Mark Cuban, owner of HDNet, maintains a personal blog

Mark Cuban is on another tear this week.  Stop the Cap! reader Michael referred us to the latest.  This time it’s TV Everywhere, the cable industry’s answer to online video they get to own and control.

TV Everywhere is a concept put out by TV distributors that basically says that if you pay for cable or satellite, you should be able to watch the content you want, where you want. Everywhere. To some people this is not a good idea.  As is always the case,  many people think tv programming should be widely available for free on the internet.  Of course the content is never free. Someone has to pay to create it and we purchasers of cable and satellite services pay the subscription fees that pay the content companies and allow them to create all that content. Someone always must pay for free. Its unfortunate that there are some incredibly greedy people who think their entertainment needs should be subsidized. We aren’t talking healthcare, we are talking The Simpsons.  No one in the country has the right for their Simpsons to be subsidized.

I am uncertain why Mark is tilting at windmills here, fighting a battle with arguments that are beside the point.

He should know, as an independent programmer, permitting another cartel for video program distribution online has the potential to place control of that content in the hands of the pay television industry.  Agreements to carry a cable network on a cable system could easily become contingent on participation in TV Everywhere once it becomes more established.  Mark knows all about restrictive carriage agreements.  Some of his networks were trapped in a mini-premium HD tier on Time Warner Cable, despite his wishes to see them a part of the general HD lineup.  Once Time Warner Cable threw his networks off their cable systems nationwide, presumably so would go our online access to it as well.

For consumers, the basic concept of TV Everywhere seems like a positive development, if it brings online video content people want to see without charging them yet another fee on their pay television bill.  Consumers, raise your hand if you have a problem with more online video.

In fact, the loudest concerns about the entire endeavor these days are coming from the content producers and owners themselves.  They are the ones worrying about giving content away.

The Wall Street Journal chronicles the concerns:

While 24 networks are taking part in the Comcast trial, including Time Warner’s Turner cable networks, broadcaster CBS, AMC, BBC America, and Hallmark Channel, Walt Disney Co. (DIS) has so far avoided the “TV Everywhere” experiment because it doesn’t offer the Disney networks enough money in return for allowing their shows to be streamed over the Web.

“A new opportunity to reach consumers is very attractive … [but] we want to do so in a way that delivers proper compensation [to us] for that value,” said Disney Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs, who spoke at the Goldman Sachs media conference on Tuesday.

That brought out Jeff Bewkes, Time Warner CEO, who scoffed at the demands for compensation.  Bewkes reminded Disney who is paying the bills.

“[The content providers are] not the ones who are going to the effort and expense of making this possible,” he remarked. “The ones that are making this possible are the distributors – the telcos, the satellite companies, the cable companies.”

Second, nobody is arguing that TV programming should be given away “free” online with absolutely no compensation.  The existing online video models are primarily advertiser supported.  The advertisers pay the costs to make the service available, and viewers endure online commercials during each ad break.  Some networks want to cram a ton of ads equaling the number a viewer would see on their television (get ready for more Snuggie and door draft stick on tape ads). Others are more realistic and will place a maximum of 30 seconds of commercials during each break.  Finding the right balance will be important — too many ads and consumers will pirate the content to avoid the ads.  Run smaller amounts and consumers will easily tolerate them.

Third, nobody I am aware of is arguing TV needs to be “subsidized.”  What does that even mean?

Besides the skirmish between content providers and the companies that want to distribute TV Everywhere, the concerns I’ve seen expressed include:

• The concentration and control of online video content through a cable industry-controlled authentication system that is long on generalities and short on specifics regarding how it will operate.  How do non-cable subscribers get “authenticated.”  What procedures are in place to protect the competitive data other providers will have to share with any authentication process?  How about customer privacy?  Is there equity of access to TV Everywhere regardless of the pay television service the consumer subscribes to?
• The credibility of the broadband providers’ argument that their networks are already overcrowded to the point they must “experiment” with usage caps, consumption billing, and other Internet Overcharging schemes.  Apparently their networks aren’t nearly as congested as they would have us believe, considering the fact they are participating in a project to place an even greater load on those networks.
• Mark seems to support content portability, namely the ability for a subscriber to place that content on any device for viewing.  Good luck.  Content producers go bananas over content that can be downloaded and viewed on any device or computer, because such open standards are also open to rampant piracy.

