Cable's Fear Factor: the Online Video Threat

[Updated 12:11pm EDT: Scott McNulty from Comcast notes in our comment section that the TV Everywhere concept will count against the 250GB usage allowance Comcast grants residential broadband customers, and suggests the concept is non-exclusive and voluntary.  We debate Scott on that point — see the Comments below the article to follow along and add your thoughts.]

The best kept secret in the broadband industry is now out.  Stop the Cap! reader Lou dropped us a note to say the New York Times has decided to let cable’s big secret out of the bag in an article published today entitled, “Cable TV’s Big Worry: Taming the Web.”  Lou writes, “finally, the mainstream media is pointing out that the real threat to Time Warner Cable and others is Hulu.”

In addition to the obsession to “monetize” content that is currently given away for free online, many in the cable industry believe the best way to tame the web is to control the content and method of distribution.  If you subscribe to a cable TV package, you’re approved.  If you don’t, no online video for you!  Once accessibility is limited to those “authenticated” to access the content, a handful of companies can determine exactly who can obtain their video programming, for how long, and at what price.  For everyone else not going along, discouraging ‘unauthorized’ viewing and disrupting underground distribution are powerful tools for providers to protect their video business model.

What is the best way to do that?  Internet Overcharging schemes of course.  By raising the alarm that online video growth will create a tsunami-like wave of Internet brownouts and traffic jams, and by trying to pit subscribers against one another based on perceptions of their usage, the message that will be part of any cable industry “education” campaign is that limits, tiers, fees, and penalties are the answer to all of these problems.  Watching Hulu every night?  Naughty. With this 20GB monthly limit, we’ll put a stop to that.  Netflix movie tonight?  Do you really want to risk going over your allowance and incurring “necessary” overlimit fees and penalties that represent more than 1,000% markup over our actual costs?  Wouldn’t it be fairer to your neighbors to watch HBO on your cable package instead?

Is it Fair for Big Trucks to Pay More On the Information Superhighway Because They’ll Wear It Out Faster?

In cities across the country, those interested in Internet Overcharging schemes are already engaged in focus group testing.  We know, because some of our readers have been stealth participants, informing us about all of their pretzel-like logic twisting games designed to convince the public that cable and telephone companies are not going to gouge you again with a higher bill.  Some want to use toll road analogies, others are using gas and electric comparisons, and one had the novel idea of putting a plate of food in the middle of the conference table and asking if it would be fair for just one person to eat 75% of it while the rest “go hungry.”

Unfortunately for them, by the end of the session, two of our readers attending two different panels derailed their efforts and had panels eating out of their hands in opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes, and collected a nice $75 (and uncapped lunch) for their efforts.

The Times piece only adds more evidence to help make the case that Internet Overcharging schemes aren’t about broadband fairness — they are part of a protection racket to protect fat profits earned from selling video packages to consumers.

Aware of how print, music and broadcast television have suffered severe business erosion, the chief executives of the major media conglomerates like Time Warner, Viacom and NBC Universal have made protecting cable TV from the ravages of the Internet perhaps their top priority.

“The majority of profits for the big entertainment companies is from cable programming,” said Stephen B. Burke, the president of Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company.

The major worry is that if cable networks do not protect the fees from paying subscribers, and offer most programming online at no cost — as newspapers have done — then customers may eventually cancel their cable subscriptions.

It’s My Cousin’s Fault

In other words, you and I are probably not the biggest threat the industry faces from the ultimate nightmare of eroding profits.  It’s really my cousin’s fault.  He, like many in their 20s, moved into his new home and didn’t do what many of us routinely did when we moved — start the newspaper service, connect the telephone line, and get the cable TV hooked up.

He did call Time Warner Cable — to only install Road Runner broadband Internet service.  He reads the news online, relies exclusively on a cell phone, and watches DVD’s and online video on his giant flat panel television.

The cable industry is horrified my cousin represents their future.

There is no sign of that happening anytime soon, but a recent poll by the Sanford C. Bernstein research group found that about 35 percent of people who watch videos online might cut their cable subscription within five years.

