The American Customer Satisfaction Index has released its report for 2013. This year is particularly interesting as ISPs have been rated for the first time. How did they do?

The survey shows that Vierzon FiOS, the company’s fiber-based wired broadband service, has a satisfaction rating of 71. From there, the scores keep getting lower and lower until it bottoms out with Comcast at a 62.

What about the other major ISPs like Time Warner Cable and ATT? Time Warner came away with a 63 while ATT scored a bit higher with a 65. The average aggregated score among all ISPs was 65.

To put this all into perspective, ISPs were one of four industries to have an average score below 70. The others were the airline, subscription telephone and social media industries. It’s really kind of sad when ISPs are lumped in with an industry that has been the subject of bad standup comedy for decades.

So, why do consumers hate their ISPs so much? The ASCI lists the usual suspects – reliability, speed and highly monthly costs. It doesn’t help that many are also unsatisfied with the current monopolies or duopolies held by many ISPs preventing them from switching to somebody else.

There is hope, however, and that hope is Google Fiber. The ASCI says that services like Google Fiber may eventually shift ISPs to offering faster service for lower costs. It’s probably not going to happen anytime soon, but I can dream, right?

[h/t: BGR]

Of course, the concerned Internet user may want to know what these alerts actually look like. Ars Technica was able to get their hands on a few of the alerts from Comcast, and they’re pretty much what everybody was expecting.

Comcast provided Ars with only a limited number of alerts – one, two, four and five to be exact. The ISP wouldn’t say why it couldn’t provide all of the alerts, but it’s safe to assume that all the alerts will look similar to what was provided.

Interestingly enough, it looks like the Copyright Alert System isn’t even doing its supposed job. As pointed out by Ars, the alerts don’t even tell consumers what they downloaded to receive the alert. The email also doesn’t point consumers to legal alternatives. You would think Comcast, which owns NBC, would want to point consumers to Hulu or other legal alternatives where its properties are hosted.

Granted, this is just the start and Comcast may refine the system in the coming months. We also don’t know what the alerts from other ISPs will look like. Those may point to legal alternatives and actually provide more information to the suspected infringer.

For those worried about the CAS, it seems that a VPN may be the way to go. Ars confirmed with a spokesperson from Time Warner that the ISP will probably not be able to catch those downloading media through a proxy.

I’m sure we’ll start seeing what the other alerts look like as people with other ISPs start to receive them. We’ll then be able to tell whether or not this is truly an “educational” program, or just another pro-copyright campaign that will only piss off consumers.

Back in May, Comcast announced that it was ditching its 250GB data caps. The company announced that it would be exploring “improved data usage management approaches.” In fact, a 300GB per month flat cap (like Nashville) or a 300GB cap with options for higher-capped plans (Tucson) were both mentioned as options by Comcast at the time.

Under the Nashville plan, customers who exceed their 300GB monthly data allotment will be charged $10 for every subsequent 50GB of data they cross into. In order to ease customers into their new reality, Comcast will waive the first 3 incidences of overage that customers have during a 12-month period.

While any kind of data cap seems archaic for customers who have enjoyed the freedom of unlimited data in the past, 300GB at least is not prohibitive for the average customer. Still, for those who live their lives online – streaming their entertainment through Netflix and Hulu, playing online games with their friends, talking to their family through Skype, procrastinating on Reddit – that 300GB might not get them through one month. Some Canadians have it worse, though, with internet service providers that cap data at as little as 15GB. Just this week, Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos called Canadian internet access “almost a human rights violation.”

Comcast is implementing these caps at the same time Google Fiber is going live in Kansas City. Google will even offer free broadband internet access to customers who pay a one-time build fee of $300.

According to the newly christened NBCNews.com, the company’s president, Steve Capus, said that the new NBCNews.com would become part of NBC News Digital. The venture is led by Vivian Schiller, former president of NPR.

So what will change now that Microsoft is no longer involved in the operation of NBC? For now, msnbc.com will direct you to the new NBC News homepage. Later on, all of their other brands will begin to reflect the change. Charlie Tillinghast, NBCNews.com president, said that the site would benefit from “proper brand alignment between the TV properties and their Web counterparts.”

If you’re worried that the change will affect the news or content being produced, Capus says not to. He says that “There’s nothing that needs to be fixed” in regards to the site. It will, however, take about two years for Microsoft and NBC to completely detach from each other.

