There was quite a buzz this week over a story in The Business Insider reporting that Hulu reaches more viewers than Time Warner Cable (the nation’s second largest cable operator) has subscribers.  They found 38 million Americans watched Hulu and just 34 million Americans are Time Warner customers.

It’s interesting trivia, but really doesn’t mean all that much… yet.  In fact, Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator has 62 million subscribers, so Hulu has a long way to go to beat Comcast, not to mention websites like Google Video and YouTube, which have more than 120 million combined viewers.

More importantly, Time Warner Cable has no trouble monetizing its business, as any cable subscriber knows when that ever-increasing bill arrives every month.  The same cannot be said for Hulu, which originally depended on an advertising model to sustain itself, at the same time the domestic online advertising marketplace imploded with the near-economic collapse last fall.  If television networks and newspapers can’t sell their ad inventories, the online advertising market, still a novelty for many advertisers, is in even worse shape.

Time Warner Cable is not losing any sleep over Hulu at the moment, and if they do become a nuisance, that consumption billing concept (or hard usage cap) is always an option to deter people from watching too much.

Broadband providers who pass along video content to their customers, without any ownership interest in those videos, are stuck in the position of owning “dumb pipes.”  In the month of July alone, comScore estimated that more than 21.4 billion videos were viewed on American-owned video websites.  Those videos ranged from the five minute karaoke performance from the guy in Des Moines who posted his performance to YouTube, to hour long dramas watched on a network TV website.

What people didn’t watch were all of the most popular shows from cable networks.  Dedicated viewers who needed to watch the entire second season of A&E’s Crime 360 show had to head to Usenet newsgroups or Bit Torrent websites to ferret out someone’s personal recording collection uploaded to share.  A&E only streams one episode from the second season at a time.

That explains why the cable industry is in a hurry to test their TV Everywhere project.  Cable and other pay-television customers will discover a lot more videos hosted on cable network websites suddenly “authenticating” their subscription status, and locking out those who don’t have a subscription (or offering teaser videos or a much more limited menu of viewing choices).

The upsides for TV Everywhere include pleasing existing pay television subscribers with more online videos.  They also get to sell advertising to accompany these on demand videos.  Those cable network websites may also have ads on them and can also promote their other programming.  Perhaps even more importantly, the industry will have a new tool in their subscriber retention arsenal — the ability to delicately remind subscribers wavering over whether to continue their cable TV package that they can forget about replacing it with watching shows online for free. Owning or controlling the content (and the distribution network) is always better than simply being used to transport someone else’s content.  You can’t giveth and taketh away content you don’t own — you can just make it prohibitively expensive to watch with Internet Overcharging schemes.

The downside, at least in their eyes, is the amount of bandwidth these videos will occupy on their existing distribution platforms.  In 2008, the “big threat” that demanded usage caps and/or consumption billing came from Bit Torrent.  In 2009, it’s online video.

Of course, two of the nation’s largest providers that have “appreciated” consumption billing and usage caps — Comcast and Time Warner Cable — are also enthusiastic founding partners of TV Everywhere.  That presents a problem.  A video platform like TV Everywhere, which may one day usurp Google’s dominance in online videos, is being run by the same people trying to convince Americans of broadband capacity problems and the need to cap usage or switch to consumption billing schemes.  TV Everywhere effectively takes the wind out of that argument because, as any consumer will ask, if your platform is too congested to handle online video, why in the world would you seek to make the “problem” much worse?

That’s a rhetorical problem astroturf groups are being hired to explain away.  They apparently couldn’t sell it to consumers during focus group testing, so now they’ll try the sock puppets instead.

Verizon Wireless has a problem with customers who look for the cheapest possible plans for their most capable phones.  Those days are over, as the company introduces ‘mandatory’ data plans for customers using what they define as “enhanced multimedia phones.”

Going forward, phones that meet these four qualifications will be defined as such:

Enhanced Multimedia Phone

1. “Enhanced” HTML Browser
2. REV A
3. Launched on of after September 8, 2009
4. QWERTY keyboard

The first phone to achieve this distinction is the Samsung Rogue, due for release on September 9th.

