Davis Freeberg’s Digital Connection

CNET reported this morning that AT&T and Comcast are planning on adopting a three strikes and you’re out policy for P2P users. The move is yet another desperate attempt by the media industry to try and regain control over content distribution. Because most broadband providers have government protected duopolies, they hope to use the MSOs as a chokepoint in their war on privacy piracy.

If you don’t actively engage in P2P sharing, you probably don’t think you need to worry about this, but I think there are already reasons to be alarmed. Even before the program’s launch, we are seeing reports of innocent customers being targeted by Comcast’s DMCA enforcement division.

Recently, John Aprigliano received a letter from Comcast asking him to take down a torrent that he was allegedly seeding. As if hitting him with a bogus DMCA takedown request wasn’t bad enough, Comcast had to insult his taste in movies by accusing him of sharing Cadillac Records, a movie that he had never heard of BTW.

When he called Comcast to figure it out, he got the usual run around. After 4 different telephone calls and an hour of hold time, he was finally able to determine that Comcast sent him the notice because of an old modem that was now being used by someone else.

I find this scary because I tend to move around a lot. Over the course of my life, I’ve easily used ten different modems. Considering how popular Bit Torrent is, there is more than a good chance that one of my former modems is being used pirate media. Why should I now have to worry about getting kicked off the net, just because Comcast can’t tell the difference between an IP and MAC address?

In John’s case, he was fortunate to be tech savvy enough to catch this, but what happens when some little old lady loses her broadband just because of a Comcast screw up? Are most people really going to know that they need to ask Comcast, what they have down for their Mac address? Somehow, I doubt that my Mom would have been able to prove herself innocent in the same situation.

During the RIAA’s lawsuit blitz, there have been plenty of examples where they filed lawsuits against innocent “infringers”. Now the media industry wants to exploit government granted monopolies, in order to take away high speed internet from those same victims. Forgive me, if I’m more then a little pessimistic. Why Comcast or AT&T would even consider such an anti-consumer proposal is beyond me, but the whole scheme is doomed for failure.

The pirates will eventually figure out even better ways to encrypt their traffic and the end result will just be a bunch of ticked off consumers feeling like big brother is breathing down their neck. It’s hard to get excited about having Comcast monitor P2P activity, when they already have a history for screwing these things up.

For those of you who are still not satisfied with the current crop of movie recommendation services, you’ll soon have a new choice available to you. Last week, I signed up for the private beta of Jinni and have been pretty impressed so far. Jinni is a new interactive movie rating website that is trying to do for movies, what Pandora has done for music.

While the site doesn’t stream any of the films that they recommend, they do offer convenient links to places where you can find the films online (Netflix, Blockbuster, Hulu, etc.) Apparently, the company has been live for a few months now, but I only just found out about them last week after seeing a review of the service on Read Write Web.

The site includes reviews, photos and even trailers for each film in their database, but their movie filtering software is the real bread and butter. Most of the content you’ll find on their movie description pages is pretty much available on any of the other movie sites, but their “movie genome” information is exclusive to them.

Through a process of human and computer intervention, they’ve categorized every film in their library using information from the movie’s plot, mood, genre, time period, critic reviews, story type, and attitudes. Viewers are then able to filter their search results by using these definitions.

For example, a search for the term bank brings up 134 movies, but if I filter this list by looking only at the “witty” films that include a heist in their plot and are set in the 21st century, I’m able to narrow my search down to just three films, Criminal, Inside Man and High Heel’s and Low Lifes. Since I haven’t seen any of these movies, it’s hard for me to tell how effective this really is, but by narrowing down broad based searches, it does enable me to discover movies that would have gotten lost in the volume of other search results.

On Jinni’s website you can find more information on the actual genome mapping process.

“The starting point of the Movie Genome is manual tagging by our team of film professionals. Each title has around fifty genes, among thousands of possibilities. Then, using advanced machine-learning technology, Jinni’s system learns from the manual tagging to begin automated tagging. This creates a level of consistency that creative human taggers can’t reach – especially important for similarity matches and recommendations, which won’t work unless you compare apples to apples and battles to battles as often as possible. Users who vote on genes, as well as the Jinni team, constantly check and improve the machine tagging.”

