Time Warner Cable won’t engage in an expensive bidding war for ownership of Hulu so it is trying to convince the online video venture’s current owners not to sell.

Sources tell Bloomberg News the cable company has offered to buy a minority stake in the online video streaming service alongside its current owners, which include Comcast-NBC, Fox Broadcasting, and Walt Disney-ABC.

If Hulu accepted the offer, the other bidders’ offers may not even be entertained.

Among those filing binding bids/proposals with Hulu as of the July 5 deadline:

• DirecTV, which reportedly wants to convert Hulu into an online companion to its satellite dish service for the benefit of its satellite subscribers;
• AT&T and investment firm Chernin Group, which submitted a  joint bid, presumably to beef up online video options for U-verse customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Plot Thickens in Bidding War for Hulu 7-9-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News discusses how the various bidders for Hulu would adapt the service for their own purposes. It’s all about bulking up online video offerings.  (4 minutes)

Hulu’s new owners could continue to offer the service much the same way it is provided today, with a free and pay version. But most expect the new owners will throw up a programming “pay wall,” requiring users to authenticate themselves as a pay television customer before they can watch Hulu programming. If Time Warner Cable acquired a minority interest and the current owners stayed in place, Time Warner Cable TV customers could benefit from free access to certain premium Hulu content, now sold to others for $8 a month. That premium content would presumably be available to U-verse customers if AT&T emerges the top bidder, or DirecTV could offer Hulu to satellite subscribers to better compete with cable companies’ on-demand offerings.

Hulu’s influence will be shifted away from broadcast networks and more towards pay television platforms regardless of who wins the bidding. That could end up harming the major television networks that provide Hulu’s most popular content. Many of Hulu’s viewers are cord-cutters who do not subscribe to cable or satellite television. Placing Hulu’s programming off-limits to non-paying customers could force a return to pirating shows from peer-to-peer networks or third-party, unauthorized website viewing.

Online video rights are so important to cable operators and upstarts like Intel, which wants to launch its own online cable-TV like service, providers are willing to pay a premium for streaming rights.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Why Hulu Is Attracting Billion Dollar Bids 7-8-13.flv[/flv]

Richard Greenfield, analyst at BTIG, and Scott Galloway, chairman and founder of Firebrand Partners, discuss Hulu and the ability to stream on multiple platforms. They speak on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg Surveillance.” (4 minutes)

The Los Angeles Times reports that pay TV distributors are in a rush to make deals, not only to offer more viewing options for customers, but to potentially get rid of expensive and cumbersome set-top boxes.

Interlopers like Intel, Apple, and Google who want to break into the business have not had an easy time dealing with programmers afraid of alienating their biggest customers. Even DirecTV, which has done business with some of the largest cable networks in the country for well over a decade still meets some resistance.

Acquiring Hulu could be an important part of DirecTV’s strategy to develop the types of services satellite TV has yet to manage well. On-demand programming is no easy task for satellite providers. But if DirecTV acquired Hulu, satellite customers could find DirecTV-branded on-demand viewing through the Internet. The Times speculates DirecTV could even build an online subscription service for subscribers who don’t want a satellite dish, receiving the same lineup of programming satellite customers now watch.

Distributors that acquire enough online streaming rights could even launch virtual cable systems in other companies’ territories, potentially pitting Comcast against Time Warner Cable, but few expect cable operators to compete against each other.

Free TV? Not quite.

Despite offering free over-the-air television, ABC is putting its programming and stations behind a new paywall that can only be breached by “authenticated” cable and AT&T U-verse subscribers able to prove they already pay to watch.

Watch ABC is the television network’s contribution to the cable industry’s “TV Everywhere” project that offers online viewing options for current cable television subscribers.

Watch ABC now offers on-demand and live viewing of programming aired by the network and six network-owned television stations both at the desktop and through apps for iOS, Android, and the Kindle: New York City’s WABC-TV, Philadelphia’s WPVI, Los Angeles’ KABC, Chicago’s WLS, San Francisco’s KGO, and Raleigh-Durham’s WTVD. (Coming soon: Houston’s KTRK and Fresno’s KFSN.)

During the “online preview,” ABC permitted online viewers within confirmed coverage areas to watch the station nearest them for free. Now, viewers will also have to confirm they are paying cable or AT&T U-verse customers to watch online.

But even then, not everyone will qualify. ABC only has streaming authentication agreements with AT&T U-verse, Cablevision, Charter, Comcast, Cox Communications, and Midcontinent Communications. Watch ABC is currently off-limits to everyone else, including customers of Verizon FiOS, Time Warner Cable, and both satellite services.

ABC has also banned IP addresses known to be associated with anonymous proxy servers. This measure is designed to enforce geographic restrictions to be sure only local viewers can get access to the station in their area.

By this fall, ABC affiliates owned by Hearst are expected to also join Watch ABC’s paywall system.

ABCNews.com announced an experiment with a paywall in the summer of 2010. It never came to fruition.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPVI Philadelphia Watch ABC in Philadelphia 5-14-13.mp4[/flv]

WPVI in Philadelphia turned over airtime during its evening newscast to self-promote the new ‘Watch ABC’ app and explain how it works. Effective now, it only works with preferred partner cable companies and AT&T U-verse. (Aired: May 14, 2013) (2 minutes)

Cox Communications has found a new way to target cord-cutters and sell television service to its broadband-only customers reluctant to sign up for traditional cable television.

flareWatch is a new IPTV service delivered over Cox’s broadband service. For $34.99 a month, customers participating in a market trial in Orange County, Calif. receive 97 channels.  About one-third are local over the air stations from the Los Angeles area, one-third top cable networks, and the rest a mixture of ethnic, home shopping, and public service networks. Expensive sports channels like ESPN are included, but most secondary cable networks typically found only on digital tiers are not. Premium movie channels like HBO are also not available.

