Well the latest Consumerist award for the Worst Company in America has been rewarded. The Winner? Why Comcast!! The cable company that people seem to love to hate. But you know, there is something worse than being that winner. Being the company that rubs another’s nose in it –

For anyone who thought that mammoth megacorporations behaved anything like adults, they should just check out the Twitter account for Verizon, who saw fit tonight to have a little fun at the expense of Worst Company In America winner Comcast.

Follow the link to the Consumerist site to see the adult attitude from Verizon.

Linky.

Its the big item on Drudge right now. Its all abuzz on the Tech Blogs. But if you had been a consistent ThirdPipe reader you would have known the likely outcome of all this back on Jan 10. That is when I posted this piece. And since we knew this already, we can’t add ‘unexpectedly’ to the title of this posting.

And there are no surprises. It went down pretty much as the Court drafted in their memorandum back to the FCC. So what now? Well probably nothing unless the powers that be start edging Congress to expand the FCC’s statutory authority. However I don’t see that happening in a political election year.

So welcome back to the future — 2004 edition!

Remember me telling you that a FCC managed neutral net would by anything but in practice?

Yet now that the FCC has formally issued draft net neutrality regulations, they have a huge copyright loophole in them — a loophole that would theoretically permit Comcast to block BitTorrent just like it did in 2007 — simply by claiming that it was “reasonable network management” intended to “prevent the unlawful transfer of content.”

You heard that right — under these conditions, the new proposed net neutrality regulations would allow the same practices that net neutrality was first invoked to prevent, even if these ISP practices end up inflicting collateral damage on perfectly lawful content and activities. (EFF)

And then there’s how this could impact Netflix subscribers:

….include a potentially nasty loophole, Netflix warned—the “managed services” category that the Commission created in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking back in October.

“Netflix is concerned that network operators will use so-called managed services in a way that harms unaffiliated content or service providers that compete directly with services provided by the network operator,” the company told the FCC earlier this month. “In short, if left unchecked, the ‘managed services’ category could engulf the Commission’s open Internet policies altogether” and let ISPs end run any regulations. (Ars Technica)

The loophole being discussed clearly enables your broadband provider the power to discriminate in the realm of content distribution. Of course both cable and telcos are very keen on protecting their own closed content distribution business.

Want a neutral net? I’ve got news for you: There isn’t one. Never has been. Never will be. Networks can not work correctly if they are not managed. The only fix is to open the market to competition. That way if Comcast noodles with your downloads, you’ll have more than one alternative provider. An open local loop could yield dozens of providers vying for your dollar. This is what the FCC should address. So called net neutrality is nothing more than a distraction for the real problem: a broadband duopoly.

Comcast’s TV Everywhere has great potential, but short sighted marketing works overtime to make it miss the mark. Available only to Comcast cable subscribers, and with a download cap if you get your video on Comcast’s system, it seems to be a defensive measure to slow the exodus of pay TV subscribers. It’s a sad irony that the service could bring in a new customers if it was also offered as a stand alone product. As an a la carte service available to anyone regardless of broadband provider it would surely have been a hit.

If you think regional monopoly communication behemoths like AT&T and Verizon are a good thing, you’ll love the new Comcast. With the newly minted FCC blessing unrestrained growth of the MSO giant, there’s little to stop Cablezilla from gobbling up smaller operators and growing its coax monopoly footprint.  Will this be good for consumers? Don’t bet on it. While Comcast has been upgrading its network to deliver faster speeds to some end users, it’s also been leading the industry in pushing usage caps and surcharges. With an ongoing enlargement of a Cabliezilla monoculture, we’ll see this being pushed into more markets where competition is sparse. The need for cash to fund system buy outs combined with no competition from the telcos will pretty much guarantee all Comcast customers will be paying more.

Comcast issued their third quarter earnings this morning, which indicate that while growth has slowed slightly at the cable giant, the money continues to roll in thanks to a combination of rate hikes and customers adding additional services. The company recorded a quarterly profit of $944 million, up from $771 million one year earlier. The company added 361,000 net broadband subscribers and 375,000 VoIP net customers, lower than predicted growth on both fronts but still respectable in the eyes of Wall Street investors.

Respectable might be an understatement, given Comcast’s quarterly broadband subscriber additions were more than double the combined total of Qwest, AT&T and Verizon on the quarter. (DSL Reports)

LA Times has a piece of Comcast sniffing around the behind of NBC Universal. The question for Comcast is the property a pig in a poke –

Cable giant Comcast Corp. is kicking the tires of NBC Universal, according to people familiar with the situation.

Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator with almost 25 million subscribers, has been looking to increase its content holdings for several years. In NBC Universal it would get its hands on not only a big broadcast network and movie studio, but also several powerful cable channels, including USA, Syfy, CNBC, MSNBC and Bravo.

NBC parent General Electric has often denied that it is interested in selling its entertainment holdings. Of course, if history is any guide, Comcast doesn’t necessarily wait for an invitation before making a play. Five years ago it made an unsuccessful run to buy Walt Disney Co. for $54 billion.

Even smart money can be dead wrong at times. This might be one of them. Consider that NBC proper, is a TV property that like its competitors has seen better days. These are the twilight years of on air content. Then there is MSNBC cable. Its ratings are so low that their total viewership on any given night does not even beat Greta Van Susteren a Fox property. SyFy and USA Network are probably the only two pieces with any lastings prospects. But would you plunk down $30Bn or so on that basis?

What a NBCUniversal deal does do for Comcast is seal up some cable content for themselves. Which considering that channel providers might bolt to Hulu or YouTube makes it a fair defensive play. The question of course, is it worth the money?

Good luck there Comcast. More here.

