To listen to some executives cry on their quarterly conference calls about the struggles of the cable television industry during the economic downturn almost makes you want to weep for their misfortune, until you realize some of those voices are getting big salary hikes anyway.  For a select few, economic downturns are for the little people.  Nothing shall stand in the way of substantial salary raises and bonuses.  Don’t have the money to pay?  Just raise your rates!

Take Time Warner Cable’s Chief Operating Officer Landel Hobbs.  Many of y0u will remember him from last April’s controversial Internet Overcharging experiment.  Landel tried to convince consumers their rape and pillage broadband pricing was a good thing, and objections to it were simply a result of you misunderstanding how good of a deal it was.

Hobbs has an all-new employment agreement you can read for yourself.  Sonya Hubbard from footnoted, which reviews SEC filings, notes the company went out of its way to hand Hobbs a new contract a year before his current one expires:

The odd thing about Hobbs’ raise is that, according to the proxy filed April 20, 2009, his 2008 employment agreement wouldn’t have expired until January 31, 2011.  That agreement paid him a base salary of $900,000, an annual discretionary target bonus of 233% of his base salary (nearly $2.1 million), and a discretionary annual equity and other long-term incentive compensation award with a minimum target value of $3,000,000.

The new agreement took effect January 1, 2010 and has the same expiration date… January 31, 2011 as his former agreement.  But now Hobbs gets a minimum annual base salary of $1,000,000 and an annual long-term incentive compensation with a target value of $3,650,000.  The annual discretionary cash bonus remains at $2,100,000 (although now the number is specifically stated, rather than given as a percentage of his salary).

Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Robert Marcus also gets a new contract, after his old one expired in 2008 (he’s been getting a monthly extension ever since).  Hubbard reports:

The company had given Marcus raises, of course.  In addition to other types of compensation, as of last April Marcus’s base salary was $800,000, his annual discretionary target bonus was 175% of his base salary ($1.4 million), and his discretionary annual equity and other long-term incentive compensation award had a minimum target value of 225% of his base salary ($1,800,000).

The new agreement, which became effective January 1  and runs through December 31, 2012, states that Marcus will now get a minimum Base Salary of $900,000, an annual Target Bonus of $1,500,000, and an annual long-term incentive compensation with a target value of $3,100,000.

While executives surely appreciate a raise as much as the rest of us do, it’s probably a safe bet that investors and especially cable customers may be less enthusiastic about the new agreements.

At those prices, both can afford a lot of pay-per-view, but then, Time Warner Cable often provides free service to its higher level employees and management, so they’re insulated from those pesky rate hikes the rest of us pay year after year, too.

Princeton, Kentucky

A cable technician and his supervisor were jailed late last week after a customer dispute escalated into a shoving match between the Mediacom employees and the Princeton, Kentucky police.

Under arrest are Shannon K. Parker, 46, of Indian Avenue, Oak Grove, and 55-year-old Phillip R. Tosh of Centennial Drive.

Police officials responded to a call from 509 North Jefferson Street over an argument between a customer and the cable technician.  When police arrived, they report Parker was using loud, obscene language and refused to follow police instructions to calm down.

Tosh, a Mediacom supervisor, then joined the fracas and reportedly shoved one of the officers attempting to take Parker into custody.

The Times-Leader reports both men were arrested and lodged in the county jail.

Parker was charged with disorderly conduct. Tosh was charged with third-degree assault on a police officer and hindering prosecution or apprehension.

The investigation continues, and other charges are possible, police told the newspaper.

Strigl, who has 18.5 million reasons to smile

It used to be when a truly valued employee choose to retire, he or she might get away with a gold watch and a retirement bash, but those days are over.

While the rest of America copes with layoffs, high unemployment, and a decline in real income, the chosen few retire in style, walking away with stunning parting gifts.