After playing around with the site, I was really impressed with the user experience, but I’m still on the fence about whether or not Jinni’s approach is the right way to go. On one hand, by creating “genome” fields around each film’s “DNA”, they’re able to accomplish a lot more with the data, but on the other hand, by restricting rating population to just their staff, it also limits the number of films that they are able to catalog. As an example, if I do a search for the plot Psycho, I get 270 results, but the same search on the user driven site Spout, gives me 509 movies. Now I’d be willing to bet that Jinni’s quality is better then Spout, but by not allowing their users to tag films, they may be giving up quantity through their process. Some people prefer quality over quantity, but I can’t help feeling like they are missing out on the wisdom of the crowds by excluding users from participating in the genome mapping process.

In addition to their movie filtering technology, Jinni also allows you to share more information about your own movie tastes and they provide personalized recommendations. While I haven’t tested the quality of their movie recommendation service yet, I do plan on putting them through my own blind taste test to find out how accurate their ratings really are. In the meantime, if you’re interested in trying the service, feel free to apply to their private beta or you can leave me a comment and I’ll be happy to share one of my invites with the first 10 readers to respond.

Since one of my new year’s resolutions is to try and post more often this year, I’ve decided to start a bi-monthly column to help stay on top of this goal. Ask Davis is a new feature that will be a cross between Dear Abby and the Mythbusters. You have questions and I don’t mind doing the legwork to find your answers. I’m hoping that it will provide a good place for readers to share feedback on what you are interested in. If you’ve ever wondered what my opinion on something might be, here is your chance. Just contact me through the tip line and I’ll be happy to consider sharing my thoughts.

For my first Ask Davis question of the year, I turned to an anonymous Google surfer from Fort Wayne Indiana who asks Can Netflix tell if a movie has been copied?

Dear anonymous Google surfer from Fort Wayne Indiana. Thank you for choosing the Digital Connection for all of your movie ripping needs. I suppose a better question to ask may be whether or not it’s legal or ethical to copy movies from Netflix, but I’m not here to judge, so here is the answer that you are looking for: it depends.

Netflix has two different movie delivery mechanisms. The first is the traditional DVD by mail. Pretty much all DVDs use a copy protection known as CSS. It was designed by the fat cat studios to limit access to your media, but was cracked several years ago by an underground hero known as DVD Jon. Since then, there have been a number of rouge software companies who have built dvd decryption programs, but their legality lies somewhere in the grey area. Last year, Real Networks tried to launch a program that would legally allow you to make back up copies of DVDs that you owned, but a judge granted a temporary injunction against them, after the big wig studios argued that people might use the program to make copies of discs that they didn’t own, but had rented through Netflix

Now I know that you wouldn’t do anything like that, but to get back to your theoretical question of whether or not Netflix would be able to tell if you did use one of these programs, the answer is no. Because the DVD decryption programs don’t write anything to the disc, there would be no way for Netflix to know that you had sneaked a copy. Netflix does monitor usage behavior so its possible that they might suspend or slow down your account if you abused their service, but by and large they depend on people playing by the rules.

When it comes to the movies that you find on their watch instantly feature, technically there is a way that you can copy them, but it’s a bit more tricky. If you stream rip the watch instantly files, you’ll be able to download a copy of the film to your hard drive, but you need a back ground in tech in order to figure it all out. Perhaps even more importantly when it comes to your question, Netflix can tell when you’ve downloaded a movie instead of streaming it. I don’t think that they lower the hammer on people who do this periodically, but there have been reports of them taking action against heavy users of this hack.

At the end of the day, you may be able to copy a movie from Netflix without getting caught, but my own question is why would anyone want to? The great thing about Netflix is that you can always request to see a movie again without any extra cost. Trying to save money by ripping a bunch of titles in a month may sound like a good idea, but if you’re going to walk that close to the line, you may as well go Bit Torrent. There may have been a time in my life where this sounded like a more appealing idea, but I don’t mind paying $18 a month for all you can eat, virus free film bonanza. I hope that this helps to answer your question and look forward to finding out what else my readers are interested in.