Customers who try to purchase this, or other phones that “qualify” for this status will be required to choose either a service plan that already bundles “unlimited data” (defined as 5GB per month), or choose from one of these mandatory add-on plans:

A-la-carte data – No usage allowance — $1.99/megabyte
25 megabytes per month — $9.99/month
75 megabytes per month — $19.99/month

The one option not available to customers is a block on all data services, to prevent any billing at any of these prices.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Verizon Wireless' Data Pricing "Refresh" (Courtesy: Boy Genius Report)

What will also no longer be an option is the $15 VCAST Vpak add-on, providing streaming video and includes unlimited data.  Customers signing up for VCAST Vpak before September 8th will be grandfathered in and be able to keep this add-on.  After September 8th, customers will find a $10 VCAST Video on Demand package on offer instead.  It provides unlimited video access, but no data allowance.  Customers will have to buy one of the add-on plans mentioned above.

Verizon Wireless’ internal marketing slides, leaked to The Boy Genius Report, speak to Verizon’s motivation for making these changes — money.  One slide notes that “over 60% of new activations would require a data plan next year” if the customer wanted access to both data and video on their new phone.  Additionally, the change “alleviates HTML capable handset subsidy pressures,” which essentially means they will be able to sell a more advances handset for less money, knowing they’ll make up the difference with a mandatory data plan charged over the life of a two year contract.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Marketing Slide Shows Verizon Pushing Customers to Unlimited Data Option as a Better Value

Verizon defends the changes by noting prior to the mandatory data plans, customers who used their browser-capable phones had to either pay the $1.99/megabyte a-la-carte rate, choose a premium unlimited data plan, or get VCAST Vpak.  The company feels the 25 and 75 megabyte options may work for customers with light usage, but enough that would bring their data usage over five megabytes per month ($10 on the a-la-carte option).

Realistically, this is another example of a data provider providing consumption billing options at ever-greater pricing.  With the loss of the VCAST Vpak option, consumers are now pushed into more expensive options, and will likely be heavily marketed bundled services that include data, just to avoid the pricey mandatory 25/75 megabyte add-ons.

Customers should anticipate marketing of bundled plans and little, if any, mention of the “a-la-carte” option that does not add a monthly fee to the customer’s bill.  Indeed, the slides obtained from BGR don’t show the a-la-carte option at all on the “Choosing the best plan” slide.  Instead, it pushes customers to the unlimited data option “for just one penny more” for customers choosing the popular second level Verizon Wireless Select plan (with the data plan add-on), which includes 900 talk minutes.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Verizon Select's Popular 900 Minute Option, Before the $9.99+ data add-on becomes effective.

Some Verizon Wireless customers relive better days, as they remain grandfathered on truly unlimited data plans chosen before the era of usage caps.  It’s just additional evidence that when usage capped broadband hits the scene, it’s only a matter of time before prices increase, and the usage cap allowances decrease.

Joshua Gans, an economics professor at Melbourne Business School, has a question.

Why are Australians still stuck with usage caps, which Gans notes are virtually non-existent around the rest of the world.

Writing for The Age, Gans notes that had the United States forced users into consumption limits and other usage-based broadband plans, online video sites like YouTube would likely have never started.  Gans called out Australian providers for usage pricing that has to be seen to be believed:

To an outsider, the Australian system seems very strange. Telstra boasts a basic package on its BigPond Cable Extreme network that, for $39.95 a month, gives 200 megabytes in usage. At Telstra’s boasted 30MB a second speeds, that amounts to a minute of high-quality video downloads. After that you pay 15¢ a megabyte. It is hard to imagine that being an option for consumers.

But even its Liberty plan, which costs $69.95 and offers 12GB a month – after which the extreme speed is slowed to the speeds of last century – only allows you 20 hours of video watching a month, provided you do nothing else. That’s about 45 minutes a night.

Gans also zeroes in on another theory why usage caps prevail — to protect incumbent cable and satellite providers’ video business models.  Australia’s largest Internet provider, Telstra, is also the majority stakeholder in Foxtel, Australia’s largest cable/satellite television provider.  Telstra is the equivalent of Bell in Canada or AT&T, before the 1980s “breakup.”  It dominates Australia’s television, mobile phone, wired phone, and broadband needs. It was privatized by the government under former Prime Minister John Howard.

