An article from McClure magazine, circa 1906, has a lot to say about today's broadband regulatory battles. We've been here before.

Yesterday, while browsing through some of the sources I review for story ideas, I encountered yet another one of those tired “free market solves everything” pieces from Randolph May, filled with the usual memes about keeping government regulation and oversight out of broadband.  May, like his pro-business friends, always believes that markets are self-correcting, and that providing checks and balances for the de facto duopoly most Americans have for broadband service would ultimately harm them.  Besides, if a provider gets out of hand, its competitor will pounce on the opportunity.  Sometimes that happens, but often it does not.  For investors, there is more money to be made going along to get along avoiding price and service wars.  Indeed, when competition gets too hot and heavy, Wall Street brays that “consolidation” is required to deal with all of the revenue-losing-harm healthy competition causes.  Just today, those calls are heard in the prepaid wireless market as analysts continue their relentless pounding that Leap Wireless’ Cricket must merge with MetroPCS to create cost savings, and stop price erosion (your savings).

I want to focus on May’s unintended, but disastrous comparison of American telecommunications regulation with that of the railroad industry of the 1800s:

“This form of regulation was first adopted at the federal level in the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887, which created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate the railroads. In 1910, the ICC was given authority to regulate newly-emerging telephone companies as common carriers, and this authority was transferred to the FCC when it was created in 1934.

By the 1980s, the railroads were largely deregulated and the ICC was abolished in 1995. And towards the end of the last century, with the emergence of competitive choices, the FCC began to relax even the regulation of POTS, or plain old telephone service, provided by formerly monopolistic telephone companies. So it was no surprise when the FCC decided to reject public utility-style regulation for the then new broadband Internet service providers.”

May is obviously no student of history, and the introduction of railroads into this argument gives me my “free market” ability to pounce on his out of hand rhetoric.  The irony is that this debate takes place over the open and free Internet that May and his friends are willing to entrust to a handful of corporate providers who provide most of the connectivity in this country.  They wouldn’t interfere with traffic if it meant making a pile of extra profits selling “preferred partnerships,” would they?

There are obvious metaphors between the railway industry of the 1800s and the broadband industry of 2010s.  Many of the challenges are remarkably similar, especially if one considers broadband a sort of digital railroad that is becoming increasingly important to the economy and job growth.

May is lucky that nobody but those who love studying history are likely to notice he completely ignored the rationale for the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.  Railroad robber barons had by this time put such a stranglehold on the industry, entire cities prospered or withered based on what a railroad executive decided was the appropriate price for service on a schedule good enough for that community.  If you lived in a city with a strong railroad system with fast lines, competition, and a healthy choice of destinations, your city generally enjoyed economic success. If you lived in an uncompetitive city deemed a railroad backwater by a provider, you paid extortionist pricing to move your goods on a limited schedule that sometimes was followed, other times not.

By the time America had caught on to these abusive practices, railroad barons were secretly charging lower prices and quietly providing rebates to their preferred partners, mostly big businesses, and overcharging everyone else.  They even charged completely different rates for different products.  If you transported tobacco you paid more than transporting flour.  Farmers paid one price to transport crops, lumber suppliers paid something entirely different to move wood.  If you were a friend of the railroad industry, and important to their lobbying efforts, you got a pass to travel fare-free.

It took years for Americans to finally achieve the railroad equivalent of Net Neutrality.  That’s because the railroads were politically savvy, and maintained their own version of astroturfing — an army of business leaders and supporters provided favors and money to parrot railway talking points in the media and before Congress, all while claiming they were ordinary Joe’s.  Railroads supplied generous campaign contributions to members of Congress, and so much money was spread around, it eventually turned into railroad industry graft with the Crédit Mobilier scandal of 1872.

An entire class of “ordinary citizens” and business leaders pleaded in the printed press not to regulate the railway system.  It would create “unintentional consequences,” would “hurt jobs,” “ruin the economy,” and would be contrary to the laissez-faire policies of the time, which allowed a completely unregulated railway system to “prosper.”  Besides, railroads had “transformed the transportation infrastructure” of America and created economic benefits, all from “millions railways invested to improve railway lines.”  Regulation would “discourage that investment.”

Americans might have believed that had the record of abuse by the railway industry not grown into a bulging dossier of unfair pricing and anticompetitive activities. Rural communities were charged high prices for slow, erratic railway service because they rarely had a second choice.  Businesses refused to locate in communities where a monopolistic railway charged high prices and provided poor service.

But even legislative reform in 1887, designed to stop railway abuses and charge fair pricing, left enough loopholes in place for the railroad industry to continue its ways for years to follow.  Court findings of wrongdoing were ignored by the industry, at least until they could successfully appeal them to federal district courts, which tended to favor business points of view in their rulings.

Sound familiar?