Take Verizon’s Dennis F. Strigl, the company’s former president and chief operating officer.  After years of service to Verizon, he decided to retire this past December.  In addition to whatever parties his fellow employees threw him at the end of the year, Strigl will also receive an $18.5 million separation payment this July.  That’s 14 times his former annual salary of $1.32 million dollars.  Verizon claims in its filings with the Securities & Exchange Commission that it was “required” to cough up the 18 million because of Strigl’s employment contract.

DealBook’s Perk Watch found out plenty more:

There are other goodies thrown in as well for Mr. Strigl, including a $1.9 million short-term plan award, a $451,000 executive life insurance benefit, and a tax gross-up worth $367,478. Mr. Strigl will also have his telecommunications services covered for the next five years, which the company estimates will cost around $11,500 ($192 a month).

A Verizon spokesman, Bob Varettoni, said in an e-mail message that Mr. Strigl’s employment agreement “was used as a retention vehicle when Bell Atlantic completed its acquisition of GTE in 2000, forming Verizon and Verizon Wireless. So it was a contractual payment under a legacy employment agreement.”

Toben

Walk into your boss’ office and ask where your retention vehicle is in your employment contract.

Executive suite Money Parties don’t stop with Strigl.  Doreen A. Toben, who stepped down as chief financial officer last March and left the company in June, received $3.5 million under her employment agreement and also entered into a one-year consulting agreement that paid her $125,000 each month. And at the end of 2008, when William P. Barr retired as Verizon’s general counsel, he received a payment of $10.38 million six months after he stepped down from the company, according to Perk Watch.

For those on the lower floors, the company will provide you a free cardboard box to collect your belongings and get out of the building.  After slashing 17,000 jobs in 2009, Verizon has announced it expects to cut another 13,000 employees in 2010.

An inmate serving time for robbery is convinced the local cable company and state corrections department are robbing him on his monthly cable bill.

Joel Santos Maldonado, 28, of Lancaster is serving a 12- to 26-year sentence at the State Correctional Institute at Fayette in Labelle, Luzerne Township, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Maldonado already feels his monthly bill from Texas-based Correctional Cable TV (CCTV), which provides cable service to prisoners, is high enough, but when he discovered the state included a 75-cent monthly “administrative fee” he filed a lawsuit.

Maldonado accuses the state of interfering with his business relationship with CCTV by including the fee.  Without the fee, his bill would be $15.75 a month for the 47-channel cable package.

His suit asks for a reversal of the 75-cent fee as well as unspecified damages.

Prison officials counter the administrative fee has been part of the cable package for at least four years.

Trinity Broadcasting Network offers inmates special programming on CCTV that it claims "rebuilds inmate lives and reduces recidivism"

“The inmate signs an agreement that states we charge this fee when he elects to purchase cable,” corrections department spokeswoman Susan Bensinger told the newspaper. “If he doesn’t want to pay the fee, he can simply elect to not purchase cable TV service.”

Those outside of prison pay more for their cable service.  Cable pricing from Atlantic Broadband is a comparably worse deal.  For $19.99 a month, residents of Labelle get 20 channels, mostly local broadcast stations, public access, and a handful of basic cable channels.  To get a package comparable to what Madonado receives, a customer would have to upgrade to the 67-channel standard service package — for $59.99 a month.

The lawsuit awaits further action in Fayette County court.

Correctional Cable TV began providing cable service to Correctional Facilities in the early 1990′s and currently serves more than 130 facilities across 20 states, particularly in Colorado, Virginia, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  The company furnishes, installs, and maintains the equipment to provide the programming at no up front cost to the prison authority.  Programming costs are recouped by charges paid by inmates to receive the service.

Mark Cuban

Mark Cuban has once again entered the debate over online video, Internet Overcharging schemes, and giant corporate mergers… and mangled it.

Cuban, who owns HD Net as well as the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, occasionally presents cable industry talking points on his blog, but quickly gets into trouble when he strays from them.