“We don’t think that it’s a problem now, but we do feel a sense of urgency,” Mr. Burke said.

An Urgency to Overcharge

Like most industries that have grown fat and happy on their traditional business models, the most common first response to a challenge to that model is to resist it.  The cable industry in particular has enjoyed a largesse of profits earned from years of de facto monopoly status in most communities, with the majority of its services being largely unregulated.  Cable rate increases have almost always exceeded the rate of inflation, and the public relations talking points for those rate increases has always been, “due to increased programming costs, which represent the increasing diversity and excellence of the cable channels we provide you….”

With prices for “basic/standard service” cable now approaching $60 a month, many younger customers just aren’t interested anymore.

Watching consumers abandon cable television packages for access through broadband gives executives and Wall Street analysts like Sanford C. Bernstein heartburn.  Until recently, many customers never contemplated the idea of getting rid of video packages and just keeping the broadband service they already have.  Not until Hulu.  That one website now represents a considerable amount of online video traffic from subscribers, and the cable industry isn’t in control of it, much less profiting from it.

Hulu represents a threat to be resisted.

You Use Too Much Internet, So We’ll Create Something That Will Make You Use More

To be fair to everyone, we have to get rid of the flat rate plan you’ve enjoyed for more than a decade and replace it with tiered pricing to be “fair” to subscribers because of enormous traffic growth. That what Time Warner Cable customers heard during a planned nonsensical trial of an Internet Overcharging scheme in four American cities, rapidly shelved when consumers rebelled and New York Congressman Eric Massa and Senator Charles Schumer got interested (Rochester, NY was a selected trial city).

It becomes all the more ludicrous as subscribers learn Time Warner Cable’s answer to the traffic jam is to add even more traffic… their traffic… onto their broadband lines.

Evidently online video is only a crisis requiring urgent action when it isn’t their online video.

One idea, advanced most vocally by Jeffrey L. Bewkes, the chairman of Time Warner, and embraced by many executives, would be to offer cable shows online for no extra charge, provided a viewer is first authenticated as a cable or satellite subscriber.

Mr. Bewkes has called the idea “TV Everywhere,” but others in the industry refer to it by other names: “authentication,” “entitlement,” and Comcast has called its coming service “OnDemand Online.”

“If you look at TV viewing, it’s up, even though the questions and stories are all about the role of video games and Internet usage and other uses of time,” Mr. Bewkes said.

The first test of the new system, which will authenticate cable subscribers online and make available programs on the Web for no additional charge, will be announced Wednesday, between Comcast and Time Warner. The trial will involve about 5,000 Comcast subscribers, and television shows from the Time Warner networks TNT and TBS.

It will be interesting to watch whether or not “no additional charge” means such content will be exempted from Comcast’s 250GB monthly usage limit, and whether Time Warner Cable will change their Subscriber Agreement to exempt their TV Everywhere service from the existing language in their agreement permitting Internet Overcharging schemes.  Time Warner Cable already exempts their “Digital Phone” product.

Ixnay on the Coin Chatter Already

The Times piece also raises eyebrows about the potential for collusion and antitrust violations in secretive meetings among industry executives, although they deny it.

The electronic media chiefs, including Mr. Bewkes, Jeff Zucker of NBC Universal and Philippe P. Dauman of Viacom, among others, have been more careful, so as to avoid being accused of collusion: much of the discussions have been on the telephone and in private, one-on-one chats during industry events. Pricing is rarely, if ever, discussed, according to executives involved in the discussions.

“We can’t get together and talk about business terms, but we can get together to work on setting open technology standards,” said Mr. Dauman, the chief executive at Viacom, which owns cable networks like MTV, VH1, Comedy Central and BET.

Although the representations from the industry seem benign, the potential for something far worse is always there.  Control the keys to unlock the door to online video (and the tools to lock out or limit the “other guy”), and you’ve got a plan to make sure people don’t dare drop their cable video package.  Where did the online video go from your favorite cable channel website?  It’s on TV Everywhere, and you don’t get in without an invitation.

One holdout among the major chief executives appears to be Robert A. Iger of the Walt Disney Company. At an industry conference this year he warned that gambits like TV Everywhere could be “anti-consumer and anti-technology” because such a plan would place cable programming behind a pay wall.