Ray Stannard Baker

But one need not take my word for it.  In 1906, McClure’s magazine published the story of Danville, Virginia and its railroads by Ray Stannard Baker, a popular investigative reporter (known then as a ‘muckraker’) for the magazine.  While you may be unfamiliar with Danville, located in south-central Virginia, history dealt it several interesting cards in the 1800s.  Its Richmond and Danville Railroad was immortalized in the song “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down,” telling the story of how the Confederate army’s hopes of defending Richmond in the waning days of the Civil War were dashed when the Union cavalry destroyed the railroad tracks.  General Lee’s army retreated to Danville — the last declared capital city of the Confederate States of America.

As the era of Reconstruction began, Danville threatened to become as well known as Richmond to the east and Lynchburg to the north.  All three communities enjoyed the benefits of competitive railways — providing stable, affordable, and plentiful service between all three cities and points beyond.  With excellent railways, an economic boom followed, and the communities prospered from manufacturing, cotton, and tobacco products, all transported on the railway system to eager buyers.  What was once a city of 5,000 rapidly grew to 20,000.  Danville because a world leader in tobacco production and distribution and built what was once one of the world’s largest textile mills — Dan River Industries, which survived until 2008 when the company declared bankruptcy.

Yet Danville remains completely unknown to most, a forgotten city whose early boom ended when a railway monopoly arrived and strangled the community to a former shadow of itself, perhaps never to completely recover.  The effects were long-lasting.  Today, Danville is a challenged city of 44,000 and declining.  Lynchburg, in contrast, prospered through the manufacturing era, often called the “Pittsburgh of the South,” and has successfully transitioned into one of America’s “top 10 digital cities,” supporting its population of 73,000.  Richmond towers over both, with 200,000 city residents in a community well-known nationwide.  Both of those cities enjoyed competition from railways and built a substantial economic base from that that paid dividends in the decades that followed.

Of course, in 1906, the final chapter of America’s annoyance with railroad robber barons had yet to be written.  Fights over pricing and service continued for years, as communities depended on railroads for their economic well-being.  Ultimately, the Eisenhower Administration’s decision to undertake a national highway system, built by and supported with public funds, was symbolically the end of an era that allowed a handful of corporate executives and railroad trusts to determine the fate of entire communities, all based on the kind of railroad service they would enjoy.  The highway system gave rise to the trucking industry, with air service from municipally-backed airports picking up some of the more urgent business.  Railroads had to compete like they never had before.

The article, lengthy yet surprisingly accessible for contemporary audiences, is provided below in a slightly condensed form.  The more you read, the more you realize those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Folks like Randolph May are counting on America’s ignorance of the challenges faced by our great-great grandparents, who would find familiar themes in today’s competitive and regulatory broadband battles, and who ultimately wins control of the lines and the traffic that crosses them.

The railroad industry asked people to trust them, and said notions of discriminatory pricing and access were nonsense, because they didn’t make economic sense.  But they very much did, especially when alternatives were limited, if they existed at all.

… Continue Reading

America’s established cable and telephone companies are pulling out every stop to impede the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program.

Comcast alone, the nation’s largest cable company, has filed thousands of objections to proposed broadband projects in communities large and small, claiming those projects have the potential of introducing competition in their service areas, whether or not actual broadband service is being provided to residents in those communities.

Most large providers like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and many national phone companies have steered clear of applying for broadband stimulus money.  They don’t like requirements that could force them to adhere to Net Neutrality provisions, sharing equal access to their networks.  But they don’t want anyone else on their turf getting funding either, and they’re spending enormous amounts of time and money objecting to anything and everything that seeks funding in their respective service areas.

It’s nothing short of a Broadband Blockade, and it is dramatically slowing the government’s ability to pour over thousands of applications.

Settles

Dan Hays, from consulting firm PRTM, told USA Today as a result of the delays, there’s significant doubt as to whether the monies can be awarded before the end of September when the funding authorization expires.

Could that be part of the plan all along?

“They aren’t leading, they aren’t following, and they won’t get out of the way,” said Craig Settles, a municipal broadband expert. “They’re not going to put proposals on the table because they don’t like the rules. Yet they’re not going to cooperate with the entities that are going after the money.”

“There are 11,000 public comments (about the funding applications), and I’m willing to bet that 9,000, at least, were a challenge or protest of one sort or another,” says Settles.

“We’re at a point where it’s the general public’s interest vs. the entrenched incumbents,” Settles added.

When giant telecommunications providers are threatened, they run to lawmakers for special protection, and they’re getting it.

National Public Radio ran this report about the problems awarding broadband stimulus grants. (5 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Coming next…

FairPoint – Bankrupt And Soaking in Failure – But Still Has Enough for Lobbyists, Attorneys to Fight Broadband Projects On Its Turf

In Maine, bankrupt FairPoint Communications managed to scrape up enough cash to launch a lobbying effort to get a bill introduced, tailor-written to prohibit stimulus award winners from… helping provide improved broadband service to Maine residents.