Regards,

Davis

As long time readers know, I’m a BIG fan of fiber internet access. I’ve only been fortunate enough to have access to the goods for 3 months of my life, but it was enough of a taste to know that fiber is a pretty disruptive piece of technology. While you may not need the the extra juice in order to find an on-ramp to the net, many of the more bandwidth intensive applications perform much better when you have a supersonic connection to the information highway.

Yet, despite all of the advances in technology, the rollout of fiber access has been painfully slow. AT&T likes to brag that they now offer Uverse to over 17 million households, but after two years, they’ve still only managed to sign up 1 million subscribers. While 17 million households sounds like a pretty significant footprint, if you’re not in one of the higher tax brackets, you are probably still waiting for super fast internet access.

A Tale of Two Cities

A little over a year ago, I left my swanky downtown loft in San Francisco for a much more humble apartment in the heart of Oakland. A big part of the move was because I wanted to save money for a new business that I was starting. At first I was ashamed to tell people that I was living in the 510, but after spending a year in Oakland, I’ve grown quite fond of the neighborhood. We certainly have more then our fair share of violent crime, but if you take the time to get involved in the community, you’ll meet a lot of amazing people. Leaving San Francisco for Oakland meant that I had to give up my fiber connection, but at the time, I was hopeful that it wouldn’t take long before AT&T finished their rollout of Uverse in the Bay Area. Sadly, after researching Uverse’s availability, I don’t expect this to happen anytime soon.

According to ZipSkinny.com residents who live in my zip code make a median salary of $32,273 per year. 23.7% of the population lives below the poverty line and there are nearly 18,000 people per square mile living in my neighborhood.

While Oakland can be a rough place, smack dab in the center of Oakland is a small town named Piedmont. Piedmont may be less then 2 miles from my home, but their community is night and day compared to my own. Despite being surrounded by Oakland, Piedmont was able to create a separate town for their residents and as a result they have their own school district, police department and fire services. While people in Oakland are struggling to survive, the median salary in Piedmont comes in at $77,952 (over twice what my neighbors are making.) The percentage of people living below the poverty line is a more reasonable 4.9%, and the average density per square mile is a measly 5,700 people.

Now I can’t fault Piedmont residents for wanting to live in a good neighborhood, but when you compare both cities, the difference between them is pretty startling. While one city is known for it’s high drop out rate among teenagers, the other is known for their high SAT scores. One city has an extraordinarily large population of single mothers, the other has an extraordinarily large population of personal nannies. One city has limited internet options, the other has access to Uverse.

We can argue over whether or not it’s fundamentally fair that Piedmont has so many advantages, but it’s their access to Uverse that I take exception with. As someone who has first hand experience with the benefits of a super fast internet connection, I’ve been harassing trying to get AT&T to expand Uverse into my neighborhood since I first moved. So far they’ve been pretty unresponsive and downright uncooperative to work with, yet 2 miles away in Piedmont, they are going door to door signing up residents for their service.

If you ask AT&T (either their phone reps or their PR dept.) for a list of neighborhoods where they provide service, they’ll refuse to break down the data citing competitive threats. Since I knew that Piedmont was juiced up for Uverse, but that Oakland had been largely denied service, I wanted to take a closer look at the numbers, to determine whether or not this was part of a larger pattern by AT&T.

In order to test my theory that AT&T is discriminating against the poor by only choosing high net worth areas to rollout Uverse service, I painstakingly researched bay area availability by looking up individual addresses one at a time. To help track this data, I created a public spreadsheet showing all of the bay area zip codes where you’ll find (and not find) Uverse service. While my spreadsheet does not prove that AT&T is using demographic data to discriminate over who gets access to Uverse company wide, it does suggest that their selection criteria in the Bay Area could be favoring the rich neighborhoods over the poor. When asked for more data on their company wide rollout, AT&T’s public relations department more or less told me to kick rocks and refused to comment on their selection criteria for Uverse availability. While they are well within their rights to withhold this data from the public, when you consider all of the government assistance that they receive, it seems only fair that they be required to provide some transparency over how they are choosing who gets Uverse and who gets denied.