A judge has given one of the least customer oriented monopolies in the country the to OK to get bigger. No strings attached.

Comcast Corp., the biggest U.S. cable-television provider, won a legal victory as a court threw out a rule limiting cable companies to 30 percent of the market.

The Federal Communications Commission failed to fully consider competition from companies such as DirecTV Group Inc. and Dish Network Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington said. It called the FCC’s action “arbitrary and capricious” and vacated the rule.

The ruling could spell an end to FCC attempts to limit the growth of cable companies, said Andrew Lipman, a Washington- based attorney. The court didn’t offer the agency a chance to provide better reasons for the rule, as it did when judges rejected the limit in 2001, Lipman said in an interview. (Bloomberg)

Don’t look for Comcast to go searching for new, underserved and unserved markets. The company has grown entirely through acquisition.  With the sputtering economy, many smaller operators will sell for historically low prices. For that reason, the timing of this ruling can’t be entirely coincidental. What really troubles me is that all of the discussion I’ve seen on this case focuses entirely on pay TV.  Closed system pay TV is in need of some of  Obama’s end of life counseling. The real issue is internet access. Letting the biggest and baddest of the cable guys control more than 30% of the cable internet with no provision to enable new competition isn’t just a bad idea. It’s criminal!

OK this isn’t big news, but it does introduce some interesting possibilities. As part owner of the Clear service build that began as a partnership between Clearwire and Sprint, Comcast could add quite a bit of muscle to the marketing push for the new service.It’s beginning to look like a service that will be sold under many brands. One service with many brands, outlets and potentially different service levels is something we haven;t seen before in the wireless or broadband space

The so-called fourth-generation (4G) wireless service, is the first execution of a partnership between Comcast, Clearwire Corp and other companies that use the emerging WiMax high-speed mobile technology.

Many consumers already update their blogs and watch videos using their mobile phones. Cable companies such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable Inc do not want to become irrelevant by restricting subscriber access to the home.

The new service, called “Comcast High-Speed 2go,” is expected to deliver data to laptops, netbooks and other devices over a wireless network at faster speeds than has been commonly available to date.

Comcast said it will offer download speeds of up to 4 megabits per second. Existing 3G wireless networks typically offer download speeds between 1 and 1.5 megabits a second. (Reuters)

In a much ballyhooed joint announcement, Time Warner Cable and Comcast have tried to thrill consumers with the possibility of getting their favorite cable programming on demand, on the web. Before you get out the party hats and disconnect the cable box, it’s not quite as cool as it could be. It took some real talent to make what could be a breakthrough into a non-event.

The companies agreed to the following principles:

• Bring more TV content, more easily to more people across platforms.
• Video subscribers can watch programming from their favorite TV networks online for no additional charge.
• Video subscribers can access this content using any broadband connection.
• Programmers should make their best and highest-rated programming available online.
• Both networks and video distributors should provide high-quality, consumer-friendly sites for viewing broadband content with easy authentication.
• A new process should be created to measure ratings for online viewing. The goal should be to extend the current viewer measurement system to include advertiser ratings for TV content viewed on all platforms.
• TV Everywhere is open and non-exclusive; cable, satellite or telco video distributors can enter into similar agreements with other programmers.

Time Warner Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bewkes said: “TV Everywhere is no longer just a concept, but a working model to deliver consumers more television content over broadband than ever before.  We consistently look to make our popular, branded content more accessible to consumers in order to grow our business.  This progressive approach to delivering television content online will enable the continued vibrancy and growth of distribution outlets, their content partners and advertising clients.”

So in other words, these two cable guys have agreed in principle to begin giving subscribers an online on demand option to some of the programming that they already subscribe to……… online……….sometime.  Herein we have proof that the cable suits remain totally clueless. The new generation of viewer wants a la carte, on demand and online from any connection. Maybe they will pay for a channel or two. Maybe they will pay more per channel than they would on a per channel basis in a package. What is not a maybe is that they don’t want any more stinking packages on a closed system. And by the way, the new generation of viewer is not an age, it’s an attitude. Need help with working out the details? Memo to cable guys: The Dr. and I are available to help you set this up right at a fair price.

New earnings reports contradict the premise that Time Warner and Comcast are suffering from a customer base that is over consuming bandwidth without paying for it. Instinctively, we knew that was the case all along. Even with the explosive growth of demand, the wholesale cost of the average bandwidth use per subscriber is falling.

Comcast beat analysts’ expectations and increased profits 5.4 percent to $778 million. Time Warner Cable’s profits fell 32 percent, but this was mostly due to costs associated with the split from its former parent company, Time Warner. The company’s revenue was actually up 5 percent to $4.4 billion when compared to the same quarter a year ago.

Comcast also increased revenue by about 5.3 percent to $8.4 billion.

Meanwhile, both companies reduced capital spending. Comcast cut capital expenditures by 19 percent to $1.16 billion. And Time Warner Cable cut its spending by 18 percent to $33 million. For broadband specifically, Time Warner increased revenues 11 percent to $1.1 billion.

The companies also increased subscribers. Time Warner added 225,000 new broadband users and 166,000 new voice-over-IP customers during the quarter. Comcast added 328,613 high-speed Internet customers, down 33 percent from the previous year, and it added 298,433 digital phone customers, also down about 53 percent.

Even though Comcast isn’t adding new customers as quickly as it did a year ago and Time Warner’s profits aren’t as high as they were a year ago, the companies are still adding new subscribers and making money. And yet they are also cutting capital spending. (Cnet)

I do see potential for some bandwidth issues here, but it’s because while these companies are adding customers, they’re cutting investment in infrastructure. If this isn’t an obvious  sign of an uncompetitive marketplace, then it is surely a sign of extreme arrogance.