The deal is good for Microsoft as well since they’ll be able to provide more than just NBC news on MSN.com, the company’s public Web site. Microsoft will still give priority to NBC by sending visitors to their Web site instead of keeping them on MSN.com. Microsoft will also continue to sell NBCNews.com’s ad inventory.

As for Comcast, Reuters reports that the company paid $300 million for a 50 percent stake in MSNBC.com. Comcast had already bought the television broadcasting arm of NBC back in 2009 so it’s only natural that they would buy the online presence as well.

There are some good journalists working at MSNBC.com. Here’s hoping the transition is smooth for them.

TorrentFreak reports that Comcast has requested that the court quash the subpoenas being used in an Illinois District Court. The subpoenas, like others before it, are demanding that Comcast identify the people behind the IP addresses that have been found downloading content over BitTorrent. The reasoning behind the quash respect is sound which Comcast’s lawyers lay out in easy to understand terms.

They argue that the subpoenas are “overbroad and exceed the boundaries of fair discovery.” As for the other argument, let’s have Comcast speak for themselves:

Third, plaintiffs should not be allowed to profit from unfair litigation tactics whereby they use the offices of the Court as an inexpensive means to gain Doe defendants’ personal information and coerce “settlements” from them. It is evident in these cases – and the multitude of cases filed by plaintiffs and other pornographers represented by their counsel – that plaintiffs have no interest in actually litigating their claims against the Doe defendants, but simply seek to use the Court and its subpoena powers to obtain sufficient information to shake down the Doe defendants. The Federal Rules require the Court to deny discovery “to protect a party or personfrom annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” This case requires such relief.

Interestingly enough, AF Holdings accuses the defendants of participating in a BitTorrent “swarm.” The idea here is that everybody who downloaded a movie from AF Holdings did so together with the intention of turning around and seeding it as soon as they had finished downloading it. It seems that pornography studios don’t understand the Internet and how BitTorrent works, but Comcast apparently does.

The plaintiffs allege in their complaints that the Doe defendants “took concerted action” and “were collectively engaged in the conspiracy even if they were not engaged in the swarm contemporaneously.” However, courts have found that “[m]uch of the BitTorrent protocol operates invisibly to the user after downloading a file, subsequent uploading takes place automatically if the user fails to close the program.” Simply alleging the use of BitTorrent technology … does not comport with the requirements under Rule 20(a) for permissive joinder.”

If accepted by the court, it would help shape the definition of what kind of BitTorrent activity is actually considering piracy. A lot of people don’t find the act of downloading content illegally over BitTorrent to actually be piracy, but the act of uploading the content to share is. The problem comes from the fact that many BitTorrent clients automatically set the user to share the content over BitTorrent upon finishing the download.

In short, this case is absolutely fascinating. Unlike Verizon who just refused the subpoena, Comcast is making a great argument for the rights of their subscribers and BitTorrent users everywhere. We’ll keep watching the case to see what verdict the judge returns. Either way, it’s encouraging to see ISPs fighting for consumer rights. Now if they could just get rid of data caps.

Comcast Reply

The main part of the investigation seems to be Comcast’s Xfinity app, and the fact that if you use the app on their service it would not count towards your data cap where Netflix and Hulu would. That is a clear issue in my opinion and really does break antitrust rules. Also if they are found guilty, this is in direct violation of its agreements that cleared the way for its acquisition of NBCUniversal.

I can understand why they are doing this. These networks aren’t very cheap, but they are forcing us to use their services or be punished when we already pay for them. I had this problem with Time-Warner cable internet. When I was on Youtube or playing games it was fine, but if I tried to watch Netflix or stream MLB.TV my internet connection speed would go from 8Mbps down to .9Mbps. I tested it on many occasions. They came out and nothing was wrong but it was clear to me that because I didn’t buy HBO and a MLB package from them, that I basically was not going to be able to watch competing services.

Also being investigated are the cable companies’ TV Everywhere initiative, where online access requires a verified cable subscription, as well as the distribution contracts content providers sign with cable systems. There is no word on when the investigation will end, or if it is out to actually put a stop to anything. I guess the important thing is that hopefully we will be closer to the cable companies not being able to push us around anymore.

PayPal, EBay’s online pay service, has teamed up with Comcast Corporation and TiVo to bring the idea to life.

You might recall that PayPal has been working tirelessly to bring their service to more and more location, and this latest partnership should give them an advantage that will be sure to attract the attentions of their competition.

The TiVo boxes that deliver the service will feature the newest cutting-edge four-tuner configuration. PayPal has been working to get e-commerce to television since 2012, and the new partnership with TiVo and Comcast is the solution for customers who want the convenience they enjoy on their smartphones to transfer over to their television sets. It also has the potential to attract a whole new market of consumers.

