Despite challenging economic conditions, Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt told CNBC broadband from the cable operator has remained strong during the downturn.  The company reported the addition of 117,000 new Road Runner customers during the third quarter, many switching from rival telephone company-provided DSL service.

A CNBC anchor who visited a conference recently and absorbed cable industry talking points about consumption-based pricing asked Britt about whether Time Warner Cable’s network had the capacity to handle skyrocketing data consumption.

“Our physical plant is very capable and we invest in it in a steady way, so I think we’re able to keep up with demand.  I think the other question you’re really raising is who pays [...] is an evolving thing.  Also the history has been everybody pays the same for unlimited access.  I suspect that will change going forward to some more usage based model, but that in itself is controversial so we’ll have to see what happens,” Britt said.

Britt’s comments about investments in their network are challenged by the company’s own financial reports which showed a decline in those investments and in the cost of obtaining network bandwidth.

Still, Time Warner Cable is upgrading some areas to DOCSIS 3 technology to market higher speed service to broadband enthusiasts.

The company continues to face significant challenges in its mainstay cable television business, losing 84,000 cable televison package customers in the last quarter, a result of the loss of home ownership during the economic crisis according to Britt, and a general downturn in the economy.  Still, through a combination of price increases and marketing bundled services, the company grew average revenue per subscriber to $102.48 a month in the third quarter.

Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt is interviewed on CNBC about the company’s third quarter earnings. (11/6/09 – 4 minutes)

Stop the Cap! reader Nonya advised us about Britt’s latest appearance on CNBC.  If you find news our readers might be interested in, send us your news tip under our “Contact Us” link above.

News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch

The days of finding free access to News Corporation’s online content, from Fox News to the New York Post to Sky News are numbered, according to chairman Rupert Murdoch.

Murdoch spent several minutes with Sky News Australia political editor David Speers lamenting the mistake News Corporation made in providing free access to its news stories and content websites, declaring the free ride is about to end with the near-universal introduction of “paywalls” requiring Internet users to open their wallets to read or watch their content.

Murdoch says he wouldn’t mind a substantial decline in web traffic from visitors who currently find his companies’ content through Google news and content searches, claiming advertisers don’t place much value on one-time visits.  He prefers customers willing to pay.

Murdoch suggested most of News Corporation’s content will end up looking similar to today’s Wall Street Journal — a few sentences for free and then an invitation to subscribe to read more.  Videos could cost more.

Murdoch accused Google and other indexing services of “stealing” content, and when asked if he would be willing to request that Google stop indexing his websites, Murdoch replied, “I think we will.”

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow had fun with that answer last night, pondering how Murdoch will attract audiences to his content when the company refuses to allow search engines to index it.

Rachel Maddow comments on Rupert Murdoch’s apparent plan to ban indexing of his websites’ content by Google. (11/9/09 – 1 minute)

Sky News Australia was in no position to seriously object, as they are partly owned by News Corporation themselves, and Murdoch had little to fear from Speers’ gentle treatment of the media icon.

Among the company’s global media properties:

America's Broadband Emergency Plan Allows Up to Three Cat-Chasing-Laser-Pointer videos per day

The mainstream media loves a scare story.  Suggestions that a national H1N1 pandemic could bring the Internet as we know it to its knees is a surefire way to get plenty of attention.

The Chicago Tribune, among others, reports that a nationwide outbreak of virus forcing 40% of American workers to remain housebound could result in too many people sitting at home watching Hulu, bringing the entire Internet to a screeching halt.

The answer? Shut down video streaming sites and throttle users during national emergencies.

Of course, even more interesting is what never turns up in these kinds of stories — the news behind the sensationalist headlines.

The report on which this story is based comes courtesy of the General Accounting Office.  The GAO doesn’t simply issue reports willy-nilly.  A member or members of Congress specifically request the government office to research and report back on the issues that concern them.  In this instance, the report comes at the request of:

• Rep. Henry Waxman
• Rep. John D. Dingell
• Rep. Joe Barton
• Rep. Barney Frank
• Rep. Bennie G. Thompson
• Rep. Rick Boucher
• Rep. Cliff Stearns
• Rep. Edward J. Markey

The congressmen weren’t worrying exclusively about your broadband interests.  The GAO notes the study came from concern that such a pandemic could impact the financial services sector (the people that brought you the near-Depression of 2008-09).  The Wall Street crowd could be left without broadband while recovering from flu, and that simply wouldn’t do.

