After weeks of delays, Time Warner Cable says it will finally open access to ESPN’s multi-channel streaming service Monday, Oct. 25th.  The service will be available to Time Warner Cable subscribers, and is free of charge.

ESPN’s streaming service was included in a deal signed in early September between the cable company and Disney-ABC, which owns the sports network.

Time Warner Cable has been working with ESPN’s website technical staff to build and test the online verification system that is the foundation of Time Warner Cable’s implementation of TV Everywhere.  The cable company plans to offer a library of on-demand video and live streams of many cable channels free of charge, but only to authenticated, current customers.

It is all part of an effort by the cable industry to stop cable customers from canceling their cable-TV subscriptions.  An increasing amount of online content produced by cable networks is expected to eventually be placed behind the TV Everywhere system.  Existing cable subscribers will get access to streamed live channels and on demand programming for free, but non-subscribers will be locked out.  Cable networks can decide how much of their programming will be a part of the project, but cable industry insiders predict there will be increasing pressure on them to keep most of their shows off the open Internet.

While the channels will be free-to-stream for subscribers now, several cable networks are exploring whether to charge cable companies extra programming fees for online viewing rights.  If that becomes popular, online viewing options may eventually carry monthly fees of their own.

ESPN says most of its online streaming will contain no advertising until the network builds enough viewers to justify selling ads targeting online audiences.

Verizon Inc. reached a similar agreement with Disney in October for its FiOS TV service. The originally planned launch date for Verizon customers was Jan. 18th, but if authentication tests with Time Warner Cable are successful, FiOS customers may get access much sooner.

The Free UTOPIA website reports that a provider-backed front group is once again trying to pack meetings with their members to oppose UTOPIA – Utah’s municipal broadband network.

Several UTOPIA member cities are gearing up to start taking votes on the new Utah Infrastructure Agency designed to help fund new construction of the network. The Utah Taxpayers Association is trying to get people to show up at these meetings to protest the UIA and try and kill it. In their effort to do so, they continue to distort, twist, and outright lie in their efforts to rile people up.

First off, the UIA bonds are not an unconditional loan. They are funds that will be secured by payments from subscribers. If there aren’t enough subscribers to secure repayment, the money doesn’t get touched. You would think that such an arrangement would be acceptable to an organization that purports to represent taxpayers as it clearly shifts the burden from the taxpayers as a whole to the subscribers. Attempting to characterize the UIA as a big grab-bag is a big lie.

UTA claims UTOPIA is currently running a $20 million deficit, but Free UTOPIA points out part of that “deficit” may include the original seed money required to construct the network, which came in the form of bonds.  Like any start-up venture, UTOPIA’s initial infrastructure costs create operating losses until those costs are paid back.  A financial feasibility study prepared by Design Nine and released last week projects UTOPIA could report positive net income by 2018, with revenue increasing dramatically going forward.

UTA receives financial support from both Comcast and Qwest.

As fiber advocates have noted, start-up costs and the time it takes to pay them off are one reason why so few commercial providers want to invest in fiber.  Commercial providers often demand a return on investment within five years, while many municipal projects consider fiber a longer-term investment that can pay additional dividends for communities that may not always appear on a balance sheet.  Dividends like high technology start-ups, better paying jobs, better health care and education, and eventually additional revenue for the community that stays in the community.

The UTA has repeatedly claimed the UTOPIA project is veiled in secrecy, yet the project’s feasibility study is published on UTA’s own website.  What is secret is exactly how much money Comcast and Qwest pay UTA and its president Howard Stephenson.  Neither company will disclose exactly how much they have spent on UTA beyond contributions directed to Stephenson himself, documented here.

Provider-backed front groups like UTA routinely misinform their members about the benefits of municipal broadband, often to the point of demagoguery not supported by the facts.  Free UTOPIA reports broadband evangelism can make dramatic inroads among opponents of such public works projects:

The Utah “Taxpayers” Association thought it would get an upper hand with a BBQ in Orem just before the city council voted on a new construction bond. Unfortunately for them, the plan backfired when UTOPIA made a surprise appearance at the event with their “mobile command center” and started actually talking directly with the meeting attendees, many of whom had no opinion of UTOPIA yet and came to get more information. According to my sources, about half of the 250 or so attendees ended up registering their interest in UTOPIA services, a major coup for the network that upstaged their most vocal opponent.

Apparently what convinced a lot of the undecideds was the UTA’s refusal to disclose who pays their bills. That lack of transparency translated directly into looking like they have something to hide (hint: it’s Qwest and Comcast dollars) and left many looking at their fantastic claims skeptically. I’d like to say that there were some talking points to address, but an eyewitness account called it so much kool-aid drinking, a series of incomprehensible rants filled with insinuation, innuendo, insults, and no concrete addressable facts. In contrast, UTOPIA discussed their new business plan with individual residents and offered demonstrations of how well the service can work. Truth has power and it wasn’t on the UTA’s side.

