Road Runner Turbo customers in south Texas can expect to receive more speed for their money soon.

Time Warner Cable is boosting speeds for Turbo customers in Corpus Christi, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo, the Rio Grande Valley and Uvalde.

“We are very excited to offer this upgrade and time-saving feature to our Road Runner customers,” said Gavino Ramos, vice president of communications for Time Warner Cable South Texas.

Downstream speeds increase from 10 to 15Mbps and upstream speeds are doubled from 1Mbps to 2Mbps.

The price for Turbo service remains unchanged.

Although the exact date for the upgrade is unclear, customers can check if the upgrade is completed in their area by following this company-recommended procedure:

1. Unplug the cable modem and wait 60 seconds.
2. Plug the cable modem back in. The lights will flash as it reconnects to the network.
3. When the modem lights are solid again, restart your computer and experience the new faster speed.

Cable ONE intentionally eavesdropped on what its customers did online in order to profit from targeted advertising.  That is the allegation contained within a class action lawsuit filed Wednesday in the Alabama Northern District Court.

The suit alleges the cable operator installed network monitoring software from NebuAd, an advertising provider, which monitored and profiled customers for the purpose of delivering customized, targeted advertising.

Cable ONE is named as defendant in the suit because the company did not inform customers that such profiling was taking place, and never gave customers an opportunity to opt out, according to the complaint.  NebuAd itself has not being named in the suit.

Customer Samuel Green claims NebuAd paid the cable company a “price per customer, per month” and placed tracking cookies on his computer to follow his online activities.  He accused the company of violating his privacy.  The lawsuit establishes a class action case opening the door for a settlement with every customer, potentially nationwide.

The suit asks for damages of $100 per day for the period Cable ONE utilized the tracking services of NebuAd.  It also demands the company destroy all of the data the suit alleges was wrongfully obtained.

The case is being handled by Florence attorney Joey K. James.

Source: Trefis

At a time when digital cable revenues are anemic, and rate hikes are among the most important factors for keeping average revenue per customer as high as possible, Time Warner Cable’s broadband division is just a percentage point or two from becoming the most important service on offer from the nation’s second largest cable provider, at least as far as the stock price is concerned.

Trefis, a forward looking valuation analyst, says future growth at Time Warner Cable will largely come from consumers looking for broadband connectivity. While the company’s digital cable division still constitutes the majority of its stock price estimate, 36 percent, the broadband division has now achieved a close second — 35.1 percent, according to Trefis.

Time Warner Cable maintains an 11 percent share of America’s broadband market, a number expected to grow to 13 percent over the course of the next few years.  Trefis predicts a corresponding increase in the stock price as consumers continue to be driven to the cable operator, particularly from less robust DSL service sold by telephone companies.

Trefis notes the need for speed is a driving factor, and the company can expect to also benefit from customers bundling multiple services together when signing up.

[Update 4:50pm EST: Verizon Wireless issued this statement: "Our network security system found traffic from some 4Chan Web sites that had strong potential to disrupt the Verizon Wireless network, affecting our customers' use of their services. With continuing investigation, and ensuring no current risk of harm, we are giving the green-light to all 4Chan traffic. We will continue to monitor for any possibility of network harm."  That "harm" was likely from another denial of service attack, and does not necessarily come from 4Chan themselves.  Malicious attackers can use false identifying information.  You can expect that company officials would strenuously avoid anything that could smack of a Net Neutrality violation at a time the issue remains a hot topic in DC.]

Last year, AT&T got itself into a political pickle over accusations that the provider had blocked access to 4Chan, an often controversial no-holds-barred imageboard.  With Net Neutrality a front burner topic, the accusation ran away in the press and heralded considerable finger-pointing about a major provider blocking access to a website they supposedly didn’t like.