Marrache

Incredibly, Sen. Lisa Marrache, D-Waterville, the assistant Senate majority leader, has introduced a bill that would ban the system from using any tuition money to help pay for efforts to expand broadband access. Marrache mouthed FairPoint’s talking points as she suggested poor college students’ tuition money would be diverted for broadband projects. She claimed the bill was introduced because constituents FairPoint’s lobbyists and employees were calling her about it.

The fact Marrache so misunderstood a public-private partnership between the University of Maine, Great Works Internet, and two private investors to improve the Internet “backbone” in Maine should be of grave concern to her constituents. Unless some campaign contributions from FairPoint and its executives make their way to Marrache’s next campaign, voters must be wondering whether the majority leader has a grip on the technology matters before her.

Indeed, the University of Maine explained the “middle mile” improvement program was not going to steal students’ lunch money, but rather dramatically improve broadband capacity for all comers — something FairPoint couldn’t be bothered with while breaking promises to expand broadband service themselves.

Jeff Letourneau, associate director of information technology at UMS, told the Bangor Daily News, “as for tuition subsidizing our broadband efforts, that does not happen and will not happen.”

WABI-TV in Bangor reported on the announced funding of broadband projects in Maine designed to improve rural broadband service statewide (12-17-2009 — 2 minutes)

Ironically, the network that will be built with the help of the broadband stimulus program will be open to any and all providers, including FairPoint, on a wholesale cost basis. But of course FairPoint would not own and control it, so it’s bad for them, and they’re trying to convince Maine lawmakers it’s bad for Maine residents as well.

Great Works Internet has had a running dispute with FairPoint

But then, FairPoint has had a vendetta of sorts against Great Works Internet for months, trying to overcharge the independent ISP for connectivity it obtained under provisions established in the Communications Act of 1996.

Also running interference for FairPoint is Rep. Stacey Fitts, R-Pittsfield, who serves on the Legislature’s Utilities and Energy Committee. His bill prevents any “undue” competition by UMS with existing broadband providers. In other words, he has written the FairPoint Entrenched Provider of Mediocre Broadband Protection Act. Fitts said he has concerns that the university’s efforts could have unintended consequences on private companies (read that FairPoint) that “already provide access.” It will have directly intended consequences on GWI by further disadvantaging them and potentially sinking their efforts to provide better service in Maine.

“If the university is able to bypass some of the competitive markets, and cherry pick, it could affect the ability to deliver broadband to others,” he said.

Exactly how it affects the ability of FairPoint to deliver what it has failed to demonstrate it is capable of delivering is a question Fitts doesn’t answer.

Fitts

“I know this will cause a lot of discussion in committee,” he told the newspaper. “But we need to have that discussion.”

Maine Public Radio covered the introduction of Rep. Fitts’ bill, and the debate swirling around it. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Constituents need to have a discussion with him. Unless he wants to be known as the representative from FairPoint, he might want to get out of the way of a project that has a chance of improving broadband in his state, as opposed to the empty promises from a bankrupt provider. If he wants to tie himself to FairPoint’s record of failure, voters can choose someone else to represent them at the earliest possible opportunity.

Those with a need for high speed broadband have tried, and failed, to obtain better service from FairPoint. As Stop the Cap! has reported in exhaustive detail, FairPoint was preoccupied in delivering third world phone service at the time, finally collapsing on the courthouse steps under the weight of its bankruptcy filing.

Bills like these in Maine are further evidence that Congress needs to act on the federal level to pass the Community Broadband Act, which would overturn these kinds of bought-and-paid-for protectionist bills passed in several states. Communities must have the right to bypass companies in the broadband shortage business.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLBZ Bangor Broadband Stimulus Will Help Maine Health Care 12-2009.flv

WLBZ-TV in Bangor showed what broadband brings to Maine’s health care system and other business.  (3 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MaineBiz Broadband Special 11-2009.flv

MaineBiz Sunday spent nearly an hour going in-depth into broadband challenges in Maine, the problems with FairPoint Communications, the dispute with GWI, and more.  Appearing on the show, which originally aired last November: Fletcher Kittredge CEO of GWI, Phil Lindley of the ConnectMaine Authority, Steve Hand of Know Technology and Rep. Cynthia Dill of District 121 in Cape Elizabeth. (36 minutes)

Coming up…

Comcast Is Allergic to the Word “Free” Except When They Are the Recipient

Providing computers in income-challenged neighborhoods and free access to wireless Internet for Philadelphia’s poorest neighborhoods simply won’t do in Comcast’s home city. The cable giant has filed objections to a proposal to bring access to those who would never be able to afford Comcast’s asking price for broadband.

Comcast Center in Philadelphia

Comcast executive vice president David Cohen made it all too clear in a story from Bloomberg News:

“Those applications don’t qualify for funding primarily because they are applications to provide service in areas where there is already broadband service,” Cohen said. He didn’t provide an estimate of how many applications would be implicated, and said Comcast would point out only applications that would serve areas where it provides Internet service.

“We would mostly care if it goes to an area where we’re the broadband provider,” Cohen said.