Telstra is well positioned to control much of the Australian playing field competition is expected to compete on.  Competing broadband providers, particularly those using DSL, are confronted with installing their equipment in Telstra-owned phone exchanges, at Telstra pricing.  Telstra’s giant stake in Australia’s broadband also means they play a crucial role in Internet connectivity outside of the country, using undersea fiber cables to connect Australians with the rest of the global Internet.

With these types of ground rules, it’s no surprise Australia’s broadband experience is universally usage capped.  The limitations are so egregious, the Australian government launched a national broadband plan to vastly improve capacity and get the country higher in global broadband rankings.  It will take nearly eight years to complete the project.

For Gans, that’s not good enough.

We are told that the new management of Telstra is more open and ready to meet the challenges brought about by the national broadband network. The NBN will have the capacity to break through usage caps. But why wait eight years?

There is an opportunity for Telstra to demonstrate its new responsiveness and get rid of this anachronism. It could lift its Liberty plan to 100GB and likely face few additional costs if it charged 15¢ a gigabyte. It would send a strong signal to markets.

For North Americans, it’s another illustration that Re-education efforts from domestic providers pointing to Australia as a justification for Internet Overcharging is based on the false premise that customers don’t mind usage caps.  Even in the land down under, consumers want out from under Internet Overcharging’s high prices and limited service.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>
A Telstra customer rants about Telstra’s inaccurate “usage meter” that resulted in $2,500 monthly broadband bills for this particular customer, and how the broadband provider holds all of the cards when they measure and bill for usage, all while attempting to hold customers to a two year contract. Viewer Warning: Strong profanity.

DirecTV wants people out of reach of its satellite service to enjoy unlimited viewing of NFL football games, and today announced it would test providing them over broadband connections.  For $100 more a year than subscribers pay now for the satellite-delivered football game coverage, DirecTV will will offer New York City viewers as many NFL games they can watch over their broadband connection for $349 a year.

DirecTV claims it will sell the service only to those who cannot obtain satellite service from the company, which presumably will limit the broadband content to apartment dwellers and other urban residents who can’t mount a satellite dish.  But in a city like New York, that can easily mean tens of thousands of potential new customers, all watching video content delivered by Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, RCN, or Verizon’s broadband services.  USA Today covered the story this morning:

DirecTV has few customers [in New York City] because skyscrapers block signals coming from satellites orbiting the equator. Also, many landlords and co-op boards don’t allow residents to get a satellite service.

“A lot of the buildings (that can’t get DirecTV) we already have in databases because they’ve got exclusive contracts with cable guys,” says Derek Chang, executive vice president for content strategy and development.

To see the games, broadband customers will download a special video player and punch in a code. Users can install the software on multiple computers, but only one will be able to stream the games at any particular time.

Games with New York’s Jets and Giants, which air on broadcast TV, will be available only when the customer’s computer is outside the New York area.

Cable operators won’t just play defense in the battle for football fans. Comcast will announce today that it will offer the NFL Red Zone Channel to customers of its Sports Entertainment Package. On Sundays, the channel will display football statistics with audio from Sirius XM Radio‘s program “Around the League” — and go live to certain games when the ball is within 20 yards of the goal.

While Cablevision, RCN, and perhaps even Verizon may not express concern about the prospect of carrying NFL games across their networks without “compensation,” Time Warner Cable, which continues to express an interest in Internet Overcharging schemes, may not be so tolerant, especially if the test is successful.  ISPs who support Internet Overcharging routinely use online video growth as a justification for usage caps and consumption pricing.  Will the NFL become part of the Re-education of their customers?

Another question to ponder – would such a service even launch in a broadband marketplace infested with usage caps and limits?

While researching some stories this afternoon, I spoke with an executive at one of the major broadband providers serving consumers with Internet service who told me the company was simply tearing its proverbial hair out over how much online video services like Hulu were costing them — at least $1-2 per gigabyte.  He also said it was putting serious strain on their broadband network.  He didn’t agree to go “on record” putting his name with his views because he was not authorized by company officials to do so, but he was well armed with talking points that said online video is such a problem, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand couldn’t take it any longer and they adopted usage allowances to limit customers watching Hulu and other online video services “like from the BBC.”