Now it’s Verizon Wireless’ turn.  Over the weekend, 4Chan’s founder, Christopher Poole, claimed the wireless company was blocking access to the site:

Over the past 72 hours, we’ve been receiving reports from Verizon Wireless customers having difficulty accessing the image boards. After investigating, we found that Verizon is dropping traffic to/from boards.4chan.org, only on port 80 (HTTP). No other subdomain/IP/port is affected, which leads us to believe this block is intentional. A call was placed to their support staff last night, and we were told that the ticket would not be looked at until Monday at the earliest, and: “You’ll need the customer to call to request it be unblocked…”

Note: Users with mobile browsers that proxy (BlackBerry, Opera) won’t necessarily have issues accessing the boards.

Late Sunday evening, Poole claims he confirmed Verizon is intentionally blocking 4Chan:

After an hour and a half on the phone, we’ve received confirmation from Verizon’s Network Repair Bureau (NRB) that we are “explicitly blocked.”

Poole’s notice included Verizon’s phone numbers, giving members of the 4Chan community a place to vent, and that is precisely what has been happening all morning.  The Network Repair Bureau’s phone lines melted down, and the company claims it has not discovered precisely why the site is being blocked.

Before the inevitable outrage against Verizon Wireless commences, a few points to consider:

1. The AT&T incident a year ago was not an effort to block 4Chan’s site, just stop a denial of service attack originating from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org.
2. A “block” does not necessarily mean an executive at Verizon Wireless specifically ordered the company to stop providing access to a particular site.  Blocks can be an automatic network management technique to control a traffic problem or denial of service attack, a technical error, or a problem external to Verizon itself.
3. I am a Verizon Wireless customer and have no problem reaching boards.4chan.com on my LG Chocolate phone.
4. Customers of Verizon FiOS or Verizon DSL are not blocked.

It seems prudent to wait a few hours to learn whether this is a poster child for Net Neutrality, or simply a technical issue.

Exasperated consumers fed up with a two party system feasting on big corporate campaign contributions buying legislative favors from Washington have a point.  With a Supreme Court decision ripping the limits off the corporate ATMs installed in the halls of Congress, corporate interests will now spend more than ever to keep their agendas front and center among lawmakers.

Some consumers demand an end to the money-influence machine in Washington with public financing of campaigns, an allotment of free advertising, and strict ethics laws to prohibit corporations from buying favors from elected officials.  Others have joined a “tea party” movement that believes a wholesale slashing of the size of the federal government will help accomplish the goal of keeping government out of our lives.

The demand for real change is sincere, even if the proposed solutions differ. The debate comes after years of watching common-sense, pro-consumer public policy get watered down or blown out of the water after lobbyists descend on the Capitol like locusts swarming a field of wheat.

It’s unfortunate that those swarms don’t just wreak havoc on lawmakers — they’ve also quietly infested the “tea party” movement that advocates reform.

It’s akin to the Boston Tea Party being sponsored and organized by the East India Company.

After this weekend’s “tea party” convention in Nashville, it’s more apparent than ever that teabags come with corporate strings attached.

Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising, considering the modern reincarnation of the “tea party” was channeled by a business news network. About a year ago, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli ranted on air about the federal government bailing out Americans underwater on their mortgages after the housing market collapsed.

“We’re thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July,” Santelli offered.

For Stop the Cap! readers, the names and groups affiliated with the “tea party” movement are already familiar.  FreedomWorks’ Dick Armey (R-TX), the former House majority leader in Congress openly considers himself a leader in the movement.  But his day job involves creating fake “grassroots” campaigns for corporate interests, including Verizon and AT&T.  Phil Kerpen from Americans for Prosperity promptly registered “taxpayerteaparty.com” and joined the movement while continuing to represent the broadband industry against Net Neutrality and against municipal broadband network competition.

