AT&T Mobility thinks it has a winning strategy when it took away unlimited data plans, forcing new customers to choose high-priced, usage-limited alternatives.  But a new survey from Wall Street research firm Sanford Bernstein found AT&T customers will grab, claw, and scream to keep the peace of mind that comes from having the choice of an unlimited use plan.

Sanford Bernstein’s study found a large number of customers willing to abandon any carrier that takes unlimited data away from them.  About a third of the more than 800 people responding said AT&T’s move toward usage-based billing left them with a bad impression of the wireless carrier.  That’s particularly bad for AT&T, which already scores as America’s lowest-rated wireless company according to Consumer Reports.

AT&T mitigated some of the potential damage by letting existing customers keep their unlimited data plans when they ceased selling the unlimited option this past June.  New customers are forced to choose between two limited-use plans — $15 for 200MB or $25 for 2GB of usage (a tethering option is also available.)  Existing customers will only face that hard choice if or when they change phones, presumably in the next year or two.

Had they not grandfathered in existing customers, Sanford Bernstein’s research suggests a large proportion of customers forced to give up unlimited data would quit AT&T even if it meant buying a new phone and paying a higher bill just to get the unlimited data option back.  When AT&T eventually forces these customers’ hands, Sanford Bernstein predicts trouble.

According to the study, more than 58 percent of the lowest data users said they would dump AT&T overboard and switch to another provider with an unlimited plan. For heavier users, more than two-thirds are prepared to take their business elsewhere.

But even with overwhelming evidence like that, AT&T and some Wall Street analysts think Internet Overcharging schemes do customers a favor.

AT&T's mandatory data plans

“Customers generally have strongly negative perceptions about Usage-Based Pricing, and these are often not correlated with self-interest,” Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said in a research note analyzing the findings of the survey conducted this past summer. “It is fashionable to argue that loyalty to carriers is dead (except perhaps to Verizon Wireless, whose service level is perceived to be markedly higher than that of its competitors). The new conventional wisdom is that carrier loyalty has been replaced with loyalty to the device. But high inclination to switch carriers and phones to maintain an unlimited plan suggest that perhaps the plan itself is more important than either one.”

The Wall Street firm’s research is hardly news to consumers, who have repeatedly expressed loathing contempt for Internet Overcharging schemes like so-called “usage-based billing,” “data caps,” and speed throttles that kick in when carriers decide customers have used the service enough.

Consumers are willing to pay a higher price just knowing they will never face dreaded “bill shock” — a wireless company bill filled with hefty overlimit fees charged for excessive data usage.  They also have no interest in being penalized by arbitrary usage limits that punish offenders with speed throttles that reduce wireless speeds to dial-up or lower.

AT&T was the first major carrier to throw down the gauntlet and force customers into choosing between a “budget plan” that is easy to exceed at just 200MB of usage per month or an inadequate, overpriced 2GB tier that costs just five dollars less than the now-abandoned unlimited use plan.

Wall Street firms like Sanford Bernstein worry their investor clients may be exposed to a revenue massacre when competing carriers like Verizon Wireless, which retains an unlimited plan for now, unveils its own version of the popular Apple iPhone.  The result could be a massive stampede of departing customers headed for top-rated Verizon Wireless, even if it means paying early termination fees.

AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel sees things very differently however, telling CNET News AT&T’s new limited option plans deliver more choice and flexibility for data-hungry users.

Studies find few surprises for cable and phone companies that pay for them.

Internet plans with term contracts, usage limits, and other pricing tricks are good for consumers and save them money over comparable unlimited usage plans.

That is the conclusion of a new study from the Technology Policy Institute, an industry front group funded by AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Qwest, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

Scott Wallsten and James Riso’s “study,”Residential and Business Broadband Prices, Part 1: An Empirical Analysis of Metering and Other Price Determinants,” claims to have taken a comprehensive look at 25,000 plans offered across North America, Europe and the Pacific to make their case that a residential service plan with a 10GB monthly usage cap would save consumers 27 percent over the price of a comparable unlimited plan, as long as data use stays below the cap.  They also suggest additional savings can be had if consumers lock themselves into term contracts with service providers (most of which carry hefty fees to exit early.)