So much for “no extra charge.”

It’s Time to Investigate

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), is the House of Representatives’ watchdog on this issue.  He’s already connected the dots and realizes they lead in only one direction — to consumers’ pocketbooks.  Massa has introduced HR 2902, the Broadband Internet Fairness Act, specifically to prevent broadband providers from falling all over themselves to engage in anti-competitive, anti-consumer price gouging, all to cover their bottom lines.

This legislation, and Rep. Massa, needs your immediate support.  Call Congress and ask your representative to co-sponsor this vitally important bill.  The New York congressman is protecting consumers nationwide, and deserves your thanks and support.

Stop the Cap! also now calls on Congress and the appropriate regulatory bodies to begin an immediate investigation into the industry’s “cooperation” to launch TV Everywhere, and other similar projects. Specifically, we ask that an appropriate and thorough review be conducted to ensure that no collusion or antitrust violations have, are, or will take place as a result of this project.  We also call for a review of the “authentication” model proposed by the cable industry to ensure it does not exclude any consumer that subscribes to a competing video provider (satellite, telephone company, competing independent cable company, municipally owned provider, etc.), and that no “free pass” language be permitted that exempts their project from the terms and conditions that they seek to impose on others not affiliated with this project.

Senator Schumer’s long history of consumer protection would make him an excellent choice to lead such an investigation.

Once again, Net Neutrality must be the law of America’s online land.  Only with the assurance of a level playing field can we be certain no provider will attempt to exert influence or special favor over content they own, control, or distribute.

Frontier Essentially Accuses Time Warner Cable of Being a Shakedown Artist

Early indications of a more challenging second quarter of 2009 may be what’s behind the sudden speed increases and new promotions being run by providers, who are also counting on signing new customers, now that moving season is in full swing.  A roundup of promotions and service adjustments customers may find enticing them:

AT&T

U-verse Internet Max customers received free upgrades last week in most areas, boosting broadband download speeds from 10Mbps to 12Mbps.  AT&T previously announced a slowing of U-verse deployment for economic reasons.  AT&T competes with cable operators offering video, voice, and broadband service.

Cablevision

Cablevision Systems continues to offer new customers taking at least a combined broadband and phone package a $200 American Express gift card through June 30.  The company already announced major increases in premium speed levels, and promises no limits on consumption.

Comcast

Reduced pricing in highly competitive Washington, DC market for premium 50Mbps service to under $100, for customers signing up for at least two Comcast services (video, voice, and/or broadband)

Frontier

A substantial mailing offering discounts and giveaways was sent through postal mail to consumers in many Frontier service areas.  Frontier is using a cable-critical mailer depicting their cable competitor as “Rob” and “Bill.”

Rogers (Canada)

Rogers, which earlier increased rates for subscribers, announced a “free speed increase” to its “Hi Speed Internet Express” package, from 7Mbps to 10Mbps, and “Internet Lite” from 1Mbps to 3Mbps.  Rogers limits its customers typically to 60GB of consumption per month for standard levels of service.  Much lower limits are placed on economy packages.

Time Warner Cable

Time Warner Cable is continuing to mail customer postcards and other mailings promoting its existing service packages, but this week also attempts to pick up customers trapped in Frontier term contracts by agreeing to cover early contract termination penalties, up to $200.  Time Warner Cable is also hinting that cable customers will soon be able to use Tivo software for their Digital Video Recorder (DVR) boxes, which permit customers to record programming.

Verizon

Verizon announced substantial speed increases throughout their service area. The company also has engaged in a price war with Cablevision over gift cards. Verizon offered $150 gift cards to new customers signing up for a service bundle (although Cablevison beat their offer by $50).  The company also began promotional giveaways to customers signing a contract agreement.

To date, AT&T continues tests limiting consumption to as low as 20GB per month in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.  Comcast has a straight limit of 250GB of consumption per month for residential customers nationwide.  Frontier defines “acceptable use” at 5GB consumption per month, but does not enforce it at this time.  Rogers limits consumption based on the level of speed selected by the customer.  Most customers face a 60GB monthly limit.  Time Warner Cable tested, but temporarily shelved, tiered pricing and consumption limits.  Other providers not listed have no Internet Overcharging schemes in place.