Kerpen’s group should be called “Americans for the Prosperity of Big Telecom.” They oppose Net Neutrality to the degree Kerpen appeared twice on Glenn Beck’s Fox News show, mostly as an enabler of Beck’s paranoid rantings about Net Neutrality.  After two sessions of Beck’s chalkboard conspiracy theater, the host had Kerpen nodding in agreement to the proposition that Net Neutrality was Maoist.  The group also harassed North Carolina residents with robocalls opposing municipal broadband service that would bring fiber optic connectivity to residents.

Americans for Prosperty's Phil Kerpen on Glenn Beck's show opposing Net Neutrality

Wherever common-sense pro-consumer public policy threatens to become law, the corporate-backed lobbying groups take the anti-consumer view and hoodwink consumers into supporting the corporate agenda.  Trying to convince Americans they are better off taking the anti-consumer position takes a lot of money.  You can’t argue your position beneath your corporate banner.  That’s too transparent.  It’s much more effective to spend tens of millions on creating fake “grassroots” groups with no visible ties to their corporate benefactor.  You need to fund so-called “independent” research groups to cook up phony reports that prove pre-conceived corporate positions.  Writing big fat checks to elected officials can’t hurt either.

Billions in profits are at stake.  In 2008 it was the oil industry and the ridiculous spike in energy prices.  Millions were spent to keep oil and gas interests free from meddlesome Washington and their pesky investigations.  In 2009, the health care industry spend tens of millions of dollars to fight health care reform, while Wall Street bankers tried to keep up with tens of millions of their own to preserve the special favors they earned from being “too big to fail.”

Right after big oil, health care, and banks comes the telecommunications industry.

Last Friday, Verizon had the dubious distinction of appearing on USA Today’s top-20 big spenders.  The only good news is the company only spent $17,820,000 in 2009 on their lobbying efforts.  That’s down from 2008, when Verizon spent $18,020,000.

Not to be too outdone, the cable television industry handed over part of your rate increase to their own lobbying machine.  In 2008, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association spent $14,500,000.  But your rates went up in 2009, and so did their total spending on an army of lobbyists — $15,980,000 worth.

That buys a lot of plastic grass.

Where does the money go?  Among Verizon’s benefactors and friends:

Consumers for Cable Choice: Common Cause notes Verizon spent $75,000 in just one year on this group, which fights for statewide cable franchises, mostly benefiting phone company cable TV from Verizon and AT&T.  While this short cut may bring consumers a choice in providers, it doesn’t bring them any savings.

FreedomWorks: Adamantly opposed to Net Neutrality, FreedomWorks also backs those statewide video franchises, thanks to generous fees paid by AT&T and Verizon to take those views.

The Progress and Freedom Foundation: They define “progress” much differently than consumers.  Opposed to a-la-carte pricing for cable television packages (letting you choose and pay only for the channels you want), P&F also hates Net Neutrality and the concept of government issuing franchises for cable and telco TV in the first place.  Let them dig up your streets and backyards without oversight!  The group receives so much corporate telecommunications money, it would be easier to list the companies that don’t cut them a check.

The American Legislative Exchange Council: They exchange Verizon’s money in return for strong opposition to Net Neutrality.  They are at the forefront of opposition to municipal broadband networks, with a staff of lawyers who “helpfully” draft legislation for state lawmakers to ban such networks.  Part of the broadband protectionist racket, ALEC makes sure even unprofitable, unserved areas stay that way.  ALEC believes Net Neutrality will harm states’ economies, which would be true if a state was defined as a corporate broadband provider.

New Millennium Research Council: They “develop workable, real-world solutions to the issues and challenges confronting policy makers, primarily in the fields of telecommunications and technology.”  This so-called “think tank” issues suspect reports mostly for the benefit of Congress, which some members use as cover when voting against their constituents and for the provider.  You’re certain to hear elected officials railing against pro-consumer policies quoting liberally from these industry-backed “think tanks,” which provide a patina of independent legitimacy to corporate-backed propaganda. Need to scare people with stories about an overburdened Internet that will crash and burn without “network management” that slows service and enriches providers?  No problem! (That the group has had Verizon employees working for them doesn’t hurt either.)