The service is powered by Fanhattan’s IPTV set-top box. Cox offers up to three “Fan TV” devices to customers for $99.99 each.

flareWatch’s channel lineup in Orange County, Calif.

The service is only sold to customers with Preferred tier (or higher) broadband service and is being marketed to customers who have already turned down Cox cable television.

What Cox reserves for the fine print is an admission the use of the service counts against your monthly broadband usage allowance. Preferred customers are now capped at 250GB of usage per month. While occasional viewing may not put many customers over Cox’s usage caps, forgetting to switch off the Fan TV set-top box(es) when done watching certainly might. flareWatch also includes another usage eater — a cloud-based DVR service. Cox does not strictly enforce its usage caps and does not currently impose any overlimit fees, but could do so in the future.

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cox FlareWatch 7-13.mp4[/flv]

Cox’s brief promotional video introducing flareWatch. (1 minute)

Cool… usage capped.

Cox spokesman Todd Smith described the introduction of flareWatch as a “small trial,” and that “customer feedback will determine if we proceed with future plans.”

The service is clearly intended to target young adults that are turning down traditional cable television packages. Most of those are avid broadband subscribers, so introducing a “lite” cable television package could be a way Cox can boost the average revenue received from this type of customer. It may also serve as a retention tool when customers call to disconnect cable television service.

The MSO is selling flareWatch at five Cox Solutions stores in Irvine, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Laguna Niguel.

Customers (and those who might be) can share their thoughts with Cox about flareWatch by e-mailing [email protected] and/or [email protected]. Stop the Cap! encourages readers to tell Cox to ditch its usage cap, and point out the current cap on your Cox broadband usage is a great reason not to even consider the service.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/The Verge Fan TV revealed is this the set-top box weve been waiting for 5-30-13.flv[/flv]

The Verge got a closer look at the technology powering flareWatch back in May. Fan TV could be among the first set-top boxes to achieve “cool” status. Unfortunately, technical innovation collides with old school cable company usage caps, which might deter a lot of Cox’s broadband customers from using the service.  (4 minutes)

Again with the domination and control thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two former interns for Bell Mobility have filed complaints with Canada’s labor department alleging the company exploited an internship program to acquire the ultimate in cheap labor.

Jainna Patel, 24, spent five weeks at the wireless phone company’s intern campus in Missassauga, Ont. She was enrolled in Bell’s Professional Management Program (PMP), intended to expose workers to the fast-paced telecommunications industry. Patel expected to work with advanced wireless telecom technology and get an introduction to the industry over the course of the three or four-month program. Instead, she and other workers allege they were exposed to 12 hour days doing unpaid entry-level work including phone surveys and basic market research that directly benefited Bell and likely violated Canadian labor laws.

“It felt like I was sitting in an office as an employee, doing regular work. It didn’t feel like a sort of training program,” Patel told CBC News. “They just squeezed out of you every hour they could get and never showed any intent of paying.”

Bell’s PMP invites nearly 300 post-secondary graduates each year to work in the special facility, segregated from regular Bell employees.

Interns are allegedly pressured to work long hours and late, sometimes until 3am, and some left afraid to ask too many questions or complain.

Patel

One intern interviewed by the CBC said he lasted two months in the program and felt taken advantage of performing tedious market research that helped the company place cell towers and advertising billboards. He added he was chastised if he arrived late or complained about overtime hours.

He noted many interns had few opportunities in the jobs market, including at Bell, and many eventually returned to living at home, unemployed.

“I didn’t learn anything,” he said. “I learned not to trust corporations. I learned how life works. Anything I learned professionally was from the other interns.”

Toronto lawyer Andrew Langille, who specializes in internships and labor law, estimates the majority of the 300,000 unpaid interns working in Canada are performing work that directly benefits their host companies in violation of Canadian labor laws.

“Employers decided to use the poor economic conditions and the poor labor market as a carte blanche to begin replacing paid employees with unpaid ones,” Langille claims, noting he hears more complaints about Bell’s internship program than any other program in Canada.

“If you are out of school and you are just providing free work for an employer, then it is typically illegal,” said Langille.

But provincial laws often differ from federal law, opening up loopholes that some companies use to flout labor laws.

Bell’s Creekbank Campus in Ontario.

In Ontario, provincial regulated employers, which do not include Bell, must provide training that benefits the intern without reaping any benefit from the work the intern does. Bell, which is federally regulated, is covered by Canada’s looser Labour Code, which avoids spelling out specific rules governing internships. Case law and past precedent have provided some general guidance that employers should follow, including the fact almost all work should be compensated, but it remains less clear-cut.

Patel’s complaint asks Bell to compensate her almost $2,500 in unpaid wages for her work.

Patel also explained she felt intense pressure from Bell managers to stay quiet and not file any complaints against the program, which at least one manager suggested could be at risk if the government intervened. Patel was told that could result in hundreds of interns being sent home.

Langille was unmoved.

“Is it permissible that a company that makes billions of dollars each year in profits is not paying the minimum wage? It’s ridiculous. A lot of the companies that are using unpaid labor have the ability to pay but choose not to — to save money,” Langille said.

Patel is now back at home worried she will get blacklisted by the industry for being a troublemaker.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC BC Bell accused of breaking labour law with unpaid interns 6-24-13.flv[/flv]

Jainna Patel talks with the CBC about her experience as an unpaid intern for Bell Mobility, Bell Canada’s wireless division. (3 minutes)