This time, Cuban is annoyed with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) over remarks the senator made about the proposed Comcast-NBC merger.  Cuban seized on comments by Franken that Comcast should put all of its television programming online.  Doing that, Cuban insists, would lead to higher prices for broadband and usage caps on it.

Where has Cuban been?  I realize the man is too wealthy to worry about the relentless rate increases Comcast and other companies force on consumers every year, but he also forgot Comcast already has a usage cap on its service, even before the feared video tidal wave arrives.

I get that no one really cares if Comcast has to spend money on capital improvements to add bandwidth to the home.  They should. Its pretty damn stupid to push consumption in a direction that will raise internet rates  to receive the same content for which there is already a phenomenal digital network in place to deliver that content.

Think about it for a minute Senator Franken. Comcast, and every large TV Provider has a digital network in place that can and does deliver gigabits of tv content perfectly,  every second of every day, to any TV set in any  home that is connected to their network. It works. Well.  What you are asking Sen Franken, is that Comcast duplicate the delivery of theirs and NBCUniversals shows on a network, the internet,  that is not, and has never been designed to handle the delivery of huge volumes of video and tv shows.

Cuban should be arguing that point with the cable industry.  TV Everywhere, the online video platform that will offer consumers access to “hundreds of TV shows and cable programming,” is their invention.  If Cuban’s fears are correct, why would the nation’s largest cable operators launch such an ambitious online video platform?

Cuban has bought into industry propaganda justifying usage caps.  There is always an excuse for rationing broadband service to boost profits.  First it was file sharing, now it’s online video causing the “serious problem” of customers using broadband service for more than just e-mail and web browsing.  Their solution – monetize it.  Usage caps and usage based billing are about preserving high profits, not protecting or increasing network capacity.  TV Everywhere proves that.

Franken does not advocate usage caps, as Cuban suggests.  The senator simply wants to be certain Comcast cannot act as a gatekeeper, determining who gets access to Comcast-NBC programming, and who does not.

Cuban should be welcome to such measures as a victim of Gatekeeper Abuse himself.  Mark, how many subscribers did you lose nationwide when Time Warner Cable unilaterally pulled the plug on your channels?

[Stop the Cap! will be closely following Google's experimental gigabit fiber-optic broadband network.  We'll be bringing regular updates about the communities applying, the strategies they are using to attract Google's attention, what the competition thinks, and the impact of the project on American broadband.]

Columbia, Missouri is excited about the prospect of being chosen as a test city for Google gigabit broadband.

It’s just one of tens of communities seeking to apply for Google’s new experimental fiber to the home network delivering super fast broadband to residents and businesses.

Columbia is the fifth largest city in the state, with 100,000 residents who call the heart of mid-Missouri home.  Columbia is a classic college town, supporting the University of Missouri.  It’s uniquely known as one of the most-educated communities in the country, with over half of its residents holding college degrees.  Columbia residents are quick to embrace new technology, and this drive to adopt the latest and the greatest has fueled interest in Google’s fiber network.

Columbia’s Regional Economic Development, Inc. (REDI), promoting local business and economic development, has been coordinating what to do next.  They’ve been joined by ComoFiber, which is working to generate public interest in the project and help devise a strategy to win Google’s attention.

Columbia, Missouri

Mike Brooks, from REDI, said the city has seen a great deal of interest from the community to apply for Google’s plan.

Last week, both groups met to educate the public and start identifying why Columbia poses an attractive place for Google’s project.

Some believe Columbia would be the ideal city to build such a network.  ComoFiber explains:

The reasons are numerous, but the biggest reason is really quite simple: Columbia is on the knife’s edge: the sweet spot between big, highly-developed cities and small, under-served towns.

The reason this is so important is because it’s easy to see why Google might want to deploy its fiber in either a big city or a small town, but it’s equally easy to see why they wouldn’t. The big cities have high-tech industry, universities, highly educated populae and other capabilities that allow them to produce the kind of applications and creative products that Google wants to research. On the other hand, major cities already have a great deal of fiber infrastructure, and their broadband prices are generally reasonable. So really, they’re already enabled; adding marginally-faster service to those markets won’t be the kind of sea-change that the plan is designed to study.