“Concerns exist that a more severe pandemic outbreak than 2009’s could cause large numbers of people staying home to increase their Internet use and overwhelm Internet providers’ network capacities. Such network congestion could prevent staff from broker-dealers and other securities market participants from teleworking during a pandemic. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for ensuring that critical telecommunications infrastructure is protected. GAO was asked to examine a pandemic’s impact on Internet congestion and what actions can be and are being taken to address it, the adequacy of securities market organizations’ pandemic plans, and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) oversight of these efforts,” the report states.

Putting aside my personal desire that a little less broadband for deal-making, bailout-demanding “kings of the world” might not be a bad idea, the GAO’s report concludes what we already know — the business model of residential broadband is based on sharing connections and when too many people stay home and use them, it’s slow and doesn’t work well.

Providers do not build networks to handle 100 percent of the total traffic that could be generated because users are neither active on the network all at the same time, nor are they sending maximum traffic at all times. Instead, providers use statistical models based upon past users’ patterns and projected growth to estimate the likely peak load of traffic that could occur and then design and build networks based on the results of the statistical model to accommodate at least this level. According to one provider, this engineering method serves to optimize available capacity for all users. For example, under a cable architecture, 200 to 500 individual cable modems may be connected to a provider’s CMTS, depending on average usage in an area. Although each of these individual modems may be capable of receiving up to 7 or 8 megabits per second (Mbps) of incoming information, the CMTS can transmit a maximum of only about 38 Mbps. Providers’ staff told us that building the residential parts of networks to be capable of handling 100 percent of the traffic that all users could potentially generate would be prohibitively expensive.

In other words, guess your customer demand correctly and 200-500 homes can all share one 38Mbps connection.  Guess incorrectly, or put off expanding that network to meet the anticipated demands because your company wants to collect “cost savings” from reduced investment, and everyone’s connection slows down, especially at peak times.

One way to dramatically boost capacity for cable operators is to bond multiple channels of broadband service together, using the latest DOCSIS 3 standard.  It provides cable operators with increased flexibility to meet growing demands on their network without spending top dollar on wholesale infrastructure upgrades.  Many operators are already reaping the rewards this upgrade provides, by charging customers higher prices for higher speed service.  But it also makes network management easier without inconveniencing existing customers with slowdowns during peak usage.

The GAO didn’t need 77 pages to produce a report that concludes broadband usage skyrockets when people are at home.  Just watching holiday shopping traffic online spike during deal days like “Cyber Monday,” after Thanksgiving would illustrate that.  Should 40 percent of Americans stay home from work, instead of browsing the Internet from their work machines, they’ll be doing it from home.  That moves the bottleneck from commercial broadband accounts to residential broadband networks.

The GAO says such congestion could create all sorts of problems for the financial services sector, slowing down their broadband access.

Providers’ options for addressing expected pandemic-related Internet congestion include providing extra capacity, using network management controls, installing direct lines to organizations, temporarily reducing the maximum transmission rate, and shutting down some Internet sites. Each of these methods is limited either by technical difficulties or questions of authority. In the normal course of business, providers attempt to address congestion in particular neighborhoods by building out additional infrastructure—for example, by adding new or expanding lines and cables. Internet provider staff told us that providers determine how much to invest in expanding network infrastructure based on business expectations. If they determine that a demand for increased capacity exists that can profitably be met, they may choose to invest to increase network capacity in large increments using a variety of methods such as replacing old equipment and increasing the number of devices serving particular neighborhoods. Providers will not attempt to increase network capacity to meet the increased demand resulting from a pandemic, as no one knows when a pandemic outbreak is likely to occur or which neighborhoods would experience congestion. Staff at Internet providers whom we interviewed said they monitor capacity usage constantly and try to run their networks between 40 and 80 percent capacity at peak hours. They added that in the normal course of business, their companies begin the process to expand capacity when a certain utilization threshold is reached, generally 70 to 80 percent of full capacity over a sustained period of time at peak hours.