These results suggest that the unlimited data plans typically offered by most U.S. wireline broadband providers may not be optimal for many consumers. The details of capped plans matter, and how an individual user is affected depends on the base price, allowed data usage, and consequences for exceeding the cap. Nevertheless, because capped plans are—all else equal—cheaper than unlimited plans, many consumers, particularly the low-volume users, are likely to pay less for broadband with data caps than they would for plans offering unlimited data transfer.

Wallsten and Riso make much of AT&T’s recent decision to end unlimited usage for wireless broadband, suggesting that consumers are saving money with new, low-use plans over the company’s old unlimited pricing.  The authors claim close to 70 percent of iPhone users consume less than 200 MB per month, which is the cap for AT&T’s cheaper data plan.

But the authors concede that usage is growing — rapidly in the case of online video, which sets the stage for consumers saving money today, but facing serious overlimit charges on their bills tomorrow:

Some analysts, however, remain concerned that these plans make video streaming impractical given the bandwidth it consumes, could eventually cost consumers more as they use their wireless devices more intensively, and generally make it less likely for wireless to become a viable substitute for wireline broadband. To be sure, while Figure 3 shows that the vast majority of users consume small amounts of data today, it also shows per user mobile data consumption growing quickly, so the number of people who exceed the caps could increase significantly in a relatively short period of time.

Major U.S. wireline providers have not yet introduced metered pricing successfully, though, as shown above, it is common in other countries. An experimental metered pricing plan by Time Warner Cable garnered strong reaction, prompting one group to demand that Congress ―investigate ongoing metered pricing practices to determine the impact on consumers. Some in Congress did, in fact, hold hearings on the plans. In response to this backlash, Time Warner Cable canceled its experiment.

Despite the political reaction, all consumers are not inherently worse off or better off with metered pricing. Low-volume users are likely to be better off under metered plans and high volume users worse off. The net effect on any given consumer depends on his data use, the base price, how much data the base price allows, the price of data when exceeding the cap, and how much he would have paid for an unlimited plan.

Wallsten and Riso also admit several parts of their study are “incomplete,” and “lack data.” We would also include the facts they ignored whether consumers prefer unlimited plans, how customers would feel about a bill with overlimit fees attached, or whether the usage cap levels the authors note in their study are adequate.  They also completely ignore the critical issue of bandwidth cost trends and their relationship to consumer pricing.

But of course they would, considering the same providers who want these pricing schemes are paying the costs for the study.

Welcome to the world of Hired Gun Research.

Wallsten, in particular, has been singing the same cap-happy tune for several years now, churning out the same industry-financed conclusions about broadband.  Back in 2007, he delivered a piece trumpeted by the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute — two groups notorious for parroting corporate-friendly talking points.  Back then it was about Internet overloads and supporting Internet toll booths for “congestion pricing” after Comcast got caught secretly throttling broadband customer speeds.

Dave Burstein of DSL Prime notes most consumers don’t like caps, lock-in contracts, or speed throttles.

“Policymakers should normally assume that imposing caps generally results in negative consumer welfare. The small efficiency gains don’t come close to making up for a second rate Internet,” Burstein writes. “Everyone is better off with a robust, unthrottled Internet. It allows for an important form of video competition and market access for innovative new net offerings. It’s a better experience for the user and hence more people will be connected, a good thing.”

In this latest study, the two authors completely ignore some very important facts:

• Who sets the pricing for unlimited and usage-capped broadband?  Providers.  Do consumers save money from usage limited plans because of decreased provider costs passed along to consumers or pricing schemes that artificially inflate unlimited broadband pricing to drive customers to “money-saving” limited plans that teach usage restraint or expose consumers to dramatic overlimit fees?

• What are the trends for wholesale bandwidth costs and how does that trend comport with industry pricing schemes that have increased broadband pricing in the United States?  An honest study would reflect these costs are dropping… dramatically, and would introduce the very real question of whether unlimited broadband is a problem in search of a revenue-generating solution that would come from further monetizing broadband with so-called “consumption pricing.”

• What is the consumer perception of usage-limited broadband?  An important part of this equation is whether consumers want unlimited broadband service to be discontinued.  Every study to date not paid for by the providers themselves shows consumers are willing to pay today’s prices for the peace of mind they receive in not being exposed to limits or overlimit fees.  Wallsten and Riso touched on the consumer backlash, to a considerable part coordinated by Stop the Cap!, over Time Warner’s pricing scheme which would have tripled broadband pricing for an equivalent level of service.  But the authors charge on with their pro-cap conclusions regardless.

• Wallsten and Riso’s study only casually mentions the dramatically different paradigms of wireless and wireline broadband.  The former is delivered using technology that is recognized to have limitations that can only be seriously addressed with additional spectrum allocation that could take years to address.  The latter is already being mitigated by cable broadband technology upgrades, fiber optics, and improved backbone connections that often deliver much better access at a fraction of the price providers paid just a few years earlier.  Drawing comparisons between AT&T’s wireless broadband pricing and wireline broadband is dubious at best, especially since two companies largely control pricing and service for the majority of wireless customers in the United States.

• To prove its contention limited broadband service is “common in other countries,” the authors cite a Frequently Asked Questions article by Comcast trying to justify that company’s own usage cap to its customers.  So because Comcast’s PR department says it, it must be true.  In fact, in countries where usage capped broadband has been a traditional problem, consumer demand and public policy efforts have moved providers towards offering unlimited service plans to meet popular demand.  In fact, in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, governments have cited usage caps as a serious disadvantage to growth of the digital economy.  Consumers certainly agree.

Burstein adds:

Caps or other throttling measures are almost never imposed because of actual congestion problems (on large, wired networks.)  The caps would be at far higher levels if they were, like Comcast’s 250 gigabytes. The usual explanation is bogus. The typical consumer advocate believes the caps are about preventing competition to the carriers’ own video package. That’s certainly common, but so is price discrimination to yield increased potential revenues. As Scott notes, price discrimination in a strongly competitive market can work out well for all concerned. With strong competition, the benefits flow through to consumers. Since competition in broadband is typically weak, I believe it far more often has little consumer benefit but is good for company profits.

The authors conclude that despite limitations on data available, “The policy implications, however, are clear.  Policymakers should not immediately conclude that data caps and other pricing schemes that differ from traditional unlimited plans are necessarily bad.”  Instead, the authors suggest pricing trends should be evaluated over time to identify the effects on prices, investment and usage.

Although that’s a point Burstein agrees with, we feel there is substantial evidence this debate is based not on experimental pricing to find new customers, but rather a defensive position to respond to an inevitable public backlash against Internet Overcharging schemes.  Providers are desperately looking for excuses to further monetize broadband, cut costs, and deliver an effective impediment to online video competitors using broadband networks to deliver alternative, less expensive services to consumers.

Policymakers should listen to their constituents, who are more than comfortable with today’s unlimited broadband experience.  Nobody objects to experimental low usage plans with discount pricing, but not at the expense of ending or repricing existing unlimited service into the stratosphere.  Today’s broadband industry earns billions in annual profits, even as their costs decline.  Providers have done considerable profit-taking in the last few years from their broadband divisions, slashing upgrades and other investments to keep pace with traffic demands.

Peer to peer traffic no longer represents the largest single source (by application) of broadband traffic on the Internet.  Cisco’s Visual Networking Study now finds online video streamed from websites like Hulu and Netflix to account for more than one-quarter of all broadband traffic, displacing file swapping from the number one position.