Broadband for America: This relatively new group is infested with Verizon and AT&T contributions from top to bottom.  In addition to direct contributions from big telecom interests, virtually every single public interest non-profit group on their roster has an AT&T or Verizon lobbyist on their board of directors, or accepts generous contributions from the telecom industry.

Frontier of Freedom: Another so-called “free market” group advocating deregulation, FF doesn’t disclose its donors and considers itself independent, but a familiar pattern belies that.  Frontier of Freedom advocates statewide video franchises and has even run advertising promoting telco-friendly legislation in states like Texas.  The cable industry was displeased because Frontier of Freedom used to represent their best interests but suddenly flipped sides in 2005.  Money talks.

MyWireless.org: “MyWireless.org is a national non-profit consumer advocacy organization” the site declares, without bothering to disclose it is really a sock puppet of the cell phone industry’s trade group CTIA – The Wireless Association.  Ostensibly interested in stripping taxes and government-mandated surcharges off of cell phone bills, the group also opposes Net Neutrality and consumer protection laws.  It’s a bit difficult to call yourself pro-consumer when you oppose a California and Minnesota consumer Bill of Rights that would have required a 30 day penalty-free trial of cell phone service, expanded a toll-free complaint hotline, set minimum service standards, and required easy-to-understand billing.

NetCompetition: Another front group bought and paid for by the industry it seeks to zealously protect.  Adamantly opposed to Net Neutrality, NetCompetition also spends its time Google-bashing and attacking Free Press, seen as one of the strongest advocates for Net Neutral policies and consumer protection from provider abuses.  Their member page explains everything.

The unfortunate part of all this is that many participants of the “tea party” movement seem blissfully unaware of the corporate manipulation of their movement, all happening barely beneath the surface.  Millions of dollars are flowing into the bank accounts of astroturf groups doing all they can to channel public anger against Washington into something they can use to benefit their corporate backers.  The end result may be the ultimate feedback loop — consumers already angered by Washington not listening to their needs and concerns compounded by providers picking their pockets.  That bitter tea may be easy to brew but impossible to swallow.

Phoney Baloney: The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the cable industry lobbying group, ran this hissyfit ad to combat Verizon and AT&T outmaneuvering the cable industry over statewide video franchising laws. (1 minute)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Comcast-NBC Merger 2-4-10.flv

Comcast Chair & CEO Brian Roberts and NBC Universal President & CEO Jeff Zucker today defended their proposal to merge the two companies at a hearing held by the Senate Judiciary committee. Senate members questioned the deal’s potential impact on the media marketplace, including program availability and consumer costs. (2 hours, 3 minutes)

Bell has announced it will boost broadband speeds for selected residents of Ontario and Quebec as high as 100/20Mbps service through a fiber service upgrade it will begin this year.

While Canada’s largest phone company is providing a “fiber to the neighborhood” service that still relies in part on traditional copper phone wiring in other parts of Ontario, Bell promises to install true fiber to the home connections starting in Quebec City, and in new housing developments elsewhere in both provinces.

Quebec City was chosen because most of the city’s telecommunications wiring is installed above ground on traditional telephone poles.  Upgrading above-ground service costs considerably less than coping with buried cables.  It will take the company three years to complete the upgrade.

Bell claims the upgrades are part of a natural evolution of telecommunications service in Canada.

“Investment in broadband networks and services is a core strategic imperative at Bell,” said chief executive George Cope in a statement. “We’re actively building the communications platforms that support the growth of competitive new internet, video and other digital services now and into the future.”

Competition may be the key factor in Bell’s decision to upgrade service, particularly in Quebec.  Incumbent cable provider Videotron has effectively called out Bell for its slower broadband DSL service, which offers “up to” 7Mbps DSL service.  Videotron already provides speed tiers up to 50Mbps for just under $80 a month, and is capable of expanding service to 100Mbps in the future.