Judging from comments left on UTOPIA’s website, the most controversy seems to be why it takes so long to extend service to more neighborhoods:

“Please finish laying fiber in Orem! We live virtually a quarter mile from the cutoff. We are stuck with Comcast’s horrible routing, and inconsistent speeds, Qwest’s DSL which doesn’t work due to damaged lines they are unwilling to repair, or wireless that never works. Please save us. I have been waiting for years.”

Utah fiber advocates are strongly encouraged by Free UTOPIA to repeat earlier successes and attend upcoming town meetings to present a more informed view about the benefits of fiber networks.

Centerville meets tonight (October 19) at 7PM, Orem is October 26 at 6PM, and Payson is October 27 at 6PM.

All meetings are at the city halls of each respective community.

With continued inaction at the Federal Communications Commission, some stakeholders in the Net Neutrality debate continue to file comments with the Commission trying to find a “third way” to bring about guarantees for online free speech and access while softening opposition to “network management” technology that allows providers to manipulate broadband traffic.

Among such filers is the Communications Workers of America, which seeks a “middle-ground approach” to protecting a free and open Internet.

The CWA has always maintained its feet in two camps — with consumers looking for improved broadband and with the communications companies that employee large numbers of the union’s members, who will build out those networks and provide service.

The union shares our annoyance with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his complete inaction on broadband policy thus far.  In short, the Commission keeps stalling from taking direct action to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, restoring its ability to oversee broadband policy lost in a federal appeals court decision earlier this year.

The CWA used a piece by David Honig from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) to echo its own position:

MMTC isn’t alone in being frustrated with the FCC’s disappointing attitude toward real action this past year. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski expressed impatience with the glacial pace of policymaking at his Commission. Although he mentioned that the FCC, under his direction, has implemented some notable reforms, he conceded that “there is still a lot to do.”

Unfortunately, regardless of how earnest the Chairman is in his desire to move forward with the business of policymaking, his actions speak much louder than his words. Indeed, his yearlong pursuit of network neutrality rules — first via a traditional rulemaking proceeding and, most recently, via an effort to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service — has cast a long and almost suffocating pall over many of the items that the Chairman wishes to act upon. His inaction on civil rights issues — especially EEO enforcement — is just one example of how paralyzed the agency has become.

Recent news that Congress will not move forward to address the regulatory questions that currently vex the Commission (e.g., whether the FCC has authority to regulate broadband service providers) could embolden the Chairman to adopt the sweeping regulatory changes for broadband that he proposed earlier this year. Doing so in the absence of Congressional action would only invite immediate legal challenges that would mire the FCC in litigation, appeals, and remands for years to come.

To put it plainly, the FCC is stuck. Although it recently adopted some promising orders related to broadband (e.g., new rules for accessing new portions of wireless spectrum called “white spaces” and for enhancing access in schools and libraries), the Commission has failed to move forward with implementing core provisions of its monumental National Broadband Plan.

The union last week also submitted its latest round of comments requested by the Commission, this time to broaden its position on a proposed compromise.  We’ve delineated which of the proposals we believe are primarily pro-consumer (in green), pro-provider (red), and which fall straight down the middle (blue):

• First, wireline broadband Internet access providers (“broadband providers”) should not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices on the Internet.
• Second, wireline and wireless broadband providers should be transparent regarding price, performance (including reporting actual speed) and network management practices.
• Third wireline broadband providers should not engage in unjust or unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic.
• Fourth, broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks through appropriate and tailored mechanisms, recognizing the technical and operational characteristics of the broadband Internet access platform.
• Fifth, the Commission should take a case-by-case adjudication approach to protect an open Internet rather than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules.

The first and third principles are strongly pro-consumer, although as we’ve seen, providers have a tendency to want to define for themselves what is “harmful,” “unjust,” or “unreasonable” and impose it on their customers.  We’ve seen provider-backed front groups argue that the concept of Net Neutrality itself is all three of these things.  Any rules must be clearly defined by the Commission, not left to open interpretation by providers.

The second principle cuts right down the middle.  Consumers deserve an honest representation of broadband speeds marketed by providers (not the usual over-optimistic speeds promised in marketing materials), and transparency in price — especially with gotchas like term contracts, early cancellation penalties, overlimit fees, etc.  But providers can also go to town with abusive network management they’ll market as advantageous and fair, even when it is neither.  Just ask customers of Clear who recently found their “unlimited” wireless broadband service, marketed as having no speed throttles, reduced in speed to barely above dial-up when they used the service “too much.”  Clear says the speed throttles are good news and represent fairness.  Customers think otherwise, and disclosure has been lