Michael's Insight

Defining a net neutrality violation & how that created a Comcastic opportunity for mischief

FCC tries to define net rule breach [Politico]

I’ve spent plenty of time on this blog discussing the FCC’s journey toward a net neutrality ruling. There has been detailed coverage of the various FCC agendas and hearings, as well as the various parties who have expressed their support or opposition to the policy.

One thing that hasn’t been determined through all of this back-and-forth is what truly constitutes a violation of the FCC’s net neutrality rules.

The FCC’s goals are pretty clear. They want to prevent ISPs from behavior that could hinder competition and innovation. What that behavior looks like, however, is not so clear. Why?  Because no one really knows how to define all the theoretical bad things ISP's could do.  Instead, the Commission wisely decided to provide ISP's with a rough idea of what they can and can't do and then to review behavior on an individual event basis.

Indeed, the first claim of violating net neutrality has already been filed against MetroPCS for allegedly unfairly capping usage of some applications in some of the provider’s pricing plans. MetroPCS then fired back by challenging the net neutrality regulations themselves in court.

But much more interesting was when a net neutrality claim was made against Comcast (though it never rose to the level of a formal complaint by Level3), one of Comcast's backbone providers. What happened was that Level3 altered its relationship with Netflix, resulting in a huge increase in traffic into Comcast's network.  Level3 claimed that Comcast sought to unfairly improve its economic relationship with Level3 when the traffic flow changed. 

Here's the real scoop.  Most ISP/backbone agreements anticipate approximate relationships between inbound and outbound traffic.  It has always been the industry standard to review those assumptions on a fairly regular basis and adjust the payments from one to the other accordingly.  When Level3 and Netflix altered their distribution agreement, the balance between sending and receiving data between the Comcast network and the Level3 backbone was so dramatically changed that Comcast simply sought, in the normal course of business, to reset their fee structure with Level3.  

Despite all the wild accusations, this was never about Comcast trying to block Netflix from Comcast's network; it was simply an attempt to have their existing economic relationship updated to reflect a significant change in usage patterns.  And it's simply a fact that their acquisition of NBC couldn't have come at a better time giving a group of opportunists a great chance to try to take advantage.

Fox briefly escalates Cablevision fight to net neutrality

Fox to restore Internet videos to Cablevision customers [Washington Post]

Fox escalated their war with Cablevision yesterday, taking the television battle to the Internet.  For a few hours, in an apparent effort to increase their negotiating leverage for a retransmission deal, Fox blocked all Cablevision's Optimum Online IP addresses from accessing the network's programming posted on websites like Hulu and Fox.com.

The move outraged lawmakers, including Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass) who are concerned about net neutrality principles, according to Multichannel News.  Fox reversed course and stopped blocking Cablevision customers, stating that they didn't want to punish Optimum Online customers who do not subscribe to Cablevision's TV service.  But the move came right after a flood of harsh criticism was leveled against the network.

Fox's action highlights one of the main arguments that distributors are making against higher retransmission fees to networks -- that television network programs posted on websites shortly after their initial airing devalues the main networks' value to consumers.  They argue that consumers should not be forced to pay high prices for programming they can watch for free within 24 hours.

Fox's move challenged the principles of Net Neutrality.   Cable and phone companies have voluntarily agreed principles of Net Neutrality for years.  Indeed, every major Internet service provider provides open access to all legal content on the Internet.  As a result, they argue that there is no need for imposing new government regulations to fix an extremely complex issue, raising concerns that unnecessary regulations are fraught with unintended side effects. 

Yesterday's example of blocking should not result in imposing new regulations that impact distributors.  After all, no distributor, including Cablevision, broke their promise of voluntary net neutrality principles.  It does, however, raise the question of whether content providers should be pressured to agree to the same voluntary policy to keep the Internet open.

Meanwhile, back on the main battlefield, Fox remains missing from Cablevision homes this morning.   Customers were not able to watch the Philadelphia Phillies - SF Giants game last night.  Today, unless an agreement is reached, they will miss the NY Giants playing the Detroit Lions this afternoon and Game 2 of the Phillies - Giants series tonight.

Although they can't see the sporting events, at least they can go online and watch their favorite Fox entertainment programs on Fox.com and Hulu.

 

 

 

Zap Those Blasting Commercials For Good!

Readers here know that I am no fan of government regulation.  I often write about the unintended consequences that arise out of well-intentioned but less-than-well-executed laws and regulations which get enacted and end up doing more harm than good.

But not this time. 

Some people in Washington, DC believe that the television business is in need of a small dose of government oversight to regulate the volume of commercials.  It seems simple enough.  Haven't we all lunged for the remote when a commercial comes on and it blasts the speakers practically out of the TV set?

Guided by a healthy dose of Mr. Smith common sense, Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) proposed that people responsible for setting the volume on commercials adhere to standards in order to avoid that obnoxious blast when the furniture store proclaims that its selling sofas at their lowest price ever.  She called on the FCC to review the situation and create a workable standard to which all could easily conform. 

People in the industry reacted with the usual cries of concern about another "unnecessary intrusion by government."  Unfortunately, the industry's negative reaction to the bill did not lead to much voluntary positive action to help stave it the legislation.  It's been three months now and, while on a business trip this week, I was practically knocked out of bed by commercials all morning long.

There are many entities responsible for this issue -- broadcast and cable networks, local TV stations, cable and satellite distributors alike.  And also the producers of the commercials, the ad agencies that place them and the advertisers themselves all have a hand in this.

And I plead guilty too. 

I have heard our customers complain about this and I have discussed this situation with our engineers.  There have been times when we were at fault and other times when the commercials were on the networks we carry and therefore beyond our technical reach. 

I asked why it's so difficult to prevent this from happening.  As you can imagine, I got an earful of perfectly logical reasons why this is far more complicated than it seems.  For instance, there are different standard volumes on the TV programs themselves.  Who hasn't cranked up the volume because Jack Bauer always seems to speak in whispers? So, at what level should the furniture store record the level if it's going to air both on Fox and CNN?

There is equipment that can monitor the "ambient" volume on stations and can clip the volume of commercials that exceed certain levels, relative to what program it's airing on.  Indeed, the industries involved in this are trying to work out some standards that everyone can adhere to. But so far, with few tangible results.

As I said, it's complicated. 

And that's why the legislation is important.  It will keep everyone focused on the need to find a solution rather than simply declare the subject too difficult to fix.  And, if there is disagreement over how to fix it among the various industries involved, the FCC can step in and determine what's in the best interest of the only group not participating in the discussions -- TV viewers themselves. 

So it's not so simple.  But hey, we can shoot a rocket into space and have it beam back close-up pictures of Saturn a few months later. We can do this too.

AT&T brings annoying pop-up ads to a TV near you!

AT&T Brings Pop Up Ads To U-Verse TV [Broadband Reports]

If you're like me, then you're not a fan of pop-up advertisements that always used to pop-up in a window over web pages before browsers integrated pop-up blocking technology. They were distracting and filled my screen up with numerous useless windows. Now, if you're an AT&T U-Verse customer, you may need to buy a pop-up blocker for your television.

Broadband Reports has posted an article this morning about complaints from AT&T customers in the site's forums regarding pop-up advertising that AT&T has deployed to U-Verse connected television screens. Imagine you're watching your favorite show on your AT&T U-Verse connected television. Out of nowhere, up pops a screen that overlays your show advertising a Domino's pizza. To rid your screen of the advertisement, the ad advises uses to press the "ATT and OK" buttons on their remote to "dismiss this message."

AT&T responded with a statement that the pop-ups were informational about their U-Verse offerings and not paid ads.  But if you read the ad in the picture above, you get a free Domino's pizza if you buy Showtime and the Movie Channel. 

Give me a break!  Sounds like a commercial to me,  Don't worry folks, pop-up ads on TV are not in any of Insight's plans.

What Ever Happened to Good Common Sense?

I have a bone to pick with some of my colleagues. 

I call it "The Ambush."

It all started ten years ago while I was watching a New York Giants game with my nine-year-old son, Matthew.  The game was being broadcast on Fox at 1:00 pm on a Sunday afternoon.  Rooting for the Giants was one of those wonderful father-son experiences in my family and watching a professional sporting event in the middle of the afternoon seemed like a pretty safe thing to do. During that game, there was a commercial for a very popular new program called "Boston Public" which was a series about a high school in Boston.  The program had some adult themes but it aired late at night and I had no objection to that.  However, the ad on the football game used a clip from the coming episode depicting an elderly school administrator who was seriously hitting on a female high school student.

All the V-Chips in the world as well as the parental controls in my set-top box were useless for this type of ambush.

I turned to my son who watched the commercial without much reaction but I couldn't help but wonder what was going through his nine-year-old brain.  Could he think this was normal adult behavior?  Was this what he thought would happen when he gets to high school?

Needless to say, I was appalled by what I thought was just a momentary lapse of good judgment. 

But, as it turned out, the Boston Public ad was the beginning of a whole new era.  Suggestive and inappropriate ads were popping up all over the place.  I soon came to realize that it was nearly impossible for parents to responsibly monitor what their kids saw on television.  More and more, these types of commercials were being aired without regard to their appropriateness for the programs on which they're running.

So, here we are, decade later.  And it seems to just get worse and worse.  For instance, how often do we watch TV and see ads for Viagra?