File sharing activity has routinely been used by providers dreaming of Internet Overcharging as an excuse to introduce usage limits and throttled speeds for their broadband customers.  Peer to peer software allows customers to exchange pieces of files back and forth until everyone manages to secure their own copy.  Cable operators, in particular, have complained this network traffic saturates their shared broadband lines because customers upload far more data than they would without this software.  Up to 44 percent of all upstream traffic from residential accounts comes from peer to peer traffic, according to Cisco.

Providers and their friends have started to give up on their scare stories of peer-to-peer “exafloods” and data tsunamis triggered from too many online users engaged in file swapping.  As we’ve argued for two years now, the glory days of growth in peer to peer are behind us for a variety of reasons:

1. Downloading copies of TV shows and movies, always popular on file sharing networks, has declined now that content producers are finally serving the growing market for on-demand video programming;
2. The growing popularity of downstream delivery direct to consumers has reduced wait times for downloading to near nothing — to the point where some users are abandoning peer-to-peer altogether;
3. An increasing amount of fake files filled with viruses and spyware has made peer to peer-sourced files from underground websites more risky;
4. Copyright enforcement and other legal actions have made file trading less palatable for some.

While peer-to-peer traffic is still growing along with other online usage, online video is growing far faster.

Now some want to move the goal post — blaming online video for “forcing their hand” to implement overcharging schemes.

Broadband Traffic by Application Category, 3rd Quarter – 2010

• The marked categories contain video.

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports writes that he found Sanford Bernstein analyst and cable stock fluffer Craig Moffett telling CNET that if customers cut the cord, cable broadband companies will simply turn around and begin metering broadband customers’ bandwidth. In fact, Karl adds, Moffett goes so far as to insist ISPs will have “no choice” in the matter as streaming services like Netflix gain popularity.

Instead of simply raising prices on cable broadband, Moffett said it’s more likely that cable operators would move toward usage-based pricing. That way consumers who use more bandwidth to stream movies and TV shows end up paying more per month for service than people who may be getting their video from the traditional cable TV network. Time Warner has tested usage-based billing, but the company faced a huge backlash from consumers. Still, Moffett said that broadband service providers may have no choice as bandwidth-intensive video streaming services like Netflix become more popular.

CNET’s Marguerite Reardon calls that scenario a “heads we win; tails we win” situation, especially for cable companies.

Would you tell this man you are dropping your Comcast video package to watch everything online for free? (Neil Smit, president - Comcast's cable division)

Last quarter, some companies saw the number of subscribers actually drop for the first time ever.  Now Comcast reports in its latest earnings call the same thing is happening to them — losing 56,000 TV package subscribers during the third quarter.  Comcast surveyed some of their customers calling to fire their cable company.  Most of them are not switching to a pay TV competitor, said Neil Smit, president of Comcast’s cable division.  Comcast characterized them as “going to over the air free TV,” but would you tell your cable company you are dropping their video package to watch everything on their broadband service for free?  For a lot of cable customers, that would be tantamount to calling them up and saying you are now getting free HBO on your TV.

Both companies are still denying online video is cutting into their cable TV package business, but it’s an argument some stock analysts have begun to make as they watch cable profits struggling to hit targets.  Watching extra fat profits bleed away because “broadband piggies are watching all of their TV online for free” just won’t do for folks like Mr. Moffett, who will be among those leading the call to slap limits on broadband usage to protect industry profits.  Why leave good money on the table?

But before Moffett encourages cable companies to install coin slots and credit card readers on cable modems, he has another idea: jack up the prices of broadband higher than ever while cutting video pricing, making it pointless for customers to jump ship:

“Cable’s broadband dominance opens the door for renewed share gains in the adjacent video market,” Moffett said in his report. “Cable companies could simply increase their a la carte broadband prices (since in most markets, households have no other choice for sufficiently fast broadband) and simultaneously drop their video pricing, leaving the price of the bundle unchanged, to recapture video share.”

He pointed to an example of this in Albany, N.Y., where Time Warner Cable raised its broadband price by 10 percent for its Internet-only customers to a rate just $2 below its promotional bundled rate for both services. The Internet-only price increased to $54.95 from $49.95. The 12-month promotional rate for video and data was $56.95.