These Amateur Hour talking points written at company headquarters will work with a bobblehead-like nodding reporter at a local station getting a 10 second unchallenged sound bite, but they don’t work here.

My industry friend didn’t agree to be on the record, so he’ll remain anonymous, but the points raised are on the record so here we go:

Myth: Hulu is costing broadband providers a ton of money – at least $1-2 per gigabyte.

Truth: Hulu, and other online video services like it, do generate a considerable amount of broadband traffic in the United States.  That online video has posed a potential threat to my provider friend, who faces the prospect of some consumers deciding to disconnect their cable TV service and stick solely with broadband for online video.  However, my friend ignores the fact his company has a way to solve this traffic issue by considering upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology.  After all, his bosses are actively seeking a way into the online video marketplace themselves.

Dave Burstein, DSL Prime

His employer is testing an online video delivery platform that could easily dwarf Hulu.  Of course, they don’t happen to own or control Hulu, open to any American.  The establishment of an industry-controlled service, available exclusively only to “authenticated” subscribers, really blows the talking point about online video straining their broadband network out of the water.  If Hulu is threatening to do them in, what do they think will happen when their even bigger endeavor launches for millions of users?  Then again, as I told him, such online video drives new subscriptions and they could always take some of that money and invest it in network expansion.

Dave Burstein, a well regarded expert on broadband networks, who writes DSL Prime, obliterates the cost estimate inflation for online video in a short piece titled, HD Video Delivered: 5-8 U.S. cents per hour (SD – 2-4 cents):

Microsoft, Cachelogic and I demo’ed full 6 megabit HD video over the net at Web Video Summit, and the stars are now aligned for HD to become first practical and then common – unless the carriers succeed in taxing the net outrageously. That’s cheap enough that even HD TV over the net can be supported by ads, and it becomes a no-brainer for any movie service that charges to offer true HD.

Dan Rayburn, the guru of the streaming media world, reports “The lowest price I saw in Q1 was two and a half cents per GB delivered for over 500TB of traffic a month. When I questioned many of the major CDNs about this price, nearly all of them told me they don’t price delivery that low, but the contracts say otherwise. That price is not the norm as 500TB a month in delivery is a very large customer.” Repeat: This is not a typical price, even at that large volume. Dan reports more normal prices are 2-4 times this level. So U.S. cents 15-25 is more typical for full HD.

Hulu doesn’t even specialize in HD video programming, so the $1-2 per gigabyte estimate on that talking points handout apparently mistakes a dollar sign for a cents sign.

Myth: Online video is such a problem, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand adopted usage allowances to limit customers watching Hulu and other online video services “like from the BBC.”

Truth: My industry friend is apparently unaware Hulu restricts access to the majority of its content outside of the United States.  If you are watching from Canada, Australia, or South Africa, you’re more likely to encounter an error message telling you this content is not licensed for your area.  I’m not sure how that is supposed to impact on overseas ISPs.  The BBC’s iPlayer not only doesn’t provide broadband video content outside of pre-authorized UK-based Internet Service Providers, it offers lower quality streams outside of the UK for what content is available.  It’s a very common complaint heard by the BBC, but they do not have the resources to offer high bandwidth streaming to the entire world.

Most broadband providers won’t use the word “limit” when it comes to controlling subscribers’ access, because that puts them right in the line of fire.  It’s always been our contention that this is about protecting business models and less about “costs.”

There are tremendous differences between online video content services in the United States versus Canada or other usage-capped countries.  In New Zealand, online video services have been shut down because of usage limits.  In Canada, Australia, and South Africa, they’ve never truly gotten off the ground because “bit caps” make them unsustainable.

South Africa this week celebrated the opening of a new underseas cable to bring additional global connectivity to the continent of Africa.  Broadband service in South Africa today has very little video content at all – usage caps are punishingly low across the region because unlike in the USA, international connectivity has traditionally been obscenely expensive.  Many South African ISPs distinguish themselves by placing heavier limits on sites hosted outside of the country than on those hosted domestically, a nod to the connectivity reality.

The truth is that some ISPs in the United States are looking for arguments to justify Internet Overcharging to maintain high profits and keep demand in check.  Consumers are not buying these industry talking points at any price.