other way the more you use, the more you pay. And I don’t think that’s a radical notion and I suspect that’s a kind of thing we’ll see.”

AT&T already earns $170 a month in average revenue per U-verse customer, mostly from package sales of telephone, broadband, and television service.

Television programming content continues to be a major and growing expense for AT&T, eating into profits. Weber complained programming costs are “too high” and limit AT&T from asking subscribers to pay more when rate increases are contemplated.

Instead, AT&T is increasingly playing hardball with programmers, refusing to pay growing programming costs for certain networks and dropping others that do not have many viewers.

How does AT&T know what channels its customers are watching? The company tracks viewing habits with U-verse TV set-top boxes, which automatically report back to AT&T what channels and programs customers are watching.

“Everybody is facing [profit] margin pressure as content costs go up but the question is how will customers react to higher prices as content costs go up,” Weber said. “Everybody is having to make tough decisions and we’ve been able to use that data and make very smart decisions for our customers.”

As an example, Weber noted AT&T uses real viewer numbers during contract negotiations, suggesting that lower-rated networks deserve a lower rate. If a programmer refuses, AT&T can successfully drop a little-watched network without significant customer backlash.

Weber said the numbers are even more valuable when negotiating carriage fees for expensive regional sports networks. Weber said in one city, AT&T decided to not carry a regional network because it found the majority of customers never watched many of the sports teams featured.

Comcast’s Sportsnet for Houston is not available to some U-verse subscribers because AT&T determined the audience for the sports teams on the network was too small.

“We looked at how many of our customers watched zero of those games, one, two, all the way through 150 games for baseball and 80 games for the basketball team that we’re talking about,” Weber said, noting that if a particular viewer watched 30 or more games, AT&T considered that customer a passionate viewer likely to cancel service if the channel was dropped from the lineup.

“It was very clear the viewership intensity in that particular market was low and we didn’t need to pay the rates that were being asked and we’re not,” Weber said, calling the tracking a “perfect insight” into programming costs vs. viewership value.

AT&T also made it clear if programmers went around the company to sell channels direct to consumers over the Internet, AT&T would bring significant pressure for a wholesale rate cut, which some programmers might see as a deterrent to offering online viewing alternatives.

“If they’re going to [stream their programming online], then that’s a very different conversation and a very different value for our customer,” Weber said. “That’s a choice the content providers can make. We’re totally OK with that, but exclusivity versus non-exclusivity has materially different value for our customers, and I think we would want that reflected,” he added.

Monitoring customer viewing habits also helps AT&T earn more revenue by selling targeted commercial messages to specific viewing audiences.

“If an advertiser wanted to buy The Ellen DeGeneres Show, we know based on our data who that audience is,” Weber said. “We can go find that same audience outside of Ellen and maybe extend reach or drive [the ad] price a bit [higher]. We can also go find that same audience online or on your mobile phone.”