TV Everywhere can be a consumer value-added service for pay television providers, if it’s handled in a consumer friendly way.  The cable industry does not have an excellent track record of keeping their customers in love with them.  My personal concern is that what TV Everywhere gives away for free to “authenticated” subscribers today will tomorrow be packed with advertising, carry an additional fee for access on your cable bill, and will be just one more excuse to try and ram usage caps and consumption billing down the throats of the broadband customers trying to take advantage of their broadband service.

Speedy internet connections have yet to take off in many parts of South Africa because of a shortage in bandwidth.

One leading internet provider says it is not to blame for the slow connection, but frustrations have led one IT group to adopt an unusual method of delivery.

Al Jazeera’s Haru Mutasa reports on the pigeon that beat the internet in Johannesburg.

Service providers across the continent blame the expensive and slow Internet reality for much of Africa on a shortage of connectivity, particularly between Africa and the rest of the world. One African-owned firm, Seacom hopes to change that with the introduction of a new fiber optic cable that went live in July. The new connection enhances service between much of East Africa, including South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Mozambique. The cable also provides a new path to reach Europe and Asia at speeds superior to what used to be common across Africa.

But while bandwidth may slowly be on the increase, savings are much harder to find. Businesses routinely pay $600 per month for 1Mbps service. But some providers suggest that does represent savings. Satellite service at the same speed is priced at an average of $3,000 per month.

Consumers in South Africa find broadband pricing very high, with most relying on Telkom, the nation’s primary phone company, for DSL service. Usage caps are prevalent across the continent as well, stifling the development of African broadband services and making services like online video all but unaffordable.

Africa's Internet Connectivity

Thanks to Stop the Cap! readers Jeff, Bones, Terry, and a few others who let us know about this story.

Back in the mid-1980s, I first got involved in the fight against the cable television industry’s consumer abuses.  Cable had gotten cocky, and began to use their monopoly position to extract ever-increasing amounts of money from consumers, providing lousy service and engaged in anti-competitive abuse all over the marketplace.  Back then, competition for the overwhelming majority of consumers came from just one place – giant 10-12 foot satellite dishes.  These were the days before Direct Broadcast Satellite providers like Echostar/DISH and DirecTV (and PrimeStar, the cable industry’s own satellite provider that claimed to ‘compete’ with cable) provided competition to cable.

In the mid and late 1980s, your choice was a giant TVRO (TV-Receive-Only) satellite dish in the backyard or you hooked up to cable.  A tiny handful of communities had wireless cable, a service that was supposed to compete with cable but was seriously limited in channel capacity (in many communities, wireless cable ended up providing access to ‘adult’ content that cable wouldn’t carry as their biggest selling point) and quickly faded from view by the mid 1990s.

The abusive practices were all over the place back then:

• Cozy arrangements between cable companies and local governments resulting in outright bans of satellite dishes for aesthetic reasons, using zoning laws either prohibiting their installation or requiring landscaping to hide them from view (to the neighbors and to the satellites they were trying to receive, making them useless), or requiring expensive permit fees;
• A rush to scramble/encode satellite signals and then require consumers to purchase, outright, a costly descrambler from General Instruments called the VideoCipher II for $399 (or have it incorporated within a satellite receiver that typically cost $800-1000 and was available only for purchase), only to be replaced a few years later by the VideoCipher II+ (which consumers were also forced to purchase).
• Cable companies, which had ownership interests in most cable networks (which was nearly a pre-condition for getting your network on cable systems), often had exclusive rights to sell that programming, and frequently provided it “only on cable” or to satellite customers who could not subscribe to cable.  Some networks refused to sell to competitors, including dish owners, at any price.
• Anti competitive pricing was by far the biggest problem.  Prices for programming packages encrypted on satellite were sold to consumer dish owners in small or large bundles at pricing comparable or above what cable subscribers paid, despite the fact all of the costs to provide, install, and service reception equipment were borne by consumers.  No cable TV company overhead, no infrastructure or staffing and support costs, yet satellite dish owners were expected to pay the same high costs that cable subscribers paid, and also purchase their own equipment.  That was quite an investment: a 12 foot dish, satellite reception equipment, decoder, and installation routinely ran well over a thousand dollars, depending on the equipment and installation complexity, and that was before programming costs were factored in.