Of course, Albany has Verizon FiOS breathing down Time Warner’s neck.  In late October, Verizon announced it was launching its video FiOS service in Scotia, just outside of nearby Schenectady. Bethlehem, Colonie, Schenectady and Guilderland already have FiOS phone and Internet services available, so getting a TV franchise to deliver competition to Time Warner Cable isn’t a big leap.

In Rochester (where Frontier Communications idea of video is a satellite dish), a similar promotional package from Time Warner runs $84.90 a month.

Highlights of the Cisco Report

• The average broadband connection generates 14.9 GB of Internet traffic per month, up from 11.4 GB per month last year, an increase of 31 percent;
• “Busy hour” traffic grew at a faster pace than average traffic, growing 41 percent since last year. Peak-hour Internet traffic is 72 percent higher than Internet traffic during an average hour. The ratio of the busy hour to the average hour increased from 1.59 to 1.72, globally;
• Peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing is now 25 percent of global broadband traffic, down from 38 percent last year, a decrease of 34 percent. While still growing in absolute terms, P2P is growing more slowly than visual networking and other advanced applications;
• Peer-to-peer has been surpassed by online video as the largest category. The subset of video that includes streaming video, flash, and Internet TV represents 26 percent, compared to 25 percent for P2P;
• Over one-third of the top 50 sites by volume are video sites. There is a high degree of diversity among the video sites in the top 50, including video viewed on gaming consoles, Internet TV, short-form user-generated video, commercial video downloads, and video distributed via content delivery networks (CDNs). Video sites appeared more frequently than any other type of site in the top 50.

A firestorm erupted this week on Broadband Reports over news that Shaw Cable was turning its existing “soft” Internet Overcharging scheme into a “hard” system filled with usage limits and overlimit fees.  One of Shaw’s social media representatives tried to throw some water on the fire:

I’ve seen a lot of discussion here about the new policy, and quite a bit of inaccurate or incomplete information and speculation, so I’d just like to set all of this straight.

Essentially, the system works like this: your package includes an allowance for a certain amount of traffic. If you exceed that traffic for one billing cycle, you will receive a notice on your bill advising you of the fact. We also automatically activate your traffic monitor so that you can monitor your usage from that time forward.

Since the bill arrives, of necessity, after your billing cycle ends, we give you a cycle’s grace between the period when you exceeded and when we start charging. That is to say that if you exceed in billing cycle one, you’ll receive your bill part of the way through billing cycle two, and so we won’t start charging for excess traffic until billing cycle three.

As to how much bandwidth will cost, here’s how it works:

If you exceed your monthly traffic allowance, you’ll receive a bill for $1 per GB for Extreme and above, $2 per GB for High Speed and High Speed Lite. Considering how much media, etc, you can obtain in 1 GB, $1 is not expensive.

However, if you plan to exceed by a considerable margin, data packs are also available, and what these do is allow you to increase the traffic allowance by the following amounts:

• $5 for 10 GB
• $20 for 60 GB
• $50 for 250 GB

So this gives you the option to increase your monthly traffic allowance to meet your needs. It’s also considerably less expensive than the standard $1-$2 per GB rate.

The best part about the data packs is that you can apply them at any time up to three days before the end of your billing cycle. So if you discover that you’ve exceeded your included usage allowance, and still have three days to the end of the billing cycle, just give us a call (or chat) and ask that we add the appropriate data pack for you.

[…]I’ve seen some posts here suggesting that this new policy has been financially motivated to avoid upgrading our networks. That’s actually not the case. In fact, just a few weeks ago we increased the included usage for all of our services by 25%, just in time for NetFlix. If you want to think about it in financial terms, just consider how much more bandwidth the network would need to allow a 25% increase for every customer, and how much that kind of network upgrade would cost. It’s pretty clear that our motives are not financial. If they were, increasing the included usage would not be very sensible, would it? It would, after all, considerably reduce the number of customers exceeding their monthly traffic allowance, would it not?