Apparently, the plan is still in its early stages of development, but most of the infrastructure already exists to make it a reality. So, if you’ve been hoping for easier ways to part with your hard-earned cash, help is on the way. It’s going to be all too easy. Just point your remote and click “Buy”.

In a letter to Congress, Public Knowledge, Free Press, Consumers Union, and New America Foundation wrote:

Data caps do have a very real impact on consumer behavior. Data caps dampen the use of broadband generally and discourage high-bandwidth applications, like online video, specifically. This dynamic has been illustrated in letters submitted to the Federal Communications Commission last year by public interest groups [including signatories to his letter].1

If data caps had a legitimate economic justification, they might be just a necessary annoyance. But they do not have such a justification. Arbitrary caps and limits are imposed by multichannel video providers that also provide broadband Internet access, because the providers have a strong incentive and ability to protect their legacy, linear video distribution models from emerging online video competition.

Do data caps cause harm to you? Why or why not? We’d love to hear your perspective.

These issues have gained a lot of attention lately after several companies have raised concerns regarding the negative impact that data caps have on them. Netflix recently lashed out at Comcast over the cable giant’s announcement to not count the television programming users access through its Xfinity video streaming service against their 250-gigabyte monthly data cap. Reed Hastings, Netflix’s CEO, believes that Comcast isn’t following the FCC’s Open Internet Order and took to Facebook to voice his distaste for the company’s latest move:

Comcast no longer following net neutrality principles.

Comcast should apply caps equally, or not at all.

I spent the weekend enjoying four good internet video apps on my Xbox: Netflix, HBO GO, Xfinity, and Hulu.

When I watch video on my Xbox from three of these four apps, it counts against my Comcast internet cap. When I watch through Comcast’s Xfinity app, however, it does not count against my Comcast internet cap.

For example, if I watch last night’s SNL episode on my Xbox through the Hulu app, it eats up about one gigabyte of my cap, but if I watch that same episode through the Xfinity Xbox app, it doesn’t use up my cap at all.

The same device, the same IP address, the same wifi, the same internet connection, but totally different cap treatment.

In what way is this neutral?

Although Larry Downes, a senior adjunct fellow at Tech Freedom, would prefer not to have data caps, he told us that they do not fall under net neutrality concerns. As he explained, net neutrality is being misrepresented in this case and, therefore, takes the focus off of the real issues.

“The advocates believe any new service that is not really clear from a competitor’s standpoint… they kind of like to just paste it with the phrase net neutrality,” said Downes.

“It’s extremely misleading and very unhelpful to try to figure out what is best for customers if we just kind of paste everything with net neutrality,” he added.

Amazon is another company that is sounding alarm over data caps, and it expressed its concerns in a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on online video. Based on numerous reports, Sony is also halting plans to move forward with its own video streaming service until the FCC weighs in on Comcast’s Xfinity decision.

Just yesterday, Senator Al Franken sent a letter to the FCC vocalizing his concern over Comcast’s behavior as well. He is urging the commission to take action against cable company.

There is, however, the other side of this debate that believes data caps are necessary and even justifiable. Eli Dourado, a research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, is among this group. He spoke with us and explained that, even though he is a paid subscriber to three different online video services, he still thinks that data caps serve a significant purpose.

According to him, the first reason Internet service providers have data caps is for pricing incentives. In other words, if ISPs had one flat rate and no data cap, they would have to charge a lot more for their services. With caps, Dourado explains that ISPs can offer options to consumers, thus better meeting needs.

For example, ordinary consumers pay a lower cost for their services but have a data cap. Businesses, on the other hand, pay more but have no cap. Consumers are also able to pay more to not have a cap, if they wish.

The second reason Dourado thinks data caps are necessary is to help alleviate congestion. Everyone knows that when too many people are using the same bandwidth, the service slows way down. If data caps didn’t exist, more than likely, ISPs would have a metering plan in which users would pay bit-by-bit. Most consumers, however, would prefer to pay a flat rate, even if it’s more, in order to make their accounting easier.

“They’re [consumers are] willing to pay more and to have a flat rate than to pay less and have a metered rate,” said Dourado.

Thirdly, he believes data caps are justifiable to ISPs for copyright reasons. As SOPA and PIPA demonstrated, the entertainment industry is very concerned with copyright violations. Without data caps, Dourado told us that there would be “a lot more filtering and a lot more government control over content on the Internet.” This, in turn, could lead to ISPs being forced into a “copyright police” position. Dourado also mentioned that the chances of a SOPA passing could be more realistic without caps.