Rural consumers really got the short end of the cable stick, not able to buy cable even if they wanted to, and forced to spend big money, upfront, just to get satellite TV.

That inspired the consumer groundswell of support for legislation to stop the abuses, which overrode a White House veto by President George H.W. Bush.  Among other things, the Cable Act of 1992 put a stop to exclusive programming contracts which denied competitor access to cable networks.

Without that legislation, there would be no DirecTV or DISH today.

Now the cable industry is back, high-fiving over their victory to have the 30% ownership cap dispensed with, and are now taking on the next provision of the 1992 Cable Act they don’t like — the ban on exclusive programming contracts.

That’s right, it’s Back to the Future as Comcast and Cablevision take their legal business to the same friendly DC Court of Appeals that savaged the 30% cap, now seeking an immediate repeal of the exclusivity ban as well.

Oral arguments start September 22nd.

Most amusing of all is the argument made by Comcast and Cablevision, who claim despite the time and attention they are spending on overturning the law, not to mention the legal expense, the practical effect of an end to exclusivity bans would be… absolutely nothing.

“Widespread withholding is now implausible,” said the attorneys in the filing. “[T]here are proportionally fewer services to withhold. The limited withholding that may still occur will not threaten competition: most vertically integrated services have closely similar substitutes, and, when competitive MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors] have sunk massive investments, withholding can no longer cause market exit.”

That’s right.  Big cable companies throw money away on attorneys who will presumably fight this case and the inevitable appeals for the next few years for no practical change whatsoever in the current competitive landscape.  The believe people will accept that an industry that had to be forced by regulation to compete on a level playing field will continue to respect that playing field once they plow it up.

Just trust us.  We’re your cable company.  You love us.

So it could be “nothing” as they suggest, or it could be a defensive response to challenges of their business plans from telephone company TV and online video competition.  Would you subscribe to a competitor that didn’t offer the networks you wanted to see because they were “exclusively” available only from the cable company?

Be it usage caps, consumption billing, exclusive contracts, “price protection agreements” that hold customers in place for 12-24 months (or longer), the war to keep consumers from choosing when, where, and how they access content is becoming fully engaged.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Satellite television in the mid-1980s was highlighted by Granada Television

It’s bad enough when service providers overcharge us for service we use, but it’s even worse when they bill you for services you don’t.

Verizon Wireless may be looking at millions of dollars in refunds for customers who got dinged $1.99 monthly fees on their Verizon Wireless bills labeled mysteriously as “Usage Charges, Data.”

Two dollars on a phone bill that typically exceeds $50 or more is likely to be missed by a lot of consumers skimming the fees, surcharges, taxes and other impenetrable charges that get tacked on to your monthly service.  Even worse, since Verizon charges a fee for a printed bill, most customers never even bother to look at the electronic online bill beyond the general e-mail notification received each month letting you know it has arrived.  But some Cleveland-area residents did bother to take a look, and they didn’t like what they saw:

The Money Matters column chronicled the writer’s six-month ordeal with $1.99-per-month data charges and the possible causes given by Verizon’s customer service workers. All, it turned out, were wrong or only partly true.

More than 400 Plain Dealer readers responded to the newspaper with complaints similar to the ones in the column. The readers collectively pay for more than 1,000 phone lines. In addition, calls to customer service and visits to Verizon stores increased noticeably after the column.

Take a look at your bill

Where to look for the data usage charge: The first page of your bill should have a section labeled “Quick Bill Summary.” Look under the summary for “Usage Charges, Data.”

What to do if you spot an error
Call Verizon customer service (800-922-0204) or visit a full-service store to investigate the charges and ask for a credit.

If Internet usage is the issue, ask technical support to track down the Web sites visited, and dates and times.