Comcast has concerns about tax dollars and other benefits going to projects that could compete with Comcast’s offerings. But Comcast’s rank hypocrisy is on full display when one considers public funding is a-okay when it is directed towards Comcast:

Comcast executives lobbied the state government for financial assistance to build their new Center City headquarters. The firm unsuccessfully sought a Keystone Opportunity Zone (KOZ) designation for its building, which would have provided local and state tax relief. Despite the fact that KOZs are intended to spur development in areas of blight, not prosperous Center City locations, the $30 billion company almost succeeded with the help of Gov. Rendell. Had the Comcast effort prevailed, the company would have been exempt from state and local business taxes until 2015.

The Pennsylvania Legislature defeated Comcast’s and the governor’s efforts. The governor then made an end-run around the legislature, funneling nearly $43 million in taxpayer money to aid Comcast and pay for infrastructure near the Comcast building, prompting outrage from many. Comcast’s direct incentives were nearly $13 million. The economic development funds equated to roughly 10 percent of the building’s cost.

Rival office landlords complained bitterly about the public subsidies, fearing that Comcast Center will lead to a glut of downtown office space and lure away their corporate tenants.

Isn’t that a familiar argument. The state of Pennsylvania didn’t help matters when it didn’t include the project on a list of “recommended projects” it sent to federal officials.

Coming up…

American Cable Association Complains Their Lobbying Wasn’t As Effective as the Telephone Companies

It’s not just the big players that are trying to game the broadband stimulus system.

Tiny Pine Telephone Company of Broken Bow, Oklahoma was the only ACA member to secure a $9.5 million stimulus grant

One way to assure the winners and losers of broadband stimulus funding is who gets to write the application rules. The broadband stimulus program includes a scoring system, assigning points of merit to applicants who meet certain criteria. Provide proof of community support, earn a few points. Demonstrate a commitment to serving broadband to the unserved, earn some more points. Offer 21st century broadband speeds of 20Mbps or more, earn a lot more points.

The American Cable Association (ACA), a trade association for smaller independent cable companies, feels the point system has been weighted to favor phone company projects. Both cable and telephone company lobbyists offered their “suggestions” for criteria to be scored. The rural telephone company lobbies won.

Fierce Telecom notes a key criterion is whether the applicant borrowed funds under Title II of the 1936 Rural Electric Act, and it appears that telcos led that charge. Anyone that did borrow the funds under that program got five points so ACA asked the grant makers to reduce the emphasis of that criteria from five to one. Apparently, ACA not only didn’t get their wish, the grant makers upped the points on that issue from five to eight.

With federal funding programs, it’s not uncommon for the rules to be written in such a way that helps politically-connected applicants in the qualification process. ACA was simply outgunned during this round, and after the first round of projects to be funded was announced, only one rural phone company, Pine Telephone, was deemed a winner.

“The American taxpayer will be disappointed to learn that the program was changed to give greater priority to awarding particular segments of the telecommunications industry with broadband funding over equally or better-qualified applicants, including ACA members, that could provide the same broadband service at a lower cost,” ACA President and CEO Matthew Polka said.

Had the reverse been true, the press release from the rural telephone trade association would say the same thing — only the names would have changed.

Coming up…

Sticking it to Frontier Communications — “Just Say No” Applies to America’s ‘Rural Phone Company’ As Well

Frontier's broadband stimulus requests were also shot down when West Virginian cable operators objected

Even companies whose raison d’être these days is to provide better phone and broadband service to rural Americans are being turned down. Frontier Communications, who wants to take control of 617,000 phone lines in West Virginia from Verizon was, in part, promoting rural broadband stimulus funding as a benefit of the deal. After all, a phone company specializing in serving the underserved would stand a better chance of securing broadband stimulus money than a telephone behemoth like Verizon.

Apparently not. The feds turned down their $55 million dollar broadband stimulus application, too.

Frontier applied for two stimulus grants, one to provide fiber optic connections to schools, libraries and health care facilities, the other to fund broadband expansion in West Virginia.

West Virginia’s incumbent cable companies teamed up and just said no.

Opposition piled on from Armstrong Cable Services, Comcast, JetBroadband and Suddenlink urging federal officials to deny Frontier’s applications. They claimed the phone company was trying to secure taxpayer money to provide broadband service in their territories, making the application redundant.

“They had said this was a reason to grant approval, that this would really boost broadband deployment,” Patrick Pearlman, deputy director of the state PSC’s Consumer Advocate Division, which is opposing the Frontier-Verizon sale told the Charleston Gazette. “They went on about how they’re going to get all this money and bring all this, but apparently they couldn’t count on the feds.”

Frontier didn’t blame themselves for the failure, of course. They blamed state officials for holding up their deal with Verizon.

“This is one of the reasons why we have asked this and other commissions to act expeditiously in their review of the proposed transaction,” Daniel McCarthy, Frontier’s chief operating officer told the Gazette.