Ok.  Those ads are about a medical product which is approved by the FDA and is scientifically proven to be effective.  The ads are even usually done tastefully.  But do they have to be aired constantly on Sunday afternoons during ballgames?  Doesn't anyone think that, as a result of this bombardment that young children know way too much about male impotence and the need to seek medical help if, after four hours, ....  you get my drift.

I'm not an advocate of government censorship and don't seek it here.  I even believe that running these spots are fair game and serve a purpose as long as they run during programs that are designed for an adult audience and air late enough that children are unlikely to be watching.

But it gets worse.  Now we are being bombarded with pitches for products that "enlarge that certain part of the male anatomy" (direct quote from a pretty young woman).  These products have no cover of FDA approved effectiveness.  Many scientists claim they are a sham.  And to add insult to injury, the spots are tasteless and obnoxious.  Many, in my opinion, are insulting and degrading to women and have no place on TV at all.

Take a look at this ad.  But BEWARE.  It is totally inappropriate for viewing by children.

Here's my main issue.  I regularly see this ad while watching the news at 8:00 in the morning!  I checked with the cable network and they don't air the spot.  So it was the local cable company inserting the ad.  I immediately checked with our ad sales folks and learned we are not airing the ad in our markets.  I also know that some cable networks do indeed run this ad and don't restrict it to late night, adult oriented programs.  To be fair, I am aware that a few programmers, like A&E refuse to air the spots even though in A&E's case they own the male-oriented History Channel (a natural audience for these ads) and I applaud them for acting so responsibly.

It worries me deeply that there is a total lack of self-regulation based on good common sense when it comes to airing these types of spots.  I know the economy is tough and ad sales organizations are hurting.  But airing spots like this, all day long and on any program, is a reflection of how much more some value making money than making responsible content decisions reflective of who may be watching. 

I really do understand how these things can slip through the cracks by being part of a big national buy from a middleman (as this one seems to have been), but for heaven's sake -- someone at every network and ad sales organization should be responsible for giving these things some grown-up thought. 

This trend is deeply disturbing to me and seems to be an invitation for advocates of government censorship to try to step in.

Complaint filed at FCC over deceptive AT&T advertising

Bright House Files FCC Complaint Over U-verse DTV Claims [Multichannel News]

Bright House Networks, the nation's sixth largest cable operator, has filed a complaint with the FCC regarding deceptive marketing techniques employed by AT&T in Michigan. Bright House alleges that AT&T is misleading customers in that state by claiming that Bright House customers won't receive broadcast television channels after the digital transition, further claiming that the cable company will have to "rewire" customers homes at a cost of $300 to $400. Finally, AT&T's marketing claims those cable customers can get a real deal and their broadcast channels at no extra cost by signing up for AT&T's U-Verse video product.

For its part, AT&T doesn't deny that these despicable and flat out wrong claims were made to Bright House customers. AT&T blames the activity on "rogue" employees.

For the record, television viewers connected to cable are more than prepared for the digital television transition. When all broadcast stations convert to digital broadcasts on June 12th of this year, cable customers will continue to receive their channels - no "rewiring" necessary.

They might want to blame their employees for this shameful practice but it's really a lack of management  that allows these things to go on long enough for someone to feel compelled to file a formal complaint.  Sure, an occasional mistake can be made, but if AT&T really were interested in clearing up the confusion, they should invest significantly in advertising to clear up the misinformation.  Anything short of that is a passive endorsement of their behavior.

Fake parking tickets direct users to malware site

Malware Spreading Via ... Windshield Fliers? [Slashdot]

What will they think of next?  Scammers and malware developers will stoop to just about any level to trick unassuming users into downloading their creations onto users' computers. A new malware scam has been revealed in Grand Forks, North Dakota, where several residents received fake parking tickets urging them to go to a web site to resolve the ticket. Unfortunately for those who went to the web site, a link on the site loaded a piece of malware onto their computer. And according to Slashdot, the malware is currently immune to antivirus detection.

Anytime you're encouraged to visit a questionable web site by an email, another web site or now, even a parking ticket, a red flag should go up. Avoid becoming a victim by remaining vigilant against these threats.

New FCC Chairman to be announced by President-elect Obama; Chrome coming for Macs; Cable modem hacker arrested

With Genachowski, Adieu To A La Carte? [Multichannel News]

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal and New York Times reported that President-elect Barack Obama intends to nominate Julius Genachowski as the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Currently a venture capitalist in the DC area, Genachowski was a Harvard Law School classmate of the president-elect and is widely regarded as tech-savvy, as he helped craft the Obama campaign's Internet strategy.