However, during a pandemic, providers are not likely to be able to address congestion by physically expanding capacity in residential neighborhoods for several reasons. First, building out infrastructure can be very costly and takes time to complete. For example, one provider we spoke with said that it had spent billions of dollars building out infrastructure across the nation over time, and adding capacity to large areas quickly is likely not possible. Second, another provider told us that increasing network capacity requires the physical presence of technicians and advance planning, including preordering the necessary equipment from suppliers or manufacturers. The process can take anywhere from 6 to 8 weeks from the time the order is placed to actual installation. According to this provider, a major constraint to increasing capacity is the number of technicians the firm has available to install the equipment. In addition to the cost and time associated with expanding capacity, during a pandemic outbreak providers may also experience high absenteeism due to staff illnesses, and thus might not have enough staff to upgrade network capacities. Providers said they would, out of necessity, refrain from provisioning new residential services if their staff were reduced significantly during a pandemic. Instead, they would focus on ensuring services for the federal government priority communication programs and performing network management techniques to re-route traffic around congested areas in regional networks or the national backbone. However, these activities would likely not relieve congestion in the residential Internet access networks.

It’s clear some broadband providers are not willing to change their business models to redefine congestion from measurements taken during peak usage when speeds slow, to those that anticipate and tolerate traffic spikes.  That means making due with what broadband providers are delivering today and developing technical and legal means to ration, traffic shape, or simply cut access to high bandwidth traffic during ‘appropriate emergencies.’  Right on cue, the high bandwidth barrage of self-serving provider talking points are on display in the report:

Providers identified one technically feasible alternative that has the potential to reduce Internet congestion during a pandemic, but raised concerns that it could violate customer service agreements and thus would require a directive from the government to implement. Although providers cannot identify users at the computer level to manage traffic from that point, two providers stated that if the residential Internet access network in a particular neighborhood was experiencing congestion, a provider could attempt to reduce congestion by reducing the amount of traffic that each user could send to and receive from his or her network. Such a reduction would require adjusting the configuration file within each customer’s modem to temporarily reduce the maximum transmission speed that that modem was capable of performing—for example, by reducing its incoming capability from 7 Mbps to 1 Mbps. However, according to providers we spoke with, such reductions could violate the agreed-upon levels of services for which customers have paid. Therefore, under current agreements, two providers indicated they would need a directive from the government to take such actions.

Shutting down specific Internet sites would also reduce congestion, although many we spoke with expressed concerns about the feasibility of such an approach. Overall Internet congestion could be reduced if Web sites that accounted for significant amounts of traffic—such as those with video streaming—were shut down during a pandemic. According to one recently issued study, the number of adults who watch videos on video-sharing sites has nearly doubled since 2006, far outpacing the growth of many other Internet activities. However, most providers’ staff told us that blocking users from accessing such sites, while technically possible, would be very difficult and, in their view, would not address the congestion problem and would require a directive from the government.

Enjoy up to one Hogan's Heroes episode per day during the H1N1 flu pandemic

You have to love some of the players in the broadband industry who trot out their most-favored “network management” talking points to handle a national emergency.  It’s interesting to note providers told the GAO they were concerned with violating customer agreements regarding speed guarantees, when most providers never guarantee residential service speeds.  Their first solution is the Net Neutrality-busting traffic throttle, to slow everyone down to ration the “good enough for you” network in your neighborhood.  Shutting down too-popular, high bandwidth websites like Hulu (no worries – you can watch your favorite shows on our cable TV package) is apparently someone’s good idea, but considering providers admit it wouldn’t actually solve the congestion problem, one’s imagination can ponder what other problems such a shutdown might solve.

One provider indicated that such blocking would be difficult because determining which sites should be blocked would be a very subjective process. Additionally, this provider noted that technologically savvy site operators could change their Internet protocol addresses, allowing users to access the site regardless. Another provider told us that some of these large bandwidth sites stream critical news information. Furthermore, some state, local, and federal government offices and agencies, including DHS, currently use or have plans to increase their use of social media Web sites and to use video streaming as a means to communicate with the public. Shutting down such sites without affecting pertinent information would be a challenge for providers and could create more Internet congestion as users would repeatedly try to access these sites. According to one provider, two added complications are the potential liability resulting from lawsuits filed by businesses that lose revenue when their sites are shutdown or restricted and potential claims of anticompetitive practices, denial of free speech, or both. Some providers said that the operators of specific Internet sites could shut down their respective sites with less disruption and more effectively than Internet providers, and suggested that a better course of action would be for the government to work directly with the site operators.