State regulators should take the rejection as a lesson learned if they believed Frontier’s claims that approving the deal would result in an improved position for broadband stimulus funding. It was not to be. Even small cable companies will pounce on applications that suggest competition might be on the way.

More and more, it appears likely the grand plan for vastly improved broadband will be reduced to funding a handful of showcase rural broadband projects that solve some of the nation’s broadband deficiency woes, but after telecommunications industry and their lobbyist friends are done chewing up the project, plans of expanded broadband providing Americans with better choices at reasonable prices will remain a broadband pipe dream.

TDS Telecom’s grant for broadband expansion is an example of showcasing hit or miss rural broadband projects.  The company secured $8.6 million to expand broadband Internet services to TDS customers in one Chatham Telephone Company exchange in northern Michigan.  Considering TDS serves largely rural customers in 30 states, winning expansive broadband improvement for all Americans is about as likely as winning the Powerball jackpot. TDS CEO Dave Wittwer explains the stimulus funding to customers in this video. (1 minute)

Americans have got it all wrong.  Their ‘faster is better’ obsession over broadband speed threatens to harm jobs and hurts those looking for work.

Those are the views of Stuart N. Brotman, a senior fellow at the Digital Policy Institute, which calls itself “a vehicle for faculty research that coalesces around the arenas of law, regulation, economics, intellectual property, and technology as these relate to public policy issues of local, state and national interests.”

Brotman argues that while broadband speeds matter, regulators should not be focused on speed as much as considering how broadband can help Americans find jobs.

The Agriculture and Commerce Depts. are tasked with administering $7.2 billion in stimulus funding for broadband by Sept. 30. As they decide where to place the bulk of those funds, which remain unawarded, government officials should show preference to grant and loan applicants that can use broadband to reach displaced workers more quickly.

There also need to be more funds made available to, and a greater focus on, public institutions, such as libraries, community centers, job training facilities, and adult education sites, where broadband spending may have the largest impact on jobs.

Greater broadband competition, which the FCC recognizes is essential to promote more infrastructure development and more varied pricing, also will be helpful. So, too, will be more efficient use of our spectrum resources, particularly those that have been controlled by colleges, schools, and other educational institutions for decades. Those airwaves can be better deployed to deliver high-speed wireless broadband services or leased to private-sector companies offering them.

Large telecommunications providers couldn’t have said it any better.  They have repeatedly argued broadband speeds are besides the point.

Brotman

AT&T last fall wrote the Federal Communications Commission, suggesting residential customers would do fine with broadband speeds that let them “exchange emails, participate in instant messaging, and engage in basic web-browsing.”  For AT&T, speed was less important than setting “a baseline definition of the capabilities needed to support the applications and services Americans must access to participate in the Internet economy—to learn, train for jobs, and work online….”

Verizon echoed AT&T, asking the Commission to retain the current minimum definition of broadband speed at 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream.  That allows them the chance to participate in stimulus funding projects that set the broadband speed bar low, especially in the rural areas Verizon wants to spend less on or is trying to sell-off.

“It would be disruptive and introduce confusion if the Commission were to now create a new and different definition,” Verizon said in its letter to the FCC.

Some of the smaller telecommunications companies also believe broadband speed should be de-emphasized.

Embarq, before completing a merger with CenturyTel (now CenturyLink) told the FCC 1.5Mbps broadband service has become “the most common offering.”  Embarq called that “consistent with an emphasis on economic development and jobs as many important applications, such as video conferencing are arguably possible only with 1.5 Mbps service and above. Any higher speed threshold, however, would risk defining as unserved the large number of satisfied customers of 1.5 Mbps service, which seems implausible.”

Embarq underlines the real reason providers are concerned about broadband speed — they’re not delivering it.  Once legislators or the Commission increases minimum broadband speed levels, many of these companies may find themselves below the threshold, guilty of “just enough speed to scrape by” in non-competitive markets.  That could lead to the prospect of facing federally-funded stimulus projects from others in their service areas, now deemed “unserved” or “underserved.”

Brotman further advocates that funding be focused on those that can deliver results “quickly.”

Embarq would agree with him there as well, stating “funds through grants directly to broadband providers rather than loans or other measures as this will have the greatest and quickest impact in bringing broadband to the hardest-to-serve areas.  …there is no time to wait for complete broadband maps or block grants to states for redistribution.”

Telecommunications companies would also do well by Brotman’s suggestion that federal funding for broadband projects reaching public and community service institutions should be emphasized.  As communities often request companies provide those services at a deep discount or free in return for franchise agreements or other licensing provisions, that’s money AT&T, Verizon, and others need not spend out of their own pockets.  Getting free airwaves swiped from educational institutions to deliver wireless broadband also benefits AT&T and Verizon, who are in that business as well.

When a “policy institute,” “research group,” or other seemingly unaffiliated entity starts rehashing telecommunications industry talking points, it’s time to start digging.