Verizon FiOS, the fiber to the home service from “the phone company” in many areas around the country, today formally announced it was increasing broadband speeds for customers to provide them with better service.  FiOS often provides the fastest Internet speeds in the markets they serve, prompting speed, service, and occasionally even price wars wherever Verizon competes with cable companies.

Verizon’s strong competition makes cable think twice about conducting Internet Overcharging experiments with talk of limits, tiers, and other anti-competitive, anti-consumer pricing.

“From its inception just five years ago, Verizon FiOS has transformed the American broadband and home-entertainment experience by delivering innovative services that our competitors can’t match,” said Mike Ritter, chief marketing officer for Verizon Telecom. “Today FiOS leaps forward again with faster two-way broadband speed options that free customers to fully participate in today’s interactive, multimedia Web.”

Verizon is doubling-to-quadrupling the upstream connection speeds and increasing the downstream connection speeds of its most popular FiOS Internet offerings. The company has raised the connection speed of its entry-level FiOS Internet service from 10/2 megabits per second (Mbps) to 15/5 Mbps, and has raised the connection speed of its flagship, mid-tier offering from 20/5 Mbps to 25/15 Mbps. In New York City, on Long Island and in other New York City suburbs, FiOS Internet is even faster with a new entry-level connection speed of 25/15 Mbps, and a new mid-tier offering of 35/20 Mbps, available only in bundles.

According to a survey of residential broadband users in the U.S. by the market intelligence firm In-Stat (“US Broadband Speeds on the Rise,” In-Stat, Feb. 2009), the average upstream connection speed used by cable broadband customers is 2.68 Mbps. Verizon is offering speeds two-to-seven times faster than this typical cable upload speed.

Verizon’s standard service plan offers new customers in many areas some dramatic improvements, leaving services like Time Warner Cable and Comcast in less competitive areas in the dust:

Verizon FiOS Standard Service (outside of NYC/Long Island) (was 10Mbps/2Mbps) is now 15Mbps/5Mbps
Time Warner Rochester Standard Service remains 10Mbps/384kbps
Price per month $45 (TWC charges $5 less if you are a cable customer)

Verizon FiOS (‘Faster’ Plan) (outside of NYC/Long Island) (was 20Mbps/5Mbps) is now 25Mbps/15Mbps
Time Warner Rochester Turbo Plan remains 15Mbps/1Mbps
Verizon plan is $65 per month, Time Warner Turbo is cheaper but has much slower upload speeds, and runs around $50 a month.

The new speeds are available to new customers or those existing customers who wish to upgrade to a new contract with Verizon (one year term commitments are common for FiOS).  But customers who sign up for a bundle package of telephone, broadband, and video service will also receive a free Flip Ultra Camcorder or Compaq Mini Netbook.

Of course, where Verizon FiOS does not compete, expect more of the same from incumbent providers, who continue to contemplate ways to extract more money from customer’s wallets for the exact same, comparatively slow service.

Time Warner Cable’s Rochester, New York division has been playing hardball in Frontier Communications’ largest metropolitan service area for years, running ads that attack Frontier’s term contracts, inconsistent broadband speeds, hidden “extras”, and the fact customers might sign a contract today and be dissatisfied with the service tomorrow.

This morning, Time Warner Cable upped the ante with new ads, telling Frontier’s Rochester area customers who would prefer phone or broadband service from the cable company that they’ll cover up to $200 in fees Frontier charges for exiting a term contract early.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TW-Frontier Ad War 6-22-09.flv[/flv]

There is, of course, the fine print:

Offer expires 6/26/09.  Up to $200 one-time credit available to current Frontier phone and/or DSL customers in a contract with a disconnect penalty who provide their Frontier bill evidencing early disconnect charge.  Credit will be applied to Time Warner Cable account after customer is installed with Digital Phone Nationwide and/or Road Runner Standard Service and within two weeks after customer supplies copy of Frontier bill to TWC showing the applicable cancellation penalty.  Credit will be equal to the amount of the early disconnect charge, not to exceed $200.  One credit per qualified household.  Customer must keep TWC services for a minimum of 12 months or the up to $200 credit will be charged back to their TWC account.