This article in Multichannel News profiles the likely changes at the FCC regarding a la carte cable programming under a Genachowski chairmanship. While a la carte has been a pet peeve for outgoing Chairman Kevin Martin, the issue is likely to take a back seat to other issues according to the Commission watchers quoted in this article.

Even though some would say this is a loss for consumers, I don't agree.  I've written here before that a la carte initially sounds like a great idea -- being able to pick the cable networks you want on your lineup and avoid having to pay for the ones you don't watch.  But, a la carte fails to take into account that cable programming relies on advertising dollars, which is driven by viewers many of whom surf through the channels and happen to land on a particular network. Take away those viewers, advertising revenue dries up, and one of two things has to happen -- either consumers have to pick up the tab or the network has to make due with much less. 

Frankly, in this economy, even more networks would simply cease to exist, limiting choice and diversity.  The current cable distribution model provides for a wide-ranging lineup of programming at a very good price. Think about the endless entertainment and information options available on expanded basic cable for about $2 a day.  Add all the digital offerings and it's still less than $3 a day.

I look forward to a fresh regulatory approach at the FCC under a Chairman Genachowski.  He brings great credentials and life experience to the job and I'm hopeful that the key regulatory agency will focus on the big, important subjects confronting telecommunications policy.  Let's quickly begin to discuss the important policy issues openly and honestly.   For cable, that includes things like net neutrality, broadband deployment, our own digital conversion, and network management practices.  We can work together to set policies that encourage investment, nurture competition and result in world class, 21st century telecommunications services for the American people. 

We all want that.

And please.  No more midnight meetings!

Racing toward the digital transition?

DTV NASCAR Campaign Off To Bumpy Start [Broadcasting and Cable]

In an effort to raise awareness about the transition to digital television, the FCC has decided to sponsor NASCAR driver David Gilliland's #38 Ford. The race car features the phrase "Is your TV ready for digital?" on the hood. The cost to taxpayers?  $350,000!

In its first race, the #38 DTV Ford crashed into the wall at the Martinsville Speedway on Sunday, with 13 laps remaining in the race. Car and driver David Gilliland will be fine but just think about it; in a world where the Federal government is spending a trillion dollars to save the economy, how could the FCC write a check for $350,000 to paint a slogan on the side of a racecar?

The truth about net neutrality and the big money behind it

Finally, a truthful article was published on Wednesday about the little known fact of who really invented the debate about net neutrality.  When you finish here, click on it -- it's a must read.  The story was published in a most unlikely place too - The San Francisco Enquirer - the big hometown newspaper serving the Silicon Valley.  And guess who they identify as the inventor of this hot political debate...

Initially, network neutrality was the demand that network carriers ignore the Internet's fundamental inequality. Google had good reason to advocate this, because it is advantaged by a status quo in which money buys privilege. Any move by carriers to selectively boost speeds for fees dulls the advantage Google has secured for itself by building huge complexes of hundreds of thousands of computers.

There you have it.  Net neutrality, and all the puff about fairness, equality and openness is all about "money buy[ing] privilege."  And this time, I didn't say it, Google's own hometown paper did.

Shame on you AT&T!

AT&T has stooped to a new low by running "confusion" ads in Louisville, KY.  The ads obviously were designed to suggest that their bundled pricing is more of a guarantee than ours.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

We sent a letter to AT&T asking them to stop misleading consumers and guess what -- their lawyers refused. 

I'll be specific and you judge for yourself.

NYTimes Cable Story and a Rash of Bash

Thanks to Saturday's New York Times article on cable rates, there was a rash of cable bashing going on this weekend.  Blogs all over the place, especially from Silicon Valley, piled on.

In one of my first posts, I admitted that I read certain blogs even before I read the New York Times.  I guess one reason for that is because they're all to be taken with an equal amount of skepticism -- not just the blogs but the Times too.

WOW! Where's our Workforce?

A while back we were given the opportunity to hire a number of experienced customer service representatives who were looking for new positions.  Why?  Because their jobs were eliminated when their employer and our competitor -- WOW -- closed one of their local call centers.

Human Contact Doesn't Cost Extra at Insight

According to recent articles on Broadband Reports and MSNBC, AT&T is planning to charge customers $5 to talk to a live billing representative, even if you're the victim of identity theft. Broadband Reports says: 

We mentioned in March that AT&T is prepped to start charging $5 in May if you want to talk to a live billing rep over the phone. MSNBC discovers the practice after an id theft victim (forced to close her checking account) was charged $2 for trying to pay AT&T in cash:

Payne objected to the "administrative charge" that was added to her bill but got no sympathy. Instead, she said, she was told she should consider herself lucky because the fee was about to go up to $5.

"We want our associates to spend their time helping customers as they are thinking about their wireless plans or looking at phones," AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel says.

You gotta be kidding me. Apparently, AT&T doesn't want