Buried on page five of a PDF file describing the work of the Digital Policy Institute, one comes to a section titled, “DPI Impact and Influence.”  DPI doesn’t list their financial supporters or partnerships as such.  Instead, they call them “national, collaborative relationships.”  Who does DPI collaborate with?

• AT&T
• Embarq
• National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (rural telco lobbyists)
• Verizon
• …among others.

Imagine my surprise.

But that’s not all.  Stuart N. Brotman Communications counts (or counted) among his clients AT&T, Cox Cable, National Cable and Telecommunication Association, and the New England Cable TV Association.

Perhaps Business Week would have done a better service to readers had they also disclosed that.

Some communities are luckier than others.  When your cable company boosts rates, some consumers have another provider available, letting them take their business elsewhere.  That’s especially true if there is another provider in town that doesn’t require you to attach a satellite dish to your roof.

For those who have no other alternative, it’s time for the family meeting to discuss what action, if any, will be taken to deal with a bill that relentlessly increases year after year.  The solutions usually come down to “grin and bear it” when paying the higher price, start dropping channels, or go cold turkey and get rid of cable altogether.

In economically troubled western New York, just accepting a higher bill isn’t always an option.  For residents of Buffalo, many have the choice of switching from Time Warner Cable to Verizon FiOS.  Many Queen City residents have threatened to do just that, often extracting concessions from Time Warner Cable when they call to cancel.

Stop the Cap! reader Marion, who lives in Amherst, wrote she was outraged to receive word of yet another rate hike from Time Warner Cable.

“Our family had been pestered by Verizon ever since FiOS came around our area, but having the phone company tear up your house to rewire everything and change your e-mail address was a real hassle, so we just kept Time Warner,” she writes.  “I’m fed up paying for all these filthy channels I never watch and I frankly can’t afford to keep paying them more and more every year whenever they have one of their programmer disputes.”

Marion called to cancel service and was transferred to a “retention specialist” who is trained to rescue departing customers before they cut the cord or show up at the cable office with their set top boxes in hand, waiting to turn them in.

“They always want to argue what a great value they are and how messy and time-consuming FiOS is to install, and you have to pay extra for HD channels I’m too old to appreciate anyway, but I just kept saying ‘cancel’ and said the only thing I cared about was the price,” Marion adds. “In the end they offered to cut the bill twenty dollars a month and give me a discount only new customers would get if I agreed to stay with a term plan.  I decided I would, for now.  I’m on a fixed income and with no Social Security increase this year, the price is very important to me.”

Alan Pergament is the TV Critic for the Buffalo News

Time Warner Cable is well aware when customers leave.  The company’s “churn” rate, measuring departing customers, has been on the increase in highly competitive service areas.  Consumers have learned to use new customer promotional offers from the competition against their current provider, threatening to cancel if they refuse to match them.  The costs of getting those customers back can be higher than just handing over a temporary discount, so many providers relent and give customers the lower price they want.

In Buffalo, convincing customers the local cable company is a better value and offers better service than the fiber-based FiOS competition might keep customers from thinking about switching in the first place.  That’s the idea, anyway.

The Buffalo News Tuesday published an interview with Time Warner’s Jeff Unaitis on the recently-announced rate hike and what changes the company is making to try and hold onto their customers.

Unaitis started with a range of new and upcoming improvements the cable operator is planning to make across upstate New York:

• The 24-hour news channel YNN —or Your News Now—will be the title of all TWC news channels across the state shortly to give it a “seamless news presence across the state.”

“You are beginning to see more shared coverage across the state,” said Unaitis.

Additionally, viewers in Western New York will get an upconverted HD version of YNN on Channel 709 by April or so. In other words, it isn’t shot in HD but it is HD quality. It already has been done on TWC’s news channel in Syracuse. “The reality is when you are accustomed to see HD content going back to something that is standard digital, let alone analog, is more difficult viewing,” Unaitis said.

• A new interactive, user-friendly, online programming guide will be available soon. One bonus: It will be easier to order On Demand titles.

In the next few months, the satellite feature celebrated in the ads with “Pysch” star Dule Hill that allows subscribers to program their DVRs remotely while they are away from home will soon be available to TWC subscribers with this guide.

• TWC is looking at the possibility of expanding “significantly more” HD channels that the public has requested. BBCAmerica, Lifetime and all the Viacom channels (VH1, MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon among them) are among the most requested. “Some of them are contingent on carriage deals,” said Unaitis. “Others we do have the rights to carry, we just haven’t done the engineering required to have them yet.”

• The popular Start Over feature — which is up to 90 channels here and allows viewers to start shows from the beginning during the time window it airs — will be augmented some time this year by a new “Look Back” feature. “Look Back” enables viewers to watch shows for up to 72 hours after they air rather than just the window in which they air.

Unaitis added that viewers may not realize that the Free on HD Demand channel offers subscribers many of the same programs that are available on Prime Time On Demand, but in HD.