“If not something exactly like SOPA, something equally bad or worse could happen if there were no data caps,” he said.

Dourado went on to say that he too doesn’t think data caps are an issue of net neutrality. According to him, caps are important given the current economy and cable infrastructure.

“Everybody wants a neutral Internet… but, it’s totally different when you get into the actual economics of network industries of building out this infrastructure… it’s not always easy to provide neutrality,” said Dourado.

“Somebody has to pay for the pipes,” he continued, “and the most efficient way to have people pay for them is to pay a share of the fixed costs, and then a share of the marginal costs.”

Furthermore, Dourado told us that he has never gone past his cap even with his three online services. As a result, he doesn’t think that excess usage is very common.

“If you’re a normal Internet user and you browse the Web and use email and watch some YouTube videos here and there, you’re not gonna get anywhere near the cap,” he said.

He went on to say that, for those users who are afraid they will go over their limit, the consequence is essentially an “idle threat.” He said most ISPs simply send a letter of notification, and beyond that, nothing really happens.

“If enough consumers just say…. ‘We’re gonna use this and we’re gonna go to our cap or even succeed it,’ I think that the Internet service providers will have to accommodate them,” said Dourado.

As for mobile data caps, Dourado told us that they are even more important than those imposed by ISPs since mobile networks contain a much higher volume of congestion. In other words, the days of unlimited data plans are a long way from coming back.

Although there isn’t an investigation open to examine data caps at this time, Dourado said the groups that oppose them are very effective at getting their message out. In the long run, however, he is optimistic that the government will not intervene.

Do you think the government should step in regarding data caps? Please share your thoughts.

Comcast is touting its new X1 video platform for its DVRs. The platform sports an Apple TV-like interface (seen above) and allows customers to use their iPhone or iPod as a remote control. Users will be able to access TV, DVR recordings, and Comcast Xfinity On Demand programming. The company will launch Xfinity TV on the new X1 platform soon, starting in Boston and rolling out to other major markets throughout the year.

To be fair, Comcast hasn’t actually succeeded in cloning the Apple TV. For example, though it claims that X1 will deliver the world’s largest collection of video, there is no mention of a YouTube app. There is no mention of Netflix, Hulu, a browser, or internet access of any sort aside from the weather, traffic, radio, “social networking” and a couple of other apps. Comcast uses buzz-phrases such as “IP enabled” and “cloud-enabled” in a very odd manner. Speaking of “cloud-enabled,” there is also no mention of customers being able to store video, or anything, remotely.

“The X1 platform makes the TV smarter, richer and more personalized – and that’s only the beginning. Our goal is to leverage this platform to redefine the entertainment experience for our customers,” said Marcien Jenckes, senior vice president and general manager of video services for comcast cable. “X1 is a giant leap forward, essentially transforming our video product from a hardware experience to a software experience, allowing us to innovate faster and more aggressively.”

Will Comcast innovate faster and more aggressively? All of the innovation in the cable industry has come from outside of it and was then absorbed in a less-functional incarnation. Take TiVo, for example. The company innovated and brought DVR to the market. Cable companies, unable to ignore consumer demand for the technology, built DVRs of their own that had just enough functionality to make them passably usable. Comcast’s X1, a watered-down version of Apple TV or Google TV, is more of the same, giving customers “just enough” to keep them from fleeing cable altogether. This sort of begrudging change is why more Americans than ever are finally abandoning cable.

Comcast, while recently announcing that it would be eliminating a 250GB per month data cap on its services, mentioned that it was interested in “improved data usage management approaches.” The CableWifi network can be seen as an extension of this.

CableWiFi users, while outside of their home markets, can search for the “CableWiFi” network, and log on using their home network user information. An auto-connect function for CableWifi hotspots will become available, as the network expands.

Nomi Bergman, President of Bright House Networks, states, “This effort adds great value to our high speed Internet customers by providing free wireless Internet access on all of their WiFi enabled devices in our markets and additional areas across the country.” Kristin Dolan, Cablevision’s senior executive vice president of product management and marketing, adds, “We’ve built an extensive WiFi network in our own service area, and see real value and potential in other leading providers joining with us to extend that connectivity to major markets across the country – We believe that WiFi is a superior approach to mobile data, and that cable providers are best positioned to build the highest-capacity national network offering customers fast and reliable Internet connections when away from their home or business broadband service.”