What Time Warner Cable has just effectively done is to get the subscriber out of one term contract with Frontier, and into another… with them.

"This is not a rate increase, this is about fair pricing for everyone, seriously."

It’s always awful when you wake up with a bad taste in your mouth.  That’s the flavor of industry hacks and sock puppets who spent a good part of yesterday and last night on the attack against Rep. Eric Massa and your consumer interests.  Part of this battle is about engaging those who claim to represent consumers, but actually turn out to be paid by a lobbyist firm or “think tank,” usually located either in or near Washington, DC.  They are typically unwilling to disclose that involvement.  I’m not.  When called out, the typical response ranges from silence to ‘I would be saying the same things even if I didn’t get paid by them.’

Sure they would.

Consumers need to be particularly vigilant about the Say for Pay crowd of sock puppets that arrive in quotations in articles that attack common sense pro-consumer positions, or in the comments  below an online article.

Now you may be asking what in the world is a “sock puppet.”  Craig Aaron at Free Press explains:

Sock puppets, for those unfamiliar with the creatures commonly found inside the Beltway, are mouthpieces who rent out their academic or political credentials to argue pro-industry positions. These pay-to-sway professionals issue white papers, file comments with key agencies, and present themselves to the press as independent analysts. But their views have a funny way of shifting depending on who’s writing the checks. (To be clear, at Free Press we take no industry money.)

Sock puppets and astroturf groups go hand in hand.  If you remember, we’ve exposed a number of these groups that claim they are standing up for consumers, but in reality are paid to sit down and absorb their industry backer’s talking points.  The snowjob that typically follows claims that if you do the pro-consumer common sense thing, such as not allowing Internet Overcharging schemes to rip people off, you’ll destroy the Internet, America, and maybe even freedom itself.  Besides, just look at the “expert credentials” of our guy telling you that.

When you boil it all down, sock puppets are people who feel morally fine with taking money for being willing to assume any position you want them to take.  It’s vaguely familiar to another profession that’s been around for a very long time.  One just has better office space than the other, and better business cards, too.

If you want to explore a perfect example of sock puppetry at work, with a group trying to get public taxpayer money to benefit big telephone and cable companies with few strings attached, check out Craig Aaron’s article on the subject this past January.

In Stop the Cap!‘s history, we’ve debated a representative from Nemertes Research who refuses to disclose who pays for their industry research reports that conveniently say exactly what the telecommunications industry’s positions are on the broadband issues of the day.  We’ve questioned a group that claims that “openness” or “neutrality” of the Internet is irrelevant, and called out the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research (you gotta love the name — it’s a delicious consumery-sounding word salad… with special interest croutons sprinkled all over the top), who applauded Internet Overcharging as a great thing for customers, except they were packed with lobbyists to really satisfy big telecom interests.

Readers of this site should be well-qualified to engage industry propaganda and consumer misconceptions about the fairness of Internet Overcharging schemes.  You’ve gotten the information you need to effectively educate consumers and expose the sock puppetry.  The entire reason this group exists is because we realized the fight is not over, and we’d need an army prepared to combat the Re-education campaign we were promised back in April.  The battle is fully engaged now, and I’ve been happy to see many of you joining conversations on other sites where misconceptions and sock puppets prevail, and helping to educate consumers with facts, not focus group-tested propaganda.

We need many more of you to do likewise.  If your local newspaper runs an article on Rep. Massa’s bill, or our issues, take a look at the article online and look at the comments being left by readers.  Encounter misconceptions?  Help educate people.  Discover a sock puppet browbeating consumers for standing up for common sense reform of the broadband industry?  Defend the consumer’s point of view and don’t allow anyone to berate you with smug, fact-free answers.  Most are unprepared to respond with actual evidence to back their views, just a load of industry rhetoric and evidence-free claims they have expertise you don’t.

… Continue Reading