According to my research, the average median salary of Bay Area Uverse neighborhoods comes in at $75,486 vs the average median salary of $67,405 for neighborhoods without access. In neighborhoods where AT&T offers Uverse, 6.65% of the citizens live beneath the poverty line compared to 11.04% in non-Uverse neighborhoods. While you would think that it would be in AT&T’s best interest to offer service in some of the densest areas first, a quick glance at the data shows that the average Uverse neighborhood represents approximately 3,500 people per square mile compared to density of over 7,000 people in Non Uverse neighborhoods.

Encyclopedia Davis and the Case of the Missing Uverse

Perhaps even more perplexing then the discrepancy between the haves and the have nots, was the fact that I could not find a single address in San Francisco which has access to Uverse. While my phone calls to AT&T reps and their public relations department generated plenty of assurances that they were offering service in the city of San Francisco, after more then 200 address searches, I still could not identify a single San Francisco residence that had access to Uverse. Despite AT&T’s claims that Uverse is currently available in the city of San Francisco, their representatives were also unable/unwilling to provide me with a single address that is currently using Uverse. As a result, I’ve excluded demographic data from the city of San Francisco when running the calculations listed above.

What makes this issue such a controversial topic is that if you are one of the traditional cable providers and want to expand service to a local neighborhood, there are typically very strict guidelines on which neighborhoods you have to serve. Because cable agreements have been traditionally negotiated community by community, local city governments have been able to negotiate equal access for all citizens. There are plenty of examples where cable companies have tried to only service high net worth neighborhoods, but because of the local franchise agreements, local politicians have had the muscle to pressure the cable companies to treat all of their citizens fairly.

When it comes to the telephone companies, the rules are a little different. Two years ago, California approved statewide franchise agreements that allow the phone companies to pick and choose which neighborhoods they want to offer service. The result is a broadband system that rewards the rich while discriminating against the poor.

Normally, I’m content to let businesses operate in the best way that they see fit, but when it comes to the internet, I’m a strong proponent of open access for all. The net is a great equalizer for society. It doesn’t matter whether you are black or white, rich or poor, male or female, gay or straight, young or old. When push comes to shove, it’s the power of your ideas that matter online. Yet, when it comes to the speed of your connection, it would appear that the tax returns of your neighbor, play a large role in deciding whether or not you have access to the highest tiered speeds on the net.

Internet providers have a unique business model that tends to encourage natural monopolies. Because the barriers to entry are so high, incumbent providers have a big advantage over new companies trying to get into the game. When you consider that President Elect Obama has proposed some pretty large checks to the phone companies, it becomes even more important to ensure that AT&T’s rollout policy treats everyone the same.

While I recognize the need for AT&T to turn a profit on their investment, I fear that by discriminating against the poor, it will only increase the digital divide. If AT&T isn’t using demographic information in their decision making process, then they should be more open about the criteria they are using to decide who does and does not get access to fiber internet. If my data is correct and they are only rolling out Uverse to the wealthy neighborhoods, then this is an issue that should be addressed before giving them access to more public funds.

While I believe that the statewide franchise agreements were a positive step for consumers and the telecommunications industry, if we’re not careful we run the risk of creating a system that makes it even more difficult for the poor to succeed online. While there may not be the same adoption rates in Oakland as there are in Piedmont, it doesn’t mean that their citizens should have less opportunities. Instead of continuing to discriminate against the poor, I’d like to see AT&T provide more balanced access to all.

Netflix Walmart Anti Trust Complaint

Over the last few years, it’s been no secret that Netflix has become the dominant force for DVD by mail rentals. There may be plenty of other ways to watch films, but when it comes to renting through the mail, Netflix’s laser like focus has put them in the enviable position of being able to assert a large degree of control over the economics of their market. While there is nothing wrong with a company being so successful that they become the dominant player through skill, there are laws against abusing that power to prevent competition.

A few years ago, Wal-mart created a copycat DVD rental service in order to try and get their own piece of the DVD rental market. Their results were disastrous and despite significant financial and retail advantages, the service never caught on with consumers. Eventually, Wal-Mart realized that it was foolish to spend as much time and money focusing on such a small part of their core business, so they threw in the towel and essentially sold their membership base to Netflix. While we know that the agreement included some cross promotional advertising, the actual terms of the deal weren’t ever publicly revealed.