I hope that this clarifies the situation, but if there are any questions, please do feel free to ask.

James – Shaw

Shaw tinkers with their Internet Overcharging scheme

In part, this rebuttal was also directed to Stop the Cap!, because we are actively participating in that discussion.  Shaw’s argument about usage limits and how the company’s implementation of them benefits their customers is familiar to many of our readers who fought off usage caps proposed by Time Warner Cable last year.  Somehow, the same company that sets unjustified limits and penalty prices on already-overpriced broadband service is doing customers a real favor by offering alternative pricing plans for heavier users that reduces war-crime profiteering to pickpocketing.

That’s logic Stalin might have appreciated, but most customers already burdened with high cable and broadband bills won’t.

Our response:

Don’t you just love it when Internet Overchargers always claim their new gotcha fees are never about the money?

“James” from Shaw offers a classic example of what happens when your broadband provider implements a scheme to boost your broadband bill and then claims it’s good news that the company has some options to keep those overlimit fees from stinging too badly.

When Internet Overchargers tell you it’s not about the money, it’s really ALL about the money.

Here's what happens when a third provider ruins a Canadian broadband duopoly

Who knew that an invisible border that makes unlimited Internet possible in Vancouver, Washington makes it impossible in Vancouver, B.C. Using Shaw’s argument, providers south of the border are headed straight for bankruptcy court while companies like Shaw barely hold on with “free usage upgrades” of existing limits.

But of course the financial reports for shareholders Shaw’s social media mavens don’t talk about tell the real story. Shaw enjoys considerable revenue from their broadband division thank you very much, and plans to do even better now that they can achieve ‘revenue enhancers’ from their enforced Internet Overcharging schemes.

That’s another way of saying Shaw’s Wallet Biters are back for more of YOUR money.

Whether it’s 20 cents per gigabyte (at least a 100 percent markup) or $2 (rape and pillage pricing), these schemes are hardly good news for Shaw customers. Indeed, if Shaw was truly concerned about saving their customers something under their cap ‘n tier regime, they’d deliver those “usage paks” to customers automatically instead of forcing them to call the company to add them when they go over the limit. If you remember to ask, Shaw gets extra profits they can take to the bank. If you forget, Shaw throws a Money Party on the extra high everyday overlimit rates.

What Shaw forgets to tell you is the cost to deliver increased usage and bandwidth to customers is ALWAYS dropping, and dropping fast. The price charged to move 10GB of traffic not too long ago moves 100GB today. So it’s hardly rough on Shaw to expand yesterday’s unjustified limit to today’s higher, still unjustified limit.

When one also considers yesterday’s “soft cap” is about to become tomorrow’s budget-busting “hard cap,” few Shaw customers are calling 1-800-FLOWERS to send a thank-you bouquet to Calgary.

Having been to Calgary, I know the people in Alberta and elsewhere across western Canada know a ripoff when they see one. They ask, “why is our broadband so overpriced and usage limited?” They wonder where the CRTC has been. They wonder why countries in Asia and even eastern Europe are now beating the pants off Canadian broadband with faster speeds at lower prices.

The fact is, Shaw pulls these overcharging tricks on their customers because they can. The broadband duopoly in Canada from cable and phone companies deliver punishing usage limits on Canada that are being banished in other countries around the world. Even notorious cappers like Australia and New Zealand are finally ridding themselves of broadband that is always capped, always throttled.

What would be sensible is that Shaw, a multi-billion dollar major player in Canada would plow some of their enormous profits into network capacity upgrades that can accommodate the needs of Canada’s growing knowledge economy, not inhibit its growth. Then, earn additional profits by selling even faster speed tiers and content customers can access over those networks.

Considering even Shaw admits only a small percentage of customers create traffic problem on their networks, it’s not hard to see the company’s new reliance on hard Internet Overcharging is designed to capture new revenue from those hitting their caps, thanks to the increasing number of broadband customers using their fast connections for high bandwidth content.