A very subjective process indeed, but one many providers have sought to keep within their “network management” control as they battle Net Neutrality.  One would think “potential claims of anti-competitive practices” would represent an understatement, particularly if cable industry-operated TV Everywhere theoretically kept right on running even while Hulu could not.  As long time net users already know, outright censorship or content blockades almost always meet resistance from enterprising net users who make it their personal mission to get around such limits.

Expanding broadband networks to provide a better safety cushion during periods of peak usage is looking better and better.

Providers could help reduce the potential for a pandemic to cause Internet congestion by ongoing expansions of their networks’ capacities. Some providers are upgrading their networks by moving to higher capacity modems or fiber-to-the-home systems. For example, some cable providers are introducing a network specification that will increase the download capacity of residential networks from the 38 Mbps to about 152 to 155 Mbps. In addition to cable network upgrades, at least one telecommunications provider is offering fiber-to-the home, which is a broadband service operating over a fiber-optic communications network. Specifically, fiber-to-the-home Internet service is designed to provide Internet access with connection speeds ranging from 10 Mbps to 50 Mbps.

Hello.

Sounds like a plan to me, and not just for the benefit of the Wall Street crowd sick at home with the flu.  Such network upgrades can be economical and profitable when leveraged to upsell the broadband enthusiast to higher speed service tiers.  During periods of peak usage, such networks will withstand considerably more demand and provide a better answer to that nagging congestion problem.

The alternative is Comcast or Time Warner Cable, in association with the Department of Homeland Security, having to appear on Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room telling Americans they have a broadband rationing plan that will give you six options of usage per day.  Choose any one:

• Up to three videos of cats chasing laser pointers on YouTube
• One episode of Hogan’s Heroes
• Up to six videos of your friends playing Guitar Hero on Dailymotion
• Unlimited access to Drugstore.com to browse remedies
• Five MySpace videos of your favorite bands
• Up to 500 “tweets” boring your followers with every possible detail of your stuck-at-home-sick routine

Our Road Runner connection has been seriously degraded since Saturday night, and despite several hours of troubleshooting with several levels of technical support, and even a modem swap, our download speeds max out (when lucky) at around 1Mbps (instead of the normal 15+Mbps), while upload speed remains completely normal, which stumps even the Level 3 technicians locally.  Since nobody can figure this out, a service call is scheduled for tomorrow.  Our connection is too degraded to commit to normal publishing, so I’ll be firing up our Cricket broadband later today and publishing through that, so articles will be available later today.

Washington State

Saying the sale would harm customers, Washington state utilities’ commission staff is recommending rejecting a proposed sale of Verizon’s landline residential and commercial telephone business in Washington to Frontier Communications.

In raising objections to the proposed Frontier-Verizon transaction, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) staff members concluded the business deal is not in the public interest. The proposed purchase does not include Verizon Wireless customers.

The three-member UTC, which will make the final decision early next year, will consider whether state ratepayers would be harmed by the proposed transaction, which is part of an $8.6 billion bid by Frontier to acquire 4.8 million Verizon phone lines in 14 states.

“There may not be any way for Frontier to provide benefits to Washington customers that offset the financial harm and operational risks,” said commission staff in their written testimony. “The failure of the companies to offer adequate consumer benefits or protections puts customers at risk of being served by a company without enough financial strength to make necessary improvements to local telephone facilities and widen deployment of broadband access.”

The Commission staff believes Frontier’s proposal to improve service is loaded with risk:

• The company’s credit rating is lower than Verizon, making capital difficult to obtain in a credit-challenged economy.  Without such capital, Frontier cannot make improvements to the telephone network.
• Frontier’s ranking as a relatively small independent phone company means it will face “higher per unit” costs because of the unavailability of volume discounts super-sized companies like Verizon enjoy.
• Frontier could easily face the same fate as three other Verizon spinoffs – a fast trip to bankruptcy court, but only after providing lousy service and broken promises to customers along the way.

Frontier said it would file a formal rebuttal to the comments later this month.  The company disputes the conclusions reached by the utility commission staff, saying the company will reduce its dividend to free up financial resources and will aggressively expand broadband availability in their service areas.