ComoFiber compiled a list of strengths from both the “big city” and “small town” perspective:

Columbia/Boone County, Missouri

Columbia as Big City:

1. Multiple colleges and universities, including world-class research facilities.
2. A major life sciences epicenter. Life-science is perhaps the most data-intensive industry in the world.
3. A highly-educated, technically-skilled populace. Thirteenth-most educated in America, to be exact.
4. Many high-tech small businesses, including Internet-centric outfits such as Newsy.
5. Several major hospitals and health care businesses, including some at the forefront of technological advancement.
6. Small-business incubators run in cooperation with universities and the city.
7. The world’s foremost journalism school and the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute, which houses a state-of-the-art Technology Testing Center.
8. Several existing Internet service providers who can take advantage of this new open network.
9. Excellent data backhaul capability due to our position on the I-70 corridor.
10. With over 100,000 people, the population is high enough to meet Google’s goal for project scale.

Columbia as Small Town:

1. Sub-par broadband performance with high prices.
2. Very little existing fiber-to-the-home infrastructure.
3. High tariffed rates for enterprise-class data products (T1, DS3, etc.)
4. Midrange population density should be a good microcosm for suburbia nationwide.
5. Smaller building development (no high-rises) makes infrastructure deployment simpler.
6. ”The District” contains the kind of mom-and-pop small-town businesses that can innovate unencumbered by corporate imperatives.
7. Frequently listed in “best places to live” compilations, such as that of Money Magazine.
8. Location in the heart of middle America sends a powerful symbolic message.
9. Low cost of living will be nice for the employees Google will need to move in.
10. With only a bit over 100,000 people, the population is low enough not to dwarf Google’s goal for scale.

The incumbent cable operator, Mediacom, can’t understand why there is such excitement over Google’s fiber project.

“Google is going to be in select markets, and it’s kind of a test that they’re rolling out,” Mediacom director of operations Bryan Gann told KOMU-TV in Columbia. ”It may be limited to some commercial applications in the beginning.”

Mediacom is Columbia's incumbent cable company

Mediacom doesn’t think most residents have any need for super fast broadband.

“I think when you get up to those higher speeds that fast, it’s a select group that would even be interested in it going at that speed,” Gann said.

Despite that remark, Gann quickly added Mediacom was already providing the fastest broadband access in town.  In early February, Mediacom boosted its top broadband speed to 50Mbps, and Gann says the company already has plans to boost that speed to 100Mbps in the future.

“We’re already supposed to go to 100, so we can press on the accelerator anytime we want to,” Gann said.

When a new fiber-based competitor threatens to arrive in town, most cable companies downplay the competitive threat.  Mediacom was no exception.

Gann told KOMU Mediacom was used to competition in broadband service and doesn’t see Google Fiber as a threat.

“With the technology that the cable industry put into Columbia, we’re ready to increase our speed to match competition,” Gann said.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOMU Columbia Faster Internet May Reach Mid-Missouri 2-16-10.flv
KOMU-TV talks about Columbia’s prospects as a chosen city for Google’s new fiber-to-the-home experiment. (2/16/10 – 1 minute)

Channel Siberia

Looking for your local town government meeting on Charter Cable?  Missouri residents may have to send out a search party to find their local public, educational, and government (PEG) channels, because Charter has moved them way, way up the dial for some of their subscribers.

A Lewis & Clark-like expedition by Washington, Missouri councilman Guy Midkiff found his — in the channel 900s range:

PEG programing has been given the heave-ho to stratospheric 900 plus channel, closet. Apparently if your TV is more than 4 years old, you can’t even get the PEG channels without a $5 per month additional fee and a converter box.