YNN provides 24/7 local news coverage on individual channels in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Albany

The newspaper’s TV critic, Alan Pergament, noted the service changes, but immediately pelted Unaitis with the concerns local residents actually have about their Time Warner Cable service.  To save time, and because of complaints I’ve had about my verbosity, I’ve boiled it all down for you:

Q. Why isn’t Time Warner Sports-Net, the local sports channel, in HD?

A. Because it costs too much, but Unaitis claimed the channel will be upconverted to HD, which will “give it an HD-quality signal.”  Not really.

Q. Buffalo gets Canadian networks from Toronto-area stations on their lineup.  Why aren’t they available in HD?

A. Who knows.

Q. Why can’t people pay for only the channels they want?

A. Because programmers won’t allow it, and the cable company would end up charging you the same price you pay for 75 channels today that you’ll pay for 20 channels tomorrow. Plus, you’ll need a box on every TV in the house and that also increases your bill.

Q. How much do western New Yorker’s pay for YNN?

A. None of your business.

Q. How many subscribers does Time Warner Cable have in western New York?

A. None of your business.

Q. Why do those in western NY pay a higher price for cable service than elsewhere?

A. Unaitis didn’t know if that was true or not, but then explained it was because of the weather, labor costs, high state taxes and the difficulty building and maintaining the cable lines.

Okay, then.

Advertising Age this week predicted online TV could be about to undergo a transformation — into the online equivalent of advertising-packed traditional television.

Starting as early as this fall, that 47 minute “hour long” show you’ve watched with a handful of commercial interruptions may become a 59 minute show, with almost 15 minutes of additional advertising piled on your viewing experience.  Worst of all, if your service provider wants to stick you with a usage allowance or “consumption billing,” you will effectively be paying to watch commercials.

Imagine after receiving your monthly pay television bill, a company representative arrives to install a coin meter on the side of your TV.  Your monthly fee just gives you access to the channels, he explains.  Actually watching them costs more.

Why introduce more advertising?

Nielsen, a ratings measurement service, will start providing its subscribers ad viewing information regardless of whether the viewer sees it on a traditional television or online.  The catch is the advertising must be the same across platforms.  That means online video could run the same ads your local station or cable network carries.

“The financial models used for the current large video hubs in the online space are not sustainable,” said Jack Wakshlag, chief research officer for Time Warner’s Turner Broadcasting. One way to make online viewing more financially lucrative, several TV executives suggested, is to use it to aggregate viewing of popular shows across TV, online and other emerging media — and then use that rating as a means of negotiating for the cost of an ad against the program.

What’s lending traction to the idea of increasing the number of commercials in online TV runs is the “TV Everywhere” concept currently embraced by industry players Time Warner and Comcast, among others. Under the plan, cable subscribers would be able to watch their favorite shows via broadband for no extra fees, while non-subscribers would be blocked. If the media companies can use this idea to control how consumers watch TV programming, they may also be able to force a more traditional amount of advertising on them, too.

Even worse, many online video providers like Hulu are considering charging viewers their own fees, leaving consumers paying three times – twice in money for broadband service and a subscription fee, once in time wasted sitting through unstoppable ads.

Some consumers don’t mind the trade-off as long as viewing remains free.  But with Internet Overcharging schemes, online video ads count against your allowance.

One TV executive told the trade magazine research suggests that 80% to 90% of people would rather watch TV online with the same load of ads as a traditional TV show if it meant doing so for free. “People don’t want to pay more subscription fees on top of their cable subscription fee,” this executive said.

It is likely testing of full commercial loads will precede any large scale rollout, if only to gauge consumer reaction.  If people refuse to pay to watch commercial advertising, the industry will have to go back to the drawing board to come up with other ideas to monetize online video.

Burlington Telecom (BT), the city owned-and-operated fiber-based cable, broadband, and telephone provider is mired in debt and is not financially viable in its current form.

Those are the findings of a “blue ribbon” committee tasked with answering questions about the future of the financially-troubled municipally-owned provider serving 4,600 Burlington customers in Vermont.

In an 11-page public report, the committee recommended the city partner with a commercial entity that would assume a majority interest in BT.  As a minority stakeholder, the city could eventually recoup the 17 million dollar investment it has made in the company.

Although some residents have lobbied the city to abandon the 100 percent fiber network to stem ongoing losses, the committee advised against it.

“The city has a considerable asset in BT, and should not give this asset away at a fire sale price,” notes one independent consultant working with the committee. “BT is too important to be jettisoned, in part because it keeps the competition honest.”

Burlington Telecom building and staff

But carrying forward as-is is not a good idea either, the report concludes.

“BT is not viable in relationship to its current debt load of $51 million and its ability to generate earnings to repay this debt. BT cannot meet its principal and interest obligations at this time,” the committee concluded, noting that the company’s current business plan can’t meet future financial challenges either.

As if to underscore that notion, BT this month asked the city of Burlington for a $386,000 loan from to make an interest payment to CitiLeasing by Wednesday, to prevent the company from technically defaulting on its $32 million municipal lease purchase.  On Friday, a judge issued a restraining order forbidding such a loan unless the Vermont Public Service Board agrees.