But the findings from Washington state are familiar to readers of Stop the Cap! They are largely the same echoed by the campaign to stop the sale of West Virginia’s landlines to Frontier.  The Communications Workers of America issued a press release reminding West Virginians Frontier enjoys abysmal approval ratings for its broadband service, based on an independent survey done by PC Magazine we covered a few months back.  Verizon ranks number one in customer satisfaction, in part thanks to its FiOS fiber to the home service.

Union spokeswoman Elaine Harris said, “The economic growth and development of West Virginia depends on having modern, high-speed Internet access. It’s not in the public’s best interest for West Virginia to replace the leader in broadband service with a smaller company whose customer satisfaction is appallingly low.”

Frontier’s defense to union objections is that Verizon hasn’t yet wired any customers in West Virginia for FiOS, and many parts of the state don’t have any broadband, so customer satisfaction numbers don’t matter if you don’t have any service.  Frontier claims it has good customer reviews in West Virginia, but offered no evidence to back up their claim.

So far, the Washington state commission has received 93 public comments with five in favor, 40 undecided and 48 opposed to the proposed sale. Washington customers who would like to comment on the case are encouraged to send correspondence to:

Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 47250
Olympia, WA 98504

e-mail comments: comments@utc.wa.gov or call toll-free 1-888-333-9882.

The commission’s deadline for accepting public comments is Jan. 11, 2010.

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter appeared on Bloomberg TV on November 4th to discuss the company’s challenges from declining wireline telephone service. Wilderotter’s spin is that disconnected dial-up residential lines and business data circuits represent some of that loss.  Wilderotter agrees with the anchor’s contention that delivering broadband in rural areas where there is not a lot of competition is good for Frontier. But is it good for consumers?(3 minutes)

Frontier Communications reported its third quarter results earlier today with an 11% increase in net profits “attributable to shareholders,” but a 6% decline in revenue, mostly due to losing an additional 34,000 consumer and business line accounts in the third quarter.  Thanks to selling add-ons like calling features and broadband, the company managed an average 1% increase in revenue per line.  Wilderotter said improved customer metrics and disciplined cost control was responsible for the increase in profits.

Blame those eBay bottom feeders, suggests the mobile industry press, for Verizon Wireless’ decision to double the early termination fee paid when breaking your cell phone contract.

Effective November 15, customers will face the $350 early termination fee for select phones sold on contract.  Each month the customer remains with Verizon Wireless, the fee drops by $10.

It seems those seeking out some of the hottest new phones, including the Storm 2 and Droid, aren’t keeping them.  They are signing up as “new customers,” getting phones at a substantial discount, and then immediately canceling.  Even with the current $175 early termination fee, they make a handsome profit reselling the phone online for more than $500.

Some have reportedly done this repeatedly, costing Verizon Wireless a pretty penny on generous phone subsidies for new customers, and they’re doubling the early termination fee to discourage some of the reselling.

Verizon Wireless is not the only company facing the reseller challenge, so expect other national carriers to follow suit soon enough.

Of course, the prospect of paying more than $300 is also likely to keep a lot more customers with Verizon Wireless.  Unless the service is a complete catastrophe for the customer, most will probably wait out their contract instead of paying the steep price for the privilege of leaving.

A typical eBay sale for the Storm2, which looks suspiciously like a "sign-up and cancel" transaction for eBay resale.

When utilities want to “charge you for what you use,” it would be nice to trust the meter is accurately measuring your usage, California consumer advocates say.

In a growing controversy, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is now being accused of installing so-called “smart meters” that were smart for PG&E profits, but financially devastating for California consumers who face higher bills and growing questions about just how accurate those “smart meters” really are.

Customers across California who have had new meters installed, which are supposed to help consumers save energy by charging lower prices at off-peak usage times of day, report enormously higher bills from PG&E after installation.

State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), reports he has seen bills from customers that don’t begin to make sense.

California Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter/Kern County)

“One farmer was charged $11,857 for running a piece of equipment that was never turned on. A local attorney at the hearing clutched a $500 bill from July, a month in which she was visiting family out of state and almost every appliance in her house was shut off,” he reports.

Florez quotes the woman — “My smart meter keeps reading these spikes in usage at noon. But no one was in the house,” she said. “It’s obvious to me that this technology is not ready for prime time.”

Customers across the state with smart meters have reported similar stories, and are angry with PG&E’s response to their concerns, which can be boiled down to, “the meter is right, you are wrong, now pay us.”