If premium text messages are the issue, determine whether you have applications that are downloading information automatically. Go to your “menu,” then click “media center.” You may need Verizon’s help determining what applications cost money.

You can block features you don’t use and don’t want to be charged for by accident, such as Internet access or the weather forecast. Access your account online, call customer service or visit a store.

At a minimum, thousands of customers apparently have been charged $1.99 per month for Internet “data usage” even though they had not tried to go online. In some cases, customers were charged when their phones were off, the batteries were dead, the phone’s Internet access was blocked or even when the phones didn’t have the software to go online.

One clue might be customers who inadvertently accessed the Internet browser just for a few seconds by mistakenly pressing the wrong keys on the phone.  Even a momentary activation of a Mobile Web service could generate the access fee, even if you hit the “end” key on the phone within seconds.

Frustrated customers catching the charge on their bills each month then have to pursue the ordeal of contacting customer service to have the charge removed, and frequently run into misinformed customer service representatives who argue the fees are valid for services customers don’t even have, or are offered free of charge by Verizon Wireless.

Some readers say they’ve been battling the charges for more than a year. Most said they’re tired of calling Verizon month after month. Some were irate because they’d punished their children because they wrongly believed the kids had gone on the Internet. One reader said his mom’s phone was charged for Internet access – weeks after the mother had died and her phone sat idle in her empty home.

Karen Fullerman of Twinsburg is typical of customers who complained to The Plain Dealer last week.

Fullerman has three phone lines; two are for her 23-year-old twin daughters. Fullerman has been charged $1.99 on one or two phones every month. And sometimes there’s an extra $9.99 download fee. Fullerman, who recently lost her job, said every dollar counts these days.

She insists that none of the three has gone on the Internet. And she said Verizon has told her repeatedly that the company has blocked the phones’ ability to go on the Internet – yet the Internet charges continue.

The same is true for James Grega of Brunswick, whose four phone lines with Verizon have been getting charged sporadically for about four months.

“The phones are still being charged after I had them blocked,” Grega said. “Their assurance that the $1.99 charges would stop has been a joke.”

Now, some customers who have repeatedly been credited for erroneous charges are being denied for future requests, and that is partly what prompted The Plain Dealer to get involved.

Verizon Wireless claims to be investigating the problem and promises customers full credit, assuming they specifically request it.  Therein lies a major problem for consumers, one that benefits providers with billing problems.  Consumers frustrated by long hold times or the aggravation of requesting credits may forego doing so, providing a windfall for the service provider based on a billing error.

Roger Tang, a regional vice president for Verizon, told The Plain Dealer it would resolve accidental web browser access when consumers hit the wrong buttons on their phones.  The default home page for most Verizon phones is Verizon’s own web page.  The company will make visits to that page exempt from Internet time charges “as soon as possible.”

[flv width=”320″ height=”240″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WMAR Baltimore Verizon Wireless 199 Mystery Fee 9-8-09.flv[/flv]

WMAR Baltimore ran a Scam Alert on Verizon Wireless Overcharging (9/8/09)

AT&T Entertainment: AT&T's answer to TV Everywhere

AT&T, not wanting to be left behind in the race to provide online video content to subscribers, has soft-launched its own video portal site, AT&T Entertainment.  The site, primarily for AT&T’s U-verse customers, is also available to anyone else who drops by to visit, although the content currently available to view is already available online elsewhere.

Current AT&T customers already have an account on the site based on their att.net Member ID.  Logging in adds several additional features, including:

• Viewing age restricted content (if you meet minimum age requirements)
• Rating shows and movies
• Creating and managing a personalized library and queue
• Sharing videos with friends via email
• Viewing your U-verse guide and managing recordings on your DVR (if you have an AT&T U-verse account associated with your ATT.net Member ID)

At present, none of the content is exclusive to AT&T — it’s mostly a mix of videos from Hulu, CBS, and a few cable networks that allow videos to be embedded on other websites.  AT&T has promised it will expand the service when it officially launches at a yet to be determined date.

Ironically, while watching one Hulu-based TV show, the first thing shown to me was an advertisement from Sprint bashing AT&T for overcharging customers.