The committee noted that the reasons for BT’s financial problems weren’t rooted in its “first-class” fiber optic network, or its usefulness to the city.

In summary, the committee and its consultants blamed the problems on these factors:

- HBC found BT overpaid for its fiber network, spending $1,000 per home passed, when fiber build-out prices have dropped in the past few years.

- BT is spending too much money on customer installations.  HBC reports BT could save more than $600 off the $1,600 the company pays to hook up each customer.

- The company uses the same door-to-door marketing company Comcast uses to get new customers.  Additionally, BT contracts with a third party service company to handle installations and service calls.  This work should be done in-house, HBC recommends, as paying a company based on how many installations are performed provides a built-in incentive to cut corners and quality.

- BT’s broadband products are too slow for a compete, handing incumbent cable provider Comcast an unnecessary competitive advantage.  Fiber can blow cable modem service out of the water when competing on speeds, but BT foolishly charges too much money for too slow service topping out at just 8Mbps/8Mbps, for a whopping $71.80 a month.  BT calls that “the ultimate Internet experience.”  It’s not.  HBC predicts broadband will become BT’s most important service, so it is critical for the company to make the product more attractive to customers.

- BT is mired in politics that has nothing to do with its service to the community, and it creates unnecessary distractions that commercial providers do not have.  Some who oppose the municipal fiber project or the current city council use BT as a political football.

- Because it is a public entity, too much financial and strategic business information is open to public review, which includes BT’s competitors.  That gives Comcast and FairPoint advance notice of BT plans, pricing, and growth strategies.  Restructuring as a semi-private entity under local government oversight would help guarantee competitive business information stays out of the hands of the competition.

- BT lacks an effective marketing strategy to convince residents and businesses to change providers.  Without a compelling lineup of services, and a marketing effort to sell them, customers will be reluctant to go through a disruptive switch to BT service.  The provider’s bundled service packages are often compelling (a triple play with basic television and phone service only costs $89 a month, less than $20 more than standalone broadband service), but they often lack the services, speed, and channels consumers want.

- The company does not pay enough attention to customer service strategies.  Customers complain BT does not accept cash payments from walk-up customers, who are told to return with a money order.  From a confusing automated attendant that answers customer calls to inconvenient hours and appointment scheduling, BT needs to hire marketing experts to help restructure how it serves potential and subscribing customers.

Burlington Telecom's fiber broadband speeds are the same uploading and downloading, but there is plenty of room for improvement in speeds at a lower price

- BT utilizes a 200-megabit backbone at a cost of $6,000 a month and a 350-megabit backbone at a monthly cost of $16,331. It is HBCs belief that backbone costs can be reduced considerably, as much as $6,000 per month should be saved through re-negotiation. Costs should be in the neighborhood of $25 to $30 per megabit, as compared to the $40 per megabit of speed now being paid by BT. HBC buys twice as much bandwidth per month than BT and pays only $7,000 more for the additional capacity.

- Finally, the company leaves a lot of potential earnings on the table.  It doesn’t provide local-ad insertions on cable channels and doesn’t leverage its excess broadband capacity with businesses by selling them web hosting, co-location, and speed critical services.  It doesn’t provide value-added services that cable companies now offer, such as caller ID on TV.

The Burlington mayor, Bob Kiss, expressed skepticism at some of the conclusions in the committee’s findings.

Kiss believes refinancing BT’s debt would give the telecom company more time to implement better marketing and service improvements, which could attract new customers and revenue.

For Burlington business leaders, the entire affair is an embarrassment.  Many believe significant harm will come from a city gaining a reputation for defaulting on its obligations.

The conclusion many have reached is that Burlington Telecom was naively planned, without sufficient regard to realistic projections of expenses and revenues, and lacks expertise to effectively compete with other local providers.  Building an advanced fiber network for your community is only as good as the services offered at a price that makes sense.  Alienate customers with ineffective marketing or out of touch product packaging, and your future will be in doubt.

WCAX-TV in Burlington has followed the BT saga for months.  This video includes five reports covering the company’s future viability (13 minutes)

1. Burlington Telecom Saga Continues (12-15-2009)
2. Burlington Telecom Forces Changes In Burlington City Government (02-01-2010)
3. Burlington Telecom Not Financially Viable (02-05-2010)
4. Burlington Council Gets Blue Ribbon Committee Report (02-11-2010)
5. Burlington Telecom’s Fate Under Discussion (02-11-2010)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFFF Burlington Burlington Telecom's Future Unclear 02-11-2010.flv

WFFF-TV in Burlington reports the telecom company’s future is unclear. (1 minute)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Plattsburgh Burlington Telecom Not Viable.flv

WPTZ in Plattsburgh covered the contention over an upcoming interest payment BT needs to pay by Wednesday.  (3 minutes)

Read our complete coverage on Burlington Telecom.