PG&E claims that during its own internal reviews, it found nobody being overcharged. Spokesman Jeff Smith says “in all 1700 of those cases we have not found an instance thus far of the smart meter transmitting inaccurate information or incorrect usage information.”

The California Public Utilities Commission doesn’t think that’s enough and has begun ordering an independent review of the “smart meter” program and accuracy of meter readings.

Liz Keogh spent 14 years collecting and analyzing data at the Institute for Social Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and now lives in Bakersfield, California.  She has been pulling out her old PG&E bills and records showing her utility use all the way back to 1983.  What she found since the “smart meter” was installed on her home was disturbing.

Her analysis was printed in the San Francisco Chronicle:

My July, August and September 2009 bills showed the highest usage and cost in 26-plus years, even though I rarely go over “baseline usage.” The dollar difference from 2008 to 2009 was $20 to $30 each month. Billing costs are a product of usage multiplied by kilowatt-hour rates, which, like the federal income tax structure, is “tiered,” so that the more you use, the more you pay – and at higher and higher rates. Analysis of usage is the first step toward understanding fluctuations in cost.According to the smart meter installed on Sept. 12, 2007, the increase in my 2008-09 usage over 2007 was:

	2008	2009
May	+5.6%	+28.6%
June	+7.5%	+32.6%
July	+10%	+50.2%
Aug.	+3.1%	+41.1%
Sept.	-4.8%	+67.9%
Oct.	+4.9%	NA

PG&E’s own data show there was not a significant difference in temperatures for each comparable month. Why, then, did my “usage” increase range from 30 percent to 70 percent in 2009, while the 2008 increases were no more than 10 percent?

Simple answer: Meter malfunctioning, whether accidental and idiosyncratic, or, as some claim, intentional.

The suspicion that funny business is going on might be justified when considering Bakersfield residents have been through this all before.

“[Several years ago] Bakersfield is where PG&E first realized it had made a $500 million mistake, installing tens of thousands of inferior meters that would never live up to the promise. So the utility purchased a new generation of meters from Silver Spring Networks Inc. of Redwood City. PG&E insists that these new meters are glitch-free, though it concedes that it has tested only 50 out of 250,000 meters in Kern County,” Florez said.

At a time when some broadband providers want to install their own meters to overcharge customers for their Internet service, the PG&E experience is telling.  Independent oversight of any meter comes down to the enforcement mechanism available to guarantee accuracy.  But broadband service in the United States is unregulated, and no such enforcement mechanism exists.

And just when you thought you could believe the rhetoric that utility customers who conserve their usage will save more money, another electric and gas utility in San Diego filed a rate increase request that will charge customers who have managed to cut their usage even higher prices than those who have not.

KGET-TV Bakersfield talked with Senator Florez on September 23 about the SmartMeter controversy (4 minutes)

More video coverage below the jump.

… Continue Reading

T-Mobile explained its second network outage in two months with a brief post on its support forum:

On Tuesday, some T-Mobile customers may have experienced service disruptions impacting voice and messaging services.  We restored full service to all affected customers later in the day.   After investigating the cause, we have determined that a backend system software error had generated abnormal congestion on the network.  T-Mobile has since implemented additional measures to help prevent this from happening in the future.  We again apologize to those customers who were affected and may have been inconvenienced.

But PC Magazine mined several messages from the storm of customer discontent suggesting not all of the problems were actually fixed at that time, and several customers still without service were told to turn their phones off and on to re-register them with T-Mobile’s network.  Some reported that didn’t work either.

Meanwhile, a company with an outage that significant can create its own headlines when it becomes one of the most important topics being discussed on Twitter, as social media critic Jenn Van Grove discusses.

Auburn, Alabama

Residents of Auburn, Alabama will one day have a choice for cable television service.  Incumbent cable company, Charter Cable, which has been in bankruptcy, will eventually face competition from Knology, a cable “overbuilder” servicing more than a dozen cities in the southeastern U.S.

The Auburn City Council unanimously agreed Tuesday night to begin a non-exclusive cable franchise agreement with Knology, based in West Point, Georgia.  The cable company already serves several other Alabama communities including Dothan, Huntsville, Lanett, Montgomery, and Valley, and expects approval to construct a system in nearby Opelika shortly.