While some would argue that Netflix’s agreement with Wal-mart was just another example of their business acumen, nearly four years after this transaction took place, Walmart and Netflix both stand accused of engaging in anti-trust behavior over the deal. While Netflix does see its fair share of bogus lawsuits, after reading through the complaint, I think that this case may end up having more teeth to it then most of the frivolous lawsuits that are filed (warning, I’m not an attorney, just my uneducated opinion.)

Because the overall DVD market is so much bigger then the online component that Netflix pwns/operates in, I think they’ll end up getting past this, but the complaint which was filed by Andrea Resnick, does do a good job of framing the debate and raises some prickly questions for Netflix/Walmart. Had Resnick tried to seek an injunction blocking the transaction back in 2005, most courts would have brushed aside any anti-trust arguments in a heartbeat, but by shifting the focus of their complaint beyond Netflix’s control over the DVD by mail category to Wal-Mart’s domination of the DVD sell through space, Resnick does a decent job of making his case.

According to the complant, “Prior to and at the time of the agreement, Netflix and Walmart.com were actual competitors in the Online DVD Rental Market. In addition, Netflix, on the one hand, and Wal-Mart Stores and Walmart.com were actual participants and Netflix was a potential participant, with the means and economic incentive to sell new DVDs–in the absence of the Market Division Agreement. Defendants shared a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve the unlawful objective of dividing the markets for online DVD rentals and new DVD sales. The Market Division Agreement allocated the Online DVD Rental Market to Netflix, with Wal-Mart Stores and Walmart.com agreeing not to compete in that Relevant Market. The agreement also allocated new DVD sales to Wal-Mart stores and Walmart.com, with Netflix agreeing to refrain from selling new DVDs in competition with them. In addition to explicitly or de facto agreeing not to sell new DVDs, Netflix also obtained the Market Division Agreement by providing potentially valuable promotion to Wal-Mart Stores and Walmart.com.”

(Note: bold and italics provided by me)

I don’t know whether or not there was specific language in the agreement preventing Netflix from selling new DVDs to their customers, but I am looking forward to finding out more details during the discovery phase of the trial.

Feel free to read through the complaint yourself, but when push comes to shove, it’s hard for me to believe that the courts will side with Resnick on this one. For one, as Techdirt aptly points out, Netflix doesn’t have a monopoly on the market, they just have the fortunate luck of competing with a neutered Blockbuster for that space. I also would argue that Netflix or Walmart for that matter, doesn’t have the ability to corner the home entertainment market as alleged. If Resnick is successful in arguing that the DVD by mail industry is a unique market they may end up having some luck, but the reality is that the home entertainment market is a helluva lot bigger then DVD rentals via the internet. If the FTC didn’t have problems with Sirius and XM combining to create a single satellite radio company, it’s hard to accept the argument that Netflix’s actions prevented competition on an anti-trust scale.

Since 2005, we’ve seen a radical transformation occur in the VOD and video over the internet markets. During that time, we’ve also seen Redbox install over 10,000 DVD kiosk locations throughout the US, including a large percentage of those in Walmart locations. When you consider that last year, Blockbuster had more then four times as much revenue then Netflix, it begins to illustrate how small Netflix’s slice of the movie rental industry really is.

Only time will tell how far this one will go, but I think it’s worth keeping an eye on. While I’m confident that neither Netflix nor Walmart did anything wrong, the suit isn’t as black and white as I would like. If Netflix does end up having to make compromises as a result of their success, it could have a serious impact on their ability to transition to digital delivery without any turbulence.

When I was a kid, I grew up in middle of the sticks where my parents didn’t have access to cable TV. When satellite dishes first started to show up, my folks were early adopters and bought a ginormous pirate dish (that you’d actually have to crank by hand when you wanted to jump to different channels), but for the most part, my childhood television experience consisted of two fuzzy OTA choices, NBC and CBS.

Back then deciding what to watch was rarely a problem. If I didn’t like what was on one channel, I’d simply live with whatever was on the other. Of course since then, technology (and my life) have changed a lot.