In Ontario, Bell faces competition from Rogers Cable, which itself has boosted speeds after a DOCSIS 3 upgrade.  The cable operator offers residents in the Greater Toronto Area 50Mbps for $100 per month.

But two things that will come along for the ride are Bell’s notoriously low usage allowances and throttled speeds when using bandwidth-intensive applications like file swapping software.

The company did not release what usage limits are anticipated for their fiber optic offerings, but consumers acquainted with Bell service are skeptical the upgrade will be worth the price.

“Who cares what Bell’s speeds are when you cannot use the service at promised speeds,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Noelle.  “Besides, if Bell’s usual stingy limits remain in place, if you did maximize your connection, you could blow through their usage limit in an hour or so.  As usual, we get to pay for what most others get for free as part of their subscription price.”

Some other online reactions:

“Sure we’ll all have faster speeds, but Bell will make us pay through our teeth for it. Faster speeds mean less time to reach the bit-cap limit = more profit for Bell. Also everyone with an independent ISP will continue to use whatever crumbs of service Bell wishes to dole out as part of it’s non-monopoly obligations. Having a hyper-fast internet with Bell is like having a Ferrari and having to drive the speed limit everywhere. I know it can do 200mph, but Ma Bell limits me to 50. Its like throwing your money away.”

“Bell’s theoretical DSL download speed of 7Mbps is a joke.  Most people barely break 1Mbps, and after they’re done throttling you to death, you’d beg for that speed if you could get it.  I dumped the Bell nightmare years ago.”

“I can’t wait to find out what my bill will be after they charge me another arm and a leg to pay for all these upgrades.  Who cares about speed upgrades when their usage-based limits mean you cannot use them.  Instead of upgrading speed, how about upgrading your network capacity and do away with the usage limits and throttled broadband speeds?”

Metro Vancouver residents will have access to Canada’s fastest residential broadband service next Friday when Novus Entertainment launches its Net 200 tier providing 200Mbps service over a fiber optic network for $279.95CDN per month.  Customers currently paying $179.95 for the company’s 60Mbps plan will also receive a free upgrade to 100Mbps service on that same date.  No word yet on what the new usage limits will be, but Novus previously limited its 60Mbps plan to 360GB per month, unfortunate for a plan that carries such a premium price.  Novus charges 50 cents for each additional gigabyte above their various plan allowances.  Novus’ upload speeds are the same as its advertised download speeds.

Novus Entertainment has wired fiber optic cable in 33,000 large multi-dwelling units in parts of greater Vancouver, providing broadband, telephone, and television competition for incumbent cable provider Shaw Communications.  The two companies were embroiled in a nasty price war last year, with Shaw slashing prices to as low as $10 per month for video, phone, or Internet access.  To date, Novus has 9,000 subscribers, 8,200 of which subscribe to the company’s broadband service.

“We noted a recent survey by Harvard University which found that Canadians’ access to superior broadband performance and infrastructure ranked poorly among developed countries,” said Donna Robertson, Co-President and Chief Legal Officer of Novus Entertainment Inc. “While these results are disappointing, this provided Novus with the opportunity to not only take this challenge head on and provide customers with superior Internet speeds, but to also set us apart from the competition.”

Vancouver is the home of Novus Entertainment

Novus’ Net 200 will be available in selective buildings that are configured for 200 Mbps technology. With the vision of becoming one of Metro Vancouver’s major Internet and communications service providers, Novus continues to expand its service in Vancouver and Burnaby and plans to launch services in Richmond in 2010.

“Canadians want a service provider that delivers a fast Internet connection to meet their growing needs at a reasonable cost,” said Doug Holman, Co-President and Chief Financial Officer of Novus Entertainment Inc. “Yet they’re paying among the highest prices for some of the lowest speeds. Novus’ superior fibre-optic network allows us to provide our customers with best-in-class, reliable and consistent transfer speeds that the incumbents simply can’t offer.”