What happened to them? Seems the state of Missouri took over the regulation of cable franchises back in 2007. What that meant was that local communities – like Washington, lost all leverage to demand cable hold up  the long standing bargain of making PEG programing available on the low channels. This was part of the original basic package of programing. 

If memory serves, 900 channels used to be the domain of online shoppers. How coincidental that these shopping channels are showing up in the old real estate that was once reserved for PEG. I am sure the fact that cable companies get a piece of the pie from shopping channel sales, has nothing to do with the change of addresses.

Midkiff

It’s another intended consequence of AT&T’s statewide video franchising bill, just one of many making their way across the state legislatures where AT&T provides service.  By removing local oversight of video franchising, the power to ensure residents access to local public, educational, and government programming is lost.  Only the benevolence of the pay television provider keeps it on the dial at all, and when shopping channels show providers the green stuff for an envied lower channel position, it’s a safe bet PEG channels will receive the industry equivalent of an eviction notice.

Cable channel real estate has good and bad neighborhoods.  The lower the channel number you secure, the more prestigious the address.  That’s because most viewers who start channel flipping start from the bottom and work their way up.  Most land on a channel below 40.  Channels 41-60, which used to be the cable ghetto, are now firmly in the “affordable housing” realm.  For those unlucky enough to find themselves above channel 60, the cable industry has a term for that landscape — Channel Siberia.

Under those circumstances, you can image how many viewers are brave enough to make the trek all the way to channels 900 and up.

A handful of large sized Internet Service Providers threaten to strangle Canada’s transition to a digital-ready economy.

The Globe & Mail, Canada’s largest national newspaper, this week called out the country’s broadband conditions.  The country is falling behind, says the editorial, and without fast action to change things, “the innovations that could employ our future work force could well pass us by.”

One passage should puncture Canada’s complacency: “Canada … is often thought of as a very high performer, based on the most commonly used benchmark of penetration per 100 inhabitants. Because our analysis includes important measures on which Canada has had weaker outcomes – prices, speeds and 3G mobile broadband penetration … it shows up as quite a weak performer, overall.”

The newspaper was particularly critical of current providers, and the regulatory body that oversees them — the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).  Recent CRTC policies and rulings have allowed a handful of providers to place a strangehold on the Canadian broadband marketplace, reducing competition and controlling wholesale pricing and access policies.  Bell, Canada’s largest telecommunication company, was awarded approval of a policy to implement usage-based billing on the company’s wholesale accounts.  Many independent service providers obtain broadband access from wholesale accounts with Bell.  When they themselves face usage-billing, so shall customers, who now have fewer reasons to choose an alternative provider in the first place.

There is no magic recipe, but some prescriptions are worth heeding as Canada develops its Internet strategy. The report recommends open access policies, in which companies that build infrastructure for mobile and fixed broadband access are encouraged or required to lease that infrastructure to the competition.

But in Canada, limits on foreign ownership and inconsistent CRTC decisions have lowered the amount of competition needed to spur new and better offerings. There was less stimulus spending on projects to support more widespread Internet access in Canada than there was elsewhere. Decisions on related policy issues, such as copyright reform, have been delayed. A national conference on the digital economy generated buzz – ministers Tony Clement and James Moore are reputed to “get it” – but yielded few results. Our best hope to lead on Internet innovation, the Long-Term Evolution platform being developed by Nortel as a successor to 3G, is now largely in foreign hands.

The editorial provoked a response from Jay Innes, vice-president-public affairs, at Rogers Communications, one of Canada’s largest cable and wireless operators.  He sought to change the subject:

For Canada to win in a global digital economy, our country needs to establish a national vision that looks beyond the often-flawed statistical rankings of broadband infrastructure. What we need to understand is why so many Canadian households still don’t have computers, why Canada is lagging in scientific research, and how we should best promote the development of Canadian content and applications.

Internet providers called out for offering slow service at high prices routinely attack surveys that measure broadband speed as beside the point, and then just as quickly blame something else for their problems.

Innes fails to recognize that Canadian broadband service, speed, and access policies are directly on point when answering his question about the dearth of Canadian content and applications.  The fact is, with near-universal Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and usage-based billing, no innovative high bandwidth developer is going to plunge headfirst into the Canadian market.  When that developer realizes Canadian ISPs also have the right to artificially impede their content using “network management” speed-throttling techniques, they won’t even dip a toe in the water.

Canadian media websites, for example, contain dramatically less multimedia content for visitors to explore than their American counterparts.  Multimedia eats into your monthly usage allowance, so Canadians think twice before watching.  Hulu and other online video enterprises don’t bother to license content for Canada because usage limits and overlimit amounts discourage viewing.  Canadians who don’t want even higher telecommunications bills may simply decide the Internet is not for them, and they can get by without a computer.

If Innes wants to get in touch with his fellow Canadians, who are already well aware of his industry’s pricing and usage schemes, he can read Canadian bloggers like Éric St-Jean, who calls out Vidéotron and Bell:

It’s funny how we hear about Vidéotron‘s Ultimate Speed 50 Mbps access, and now Bell‘s Fibe 25 Mbps access and we’re told how great they are. They’re actually both humongous ripoffs, if you have even basic math skills and five minutes ahead of you. Why? They both advertise great speeds, but hidden behind those figures, in very small print, behind two or three clicks from the product pages, you’ll find abysmal monthly transfer caps. This means that, yes you have a very fast connection. But if you were to use it fully, you’d very quickly fall into a lot of debt.

Vidéotron’s transfer cap for their 50 Mbps service is at 100GB/month combined up/down – this means you will bust your cap within 5 *hours* if you were to fill your pipe. In turn, this means that you simply CANNOT reasonably use this service.  If you were to use your service fully – at 50Mbps – for the whole month, you would get a bill for $24,132.50. Granted, that’s a lot of data. But I just want to point out how ridiculous the terms of that offer are – it should not be legal.

Bell’s 25Mbps service has - get this – a 20GB transfer cap on it. They offer an extra 40GB for 5$/month. The base rate is $64.95/month (after 12 months).  The overage is charged at the whopping rate of $2.50/GB. So, if we take the base service + the extra 40GB, we’ll get to that limit within about 5.3 hours.

All I have is a 5Mbps (DSL) connection from Teksavvy. But for $43.95 I have no transfer cap at all, a fixed IP, and immediate access to support techs who’ll know what I’m talking about.  But they can’t offer more than 5Mbps.

I honestly don’t understand how the media isn’t picking up on Bell and Vidéotron’s tactics, and how this can be legal. To me it’s completely false advertising: they advertise great speeds (barely on par with the international market, though), which you can’t reasonably use. All this needs is a lawsuit.

When will we get decent Internet access in Canada?

That’s a question Innes is not prepared to answer because, for him and his provider friends, “decent” access is already here.

Innovation requires freedom to innovate.  Rationed broadband service guarantees “stick to the basics” thinking.  But as long as providers can live comfortably off the proceeds, why should they change the winning formula that provides them with financial success?

from Digg

Bredesen

Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen has proposed increasing a tax on cable television service to help raise money for education and public safety.

The tax proposal would remove a current exemption for state residents on the first $15 of their cable bill, making the entire amount subject to the state sales tax.  The monthly cost — about $1.35.

The “cable tax” was part of a package of “revenue enhancers” proposed by the governor to create a $50 million dollar earmark targeted to preserve government jobs in education, as well as foresters and those working in the criminal justice system.

Bredesen’s proposal may stem, in part, from a lawsuit filed by satellite providers against the state.  They’re upset customers must already pay sales tax on the entire amount of their satellite service bill, while cable gets a special partial exemption.  Bredesen’s saw their point.

“You can’t tax the same service from one person and not tax it from another,” Bredesen told reporters at a press event earlier this month. “I don’t think of it so much as though we’re raising taxes across the board on television, but really we’re kind of fixing a loophole.” 

Loophole or not, many consumers and Republicans in the state legislature don’t like the proposal.

Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey (Blountville), among several other Republicans participating in a press release objecting to the tax, said raising cable rates is not an appropriate way to balance the state budget.  The Republicans called instead for spending and tax cuts to encourage businesses to create more jobs.

Governors across all 50 states are looking for creative solutions to solve state budget woes as the American economy, and tax receipts, continue to drag.  Many are proposing increases in service fees, new targeted taxes, and one state — New York, is proposing to delay sending some residents their state tax refund checks until this summer.

Republicans, who control both houses of the Tennessee legislature, suggested the cable tax would not find its way into law. 

Bredesen challenged the Republicans to come up with spending cuts or new revenue sources themselves.

“You’ve got to move beyond saying ‘I don’t like this,‘ and into ‘I don’t like this, and here’s how we plan to fix it,’” Bredesen said in a statement.

WSMV-TV in Nashville discusses Tennessee’s cable tax proposal and finds out what area residents think about it. (2 minutes)

Phillip "My Essay Would Never Get Accepted" Dampier

Wonder where Time Warner Cable is spending this year’s rate increase?  Look no further than Time Warner Cable’s all-new Research Program on Digital Communications.

For a 25-35 page essay on the topics that interest Time Warner Cable’s lobbying and Re-education campaigns, the cable operator will fork over a whopping $20,000 “stipend.”

Why?  They get to use an ostensibly “independent” researcher from a major university or non-profit group to promote their agenda with the veneer of credibility.  It’s not Time Warner Cable that suggests Internet Overcharging schemes are warranted — it’s this researcher guy from a respected university who said so.  Net Neutrality should be opposed not because we have a vested interest in doing so, but because this non-profit group catering to a minority or disadvantaged group says it will harm their members.

Copies of the “dollar-a-holler” essays get spread around Washington to influence public policymakers and other legislative movers and shakers, and inevitably become talking points in the public policy debate.  Long forgotten is who paid for them.

What kinds of questions does Time Warner Cable want answers to?

• How are broadband operators coping with the explosive growth in Internet traffic? Will proposed limits on network management practices impede innovation and threaten to undermine consumers’ enjoyment of the Internet?
• How can policymakers harmonize the objectives of preventing anticompetitive tactics and preserving flexibility to engage in beneficial forms of network management?
• Regarding these issues, describe a vision for the architecture of cable broadband networks that promotes and advances innovation for the future of digital communications.
• How might Internet regulations have an impact on underserved or disadvantaged populations?

See below for my exclusive tips and strategies to help would-be applicants succeed in getting their essay proposals approved!

Some companies have paid stipends to researchers to consider market trends, new product possibilities, and be on top of the next biggest thing.  This isn’t that.

This “research program” is being overseen by Fernando R. Laguarda, Vice President, External Affairs and Policy Counselor at Time Warner Cable.  Laguarda joined Time Warner Cable last April from Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, a boutique law firm involved in telecommunications policy strategies as part of its practice.  The firm describes, among its strengths, a “first-rate understanding of the law and policy with a keen understanding of the political and public relations forces that shape public policy battles to help fashion innovative, winning strategies.”

Time Warner Cable admits he’s there to help Time Warner re-educate lawmakers and the public about Time Warner Cable’s agenda.  From their press release announcing his hiring (underlined emphasis ours):

Laguarda will play a significant role in helping the company develop and advance its policy positions, and will assume primary responsibility for working with third party policy influencers, including think tanks, academics, public interest and inter-governmental groups, and diversity organizations.

“Fernando is an accomplished attorney who comes to Time Warner Cable with a unique mix of experiences and he will bring a fresh perspective to the many policy issues we will be addressing,” said Steven Teplitz, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, adding “he knows our business extremely well and will play an essential role in helping to advance Time Warner Cable’s advocacy agenda.”