In thinking about my home entertainment setup today, I’m amazed at how many choices I actually have. It’s as if I’ve overcompensated for my lack of choice growing up, by deluging myself with every media gadget or service that comes out today. Between Netflix, Comcast, Amazon, YouTube, a dual tuner HD TiVo (not to mention my dual tuner media PC) and a little friend I like to call Bit Torrent, there is no shortage of content to watch.

While having plenty of choices is fun, having too many can be just as paralyzing as having too few and as more and more technology companies continue to take their shot at crossing into the living room, managing all of this content is going to become an even more important task.

So far, there have been plenty of efforts to improve content discovery services, but the task is apparently, much tougher then I would have thought. Two years ago Netflix offered a million dollars to anyone who could improve their recommendations by 10% and they’ve yet to award the prize.

Over the years, I’ve signed up for a plethora of movie recommendation services, but last summer I realized that it was too difficult to sync my ratings between them all. Since I strongly believe that TV and movie suggestions is a crucial piece of the new media experience, I wanted to make sure that my metadata activity was giving me the most bang for my click. In order to test out the various movie sites, I decided to create a Netflix challenge and conducted a “blind” taste test to figure out what site actually makes the most relevant recommendations.

To set up my experiment, I randomly choose 5% of the 2,000 movies and TV shows that I’ve rated through the Netflix service. I then set up a new profile on Netflix, Blockbuster, Spout and Criticker and manually entered my ratings for these 100 films, into each service. According to Spout, these ratings represented 11.6 days and 181 minutes of time spent watching TV

After I had setup an identical profile on all four services, I then took a look at the first 50 suggestions from each site and compared it to what I had actually rated the film on my main Netflix account.

If the service suggested a movie that I hadn’t already seen, I disregarded it toward calculating the final scores. Essentially, what I wanted to figure out was which movie recommendation service provided the best recommendations based on my actual real life viewing data. After taking a look at all four sites, it was clear that Netflix easily won this challenge.

Of the 50 recommendations that Netflix made, 28 of them (56%) were for films that I had rated 5 stars on my main account. While they did include two 1 star recommendations (Fight Club & American Psycho), the average rating for their recommendations weighed in at 4.18. Critcker came in second place with an avg of 4 stars per recommendation, followed by Blockbuster at 3.96 and Spout at 3.87.

Perhaps even more interesting then the final scores though, were the services that helped me find movies that I had never seen before. Netflix’s results may have been higher then anyone else, but of the 50 recommendations that they made, there were only 11 films that I hadn’t already seen. This compares to 24 unknown content suggestions (48%) from Blockbuster and an astonishing 44 unknown recommendations (88%) from Criticker. In taking a look at the types of movies Blockbuster was recommending, I wasn’t all that impressed with the list of unknown films. Most of them were kids movies that I simply missed because I had no interest in them at all. Trying to decipher Criticker’s picks was a little more difficult because most of their picks were for indie or foreign based films. At first glance it would seem that while Netflix may make more accurate suggestions, Criticker may actually be the best place for finding films that go beyond mainstream audiences.

I’ve listed the breakdown of my results below, but I would encourage you to take these results with a grain of salt. With a sample size of 1, my survey isn’t very scientific and because the ratings of my Netflix sample profile were 100% identical to the ratings on my main profile, it could have influenced my results from Netflix. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, I was pleased to discover that Netflix appears to be the best place for me to be rating and interacting with movies. While I’m hopeful that their open API will eventually allow consumers to port their data between services, it feels good to know that my primary movie recommendation service is the most optimal one for me.

Netflix

Recommendations I’ve Never Seen – 11
5 star – 28
4 star – 4
3 star – 1
2 star – 1
1 star – 2

avg. 4.1794

Criticker
Recommendations I’ve Never Seen – 44
5 star – 2
4 star -2
3 star – 1
2 star – 1
1 star – 0

Avg Ranking 4.0

Blockbuster

Recommendations I’ve Never Seen – 24
5 star – 9
4 star – 11
3 star – 4
2 star – 1
1 star – 0

avg – 3.96

Spout

Recommendations I’ve Never Seen – 11
5 star – 18
4 star – 9
3 star – 4
2 star – 5
1 star – 3

avg. 3.87