Shaw probably cannot match Novus’ 200Mbps service tier on their non-fiber optic cable network, but will likely continue to compete heavily on price with discounts that stun Canadians outside of metro Vancouver.  Shaw’s pricing in Novus-wired buildings is as much as $60 less than in other areas where Novus does not compete.

Novus also owns some wireless spectrum covering Alberta and British Columbia, so eventually the provider could mount a competitive challenge in the mobile telephone market, at least in western Canada.  There are rumors the company could partner with an eastern Canadian spectrum holder like Public Mobile, which owns spectrum covering southern Ontario and Quebec.  Neither company has launched service, and probably won’t for the rest of 2010, but could eventually provide additional competition in the overpriced Canadian mobile phone market.

House Committee Energy & Commerce | Communications, Technology, and the Internet

The subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing today titled, “An Examination of the Proposed Combination of Comcast and NBC Universal.” The hearing explored the potential impact on the media marketplace of the proposed joint venture agreement between Comcast and NBC Universal. This portion contains committee members’ opening statements and no witness statements.

House Committee Energy & Commerce | Communications, Technology, and the Internet

Witnesses testified about the potential impact on the media marketplace of the proposed joint venture agreement between Comcast and NBC Universal. Among the issues they addressed were competition in the media marketplace, possible innovations which could result from the merger, the impact on local affiliates, and the affect on consumers.

Comcast loves its new name for TV Everywhere so much, it’s expanding it across all of its products and services in the coming months.

XFinity, originally Comcast’s online video on demand service, will now share its name with Comcast’s cable-TV, telephone, and broadband product lines.

The effort to rebrand itself comes at a time when consumers increasingly find blurring lines between services delivering video, telephone and broadband service.  You can watch cable TV programming on your mobile phone, make and receive phone calls over your broadband connection, and watch TV shows online as well.  XFinity could symbolize the convergence of technology, where content is ultimately more important than the way it reaches you.

Comcast’s blog gushed about the ‘exciting proposition’ of an industry game-change:

The folks at Gizmodo are lampooning Comcast's brand change

Today on Comcast’s earnings call Brian Roberts and Steve Burke talked about XFINITY, the new brand for our technology platform and products. Simply put, XFINITY is about offering our customers more — more HD, more speed, more choice and more control over their services. XFINITY is the culmination of years of work to transition Comcast’s network and products to a platform that will now offer 100+ HD channels, 50 to 70 foreign-language channels, approaching 20,000+ VOD choices, incredibly fast Internet speeds (50 Mbps growing to 100+ Mbps) and thousands of TV shows and movies online for our customers to watch whenever and wherever they want.

XFINITY represents the future of our company and it’s a promise to customers that we’ll keep innovating. When we launch XFINITY in a market, we’ll rebrand our products: XFINITY TV, XFINITY Voice and XFINITY Internet (our company, of course, remains Comcast). This transition is already well underway across the country. Next week, XFINITY will roll out in 11 markets including: Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Hartford, Augusta, Chattanooga, parts of the Bay Area and San Francisco, with more markets to come later this year.

Of course, consumers don’t have a choice about Comcast’s 250GB monthly usage allowance.

As far as new names go, reaction is decidedly mixed.  The folks at Gizmodo promptly began ridiculing the thin coat of paint applied to an often despised cable provider landscape.  XFinity likely targets a younger audience.  I suspect older subscribers will be perplexed as to its meaning, if not its pronunciation.

This isn’t the first time the industry has tried name-changes.  Cable modem service has long since been rebranded “High Speed Online” by some, “High Speed Internet” by others.  Time Warner Cable calls its bundled services “All the Best.”  Many others call it a “Triple Play.”

For consumers, the name is less important than the quality and price of the service.

Karl Bode of Broadband Reports and I are both glad that Comcast at least avoided the now-cliché “Extreme” in the new name.  I hope they also registered the predictable xxxfinity.com before some porn merchant grabs it.