And hey — bonus: it also discourages those customers from even considering pulling the plug on their cable package to watch everything online.

Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, shows off the company's growing reliance on broadband streaming, moving away from its original DVD-by-mail rental business.

Last week, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings was showered with questions from Wall Street during the company’s third quarter-results conference call.  At the top of the agenda — the company’s shifting business model away from DVD rentals-by-mail gradually towards instant on-demand streaming over broadband networks.

At issue is how Netflix can survive a broadband industry that controls the pipeline Netflix increasingly depends on for its continued existence.

Hastings tried to assuage his cable competitors by telling investors the company is hardly a threat to cable-owned movie channels and basic cable.  But he admits ultimately the company will be in a real mess if Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles limit the amount of content customers can affordably access:

“We have some vulnerability depending on capped usage and what happens. Comcast has a cap, but it’s 250 gigabytes and so most users feel that they have an unlimited experience, and it gives us plenty of room to deliver a high-def stream. On the other hand, AT&T Mobile data on an iPad is now capped at two gigabytes, [and that’s] not enough room to deliver hours and hours of high-def.  We are definitely sensitive [to the issue] in the long term [whether] the industry ends up at 250 gigabytes or two at the other extreme.”

There is some limited evidence Netflix’s success in Canada is already being tempered by usage limits near-universally imposed in the country.  Rogers, a major cable company in eastern Canada, even reduced usage caps for certain tiers of service around the same time Netflix announced its imminent arrival north of the border.

Barry McCarthy, Chief Financial Officer notes fewer Canadians are converting their free trials of Netflix’s streaming service into paid subscriptions.

“We anticipate we are seeing slightly lower conversion rates in Canada than we see in the U.S.,” McCarthy told investors.

As Netflix moves towards higher quality video streams, the amount of data consumed increases as well.  In Canada, that eats into broadband usage allowances, and fast. As soon as customers start receiving warnings they are nearing their monthly usage limit, or receive a broadband bill with overlimit fees, Netflix is likely to lose that customer.

Cable and phone companies in Canada are already warning customers that online video is a major culprit of exhausted usage allowances.  Both are also happy to remind their customers they are happy to sell them access to unlimited video — through cable or telco TV subscriptions.  Rogers owns a major chain of video rental stores as well.

What can Netflix do about usage capped broadband?  Not much, admits Hastings.

“There is a not a lot of improvement in compression techniques. But what we can do is just deliver a lower bit stream, a lower quality video experience. So, for example, not too high-def. So, that’s one possible way to partially mitigate that impact,” Hastings said.

Netflix will soon face increasing competition, especially from the cable industry’s TV Everywhere projects, and they won’t deliver a lower quality video experience.

Time Warner Cable and Comcast this month both formally introduced their respective video on demand services.

Comcast’s Xfinity online service arrives after months of beta testing.   Comcast customers can watch video selections from nearly 90 movie and television partners, including programming from HBO, Viacom, and Paramount.  Ultimately, the online video service is expected to deliver access to dozens of cable channels and individual programs from studios and networks at no charge to those who subscribe to a cable television package.

Time Warner Cable took a more modest approach last week by introducing ESPN Networks to its cable subscribers who register with the cable company’s MyServices website.  The new customer portal allows subscribers to review and pay their cable bill, add new services (but not cancel existing ones), remotely program DVR boxes, and also verifies subscriber status for future cable subscriber-only online video programming.

Netflix may soon find itself at the mercy of the cable and telephone companies which deliver broadband access to the majority of Americans.  Not only is it difficult to convince customers to pay a monthly fee for programming the cable industry may eventually give away for free, it may be downright impossible for Netflix to survive if those providers decide to squeeze the customer’s pipeline to unlimited Netflix content.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast Xfinity Ad Spot 10-2010.flv[/flv]

Comcast Ad Introducing Xfinity Online.  (1 minute)