Time Warner Cable is taking a page from Verizon and AT&T, who back research “think tanks” and have contributed heavily to organizations that suddenly declare a burning interest in their corporate policy agendas.  Take a look at Broadband for America’s member roster for a review of how that game is played.

Time Warner Cable customers are probably wondering why they are paying for this.  After all, $800 a page for essays that “will provide new information, insights, and practical advice” is mighty pricey.

Ordinary consumers are not invited to apply.  Had we, my essay proposal would have been, “Time Warner Cable Should Stop Wasting Customers’ Money on Bought-And-Paid-For Essays and Instead Use the Money to Upgrade Their Network.”  I was even planning on including some nice graphs and charts and stuff.

I would remind the nation’s second largest cable operator it earns billions from selling broadband.  Instead of blowing $20k-an-essay down a Washington public policy rathole, it could instead spend it on solving their burning network management issues with simple, cost-effective upgrades that deliver better service to customers.

Since I don’t qualify — I’m just a Time Warner Cable customer, what do I know, I’ll be a giver and not a taker and share free advice with would-be applicants.

1. Since Time Warner Cable doesn’t want a breakdown of your expenses or need to know what you are going to do with the $20k, you are going to spend most of your time and effort first learning what policy positions the cable company wants you to parrot in order to improve your chances of being a big winner.  Remember, Time Warner isn’t going to give you the whole 20k upfront.  According to their FAQ, one half of the award ($10,000) will be issued at the start of the project.  The second installment ($10,000) will be made only after your advocacy essay is delivered.  There’s a built-in incentive to tow the line.

2. You can’t write on just any topic.  You have to write about one of the company’s pre-selected topics, which is why I’m out of the running for this already.  If you’ve been paying attention to the policy debates about Internet Overcharging, Net Neutrality, and Network Management, you are already half-way there!  You know what side of the issue the cable company is on, so don’t blow your chances by saying things like “a free and open Internet should never discriminate against the traffic carried on it,” or “at a time when the broadband industry earns billions in revenue and recently increased rates for customers again, the idea of implementing usage limits or usage based billing would make Tony Soprano awe at its audaciousness.”

Polly wants a stipend

(Statements in green keep you in the running.  Statements in red will likely get your proposal introduced to the circular file.)

• Reputable equipment manufacturers predict Internet growth so great, it threatens a vast “exaflood” which could bring the Internet to its knees.  Without wise network management and traffic control measures, just like those used on any big roadway, a cataclysmic global traffic jam is inevitable.
• Network Neutrality should be a given for any provider because no company wants to make money by slowing down someone’s content.  That would be like extortion — pay us or we put the brakes on you.
• Network management techniques guarantee your call from grandma will be crystal-clear, your movie download from your cable-partnered movie service will always play worry-free, and by organizing online traffic, Internet chaos is reduced.
• There is nothing wrong with cable companies colluding with one another to preserve the industry’s flexibility to manage its own traffic, even if it means putting some questionable, independently-owned traffic at the back of the line.  Nobody wanted to view that anyway.
  
• Today’s cable broadband provider is investing billions of dollars to improve network capacity and deliver customers an unparalleled online experience.  The cable industry has pioneered innovation in cable network programming they own, operate and distribute to assure quality and excellence.  Now, by taking that same formula for success to online content, and cutting out unnecessary middlemen, the industry can do for broadband what it created for cable television.  Now that’s a win-win for everyone!
• Internet regulations have unintended consequences.  It means providers have to funnel large contributions to interest groups, or place a company employee on a group’s advisory board, so that the industry can rest assured that groups with an interest in maintaining valued contributions will advocate anything we ask, starting with “these regulations are bad for our groups and our members.”
• Unnecessary Internet regulations will create widespread depression and anxiety for investors.  That means money to expand broadband availability in underserved or unserved communities will dry up faster than the Mojave Desert.
• If the cable industry doesn’t get its way on this, it will punish consumers like the credit card industry did after “credit card reform.”  Word to the wise.