The decision to bring competition to the city of 56,000 was an easy one because residents demanded more choice:

“Thank goodness this has finally happened.  It is time that people in this area had a choice regarding their cable.  Charter has provided poor customer service as well as poor cable and internet service for years.  I am surprised that my internet has stayed up long enough for me to type this!” — psych1

“This makes my day, now all we need is for satellite to have rights to the local channels and we’ll truly have the competition and choice we deserve…this is a huge step though!” — Matt

“I will dump Charter the second Knology is here.” — lp95

“Now we just need this in Opelika. I hate Charter with all my being.” — jackburnt

“Thank Goodness!  Charter is surely the worst cable company in history. I hope nobody reading this fell for their BS “contract” pricing lately.  They knew this was coming and tried to tie folks down for at least another year. This is truly a victory for the people of Auburn.” – tboone

“I am glad to see competition is coming in,” Ward 1 council member Arthur L. Dowdell told the Opelika-Auburn News. “I wish there was more coming in.”

One question remains on the table — When will Knology commence service in the area?

Chad S. Wachter, general counsel for Knology, said he didn’t know when Knology will be available for city residents.

“We’ll provide those answers with the city when we get them,” he said.

Ward 7 council member Gene Dulaney, the News noted, encouraged Wachter to build as fast as possible.

Charter Cable representatives followed the usual playbook cable operators use when competition is imminent.

Skip James, Charter’s director of government relations, addressed the council during citizens’ communications to express the company’s support for competition.

“We competed with Knology in the past and we will continue to in the future,” he said.

Knology provides customers with cable television, telephone and broadband services.  Most of their systems offer broadband at around 8Mbps and there doesn’t appear to be a limit.  Knology is quietly upgrading their systems to DOCSIS 3 to provide “wideband” service, cable’s designated turn of phrase for next generation broadband speeds.  But the company is also following a familiar pattern of not spending the money to upgrade where competitive pressure doesn’t exist.

Knology chairman and CEO Rodger Johnson told investors during a 1st quarter 2009 earnings call that the company was prepared to upgrade, but isn’t going to jump the gun.

“We are enabling our markets to deliver Docsis 3.0 when we decide the time is right to push the trigger,” Johnson said. “A very expensive piece of that proposition is the transition of the cable modems to 3.0 cable modems. We will make that move at the time that we’re feeling competitive pressures to move to a 3.0 environment, but not until that time.”

Johnson should be careful about waiting too long.  Pinellas County is one of Knology’s service areas in Florida, and it has Verizon FiOS and Bright House Networks fighting for customers in an upgrade war Knology cannot win with slower broadband.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Knology -- Choices Ad.mp4

Knology “Choices” Ad (30 seconds)

The Novatel USB760, branded for Verizon Wireless

Verizon Wireless today announced the introduction of a prepaid wireless broadband option for customers who don’t want to pay $60 for 5 gigabytes of usage, with a two year contract.  Prepaid Mobile Broadband will be available starting November 15th in Verizon Wireless stores, sold as a “starter pack,” for $129.99, which includes a Novatel USB760 modem and a brochure showing different pricing options for the service.

Both Verizon and Virgin Mobile’s prepaid broadband services use the same USB760 modem, but that’s where the comparison ends.

Verizon Wireless expects prepaid customers to pay premium pricing for the convenience of having wireless broadband access without a contract on Verizon’s expansive 3G network.  Customers have three options:

• Daily Access: $15/day for 75MB
• Weekly Access: $30/week for 250MB
• Monthly Access: $50/month for 500MB

Unused allowances expire at the end of each term.  Verizon includes a “usage chart” with low ball estimates of what customers can do on each respective prepaid plan:

Data Type             Daily         Weekly       Monthly

E-mail (1 text page)  25,600        85,300       170,000
Typical Web page         500         1,700         3,400
Low-resolution photos    150           500         1,000

Don’t even think about streaming video at these prices. Virgin Mobile’s prepaid wireless broadband service was expensive until Verizon Wireless came around. Virgin Mobile charges $10 for 100 MB for 10 days, $20 for 250 MB per month, $40 for 600 MB and $60 for 1 GB.  Cricket also sells a prepaid wireless broadband plan for $40 a month for up to 5GB of usage, but has dramatically less coverage.

These plans are typically designed for occasional use only.  Those with regular on-the-go wireless broadband needs will do better under a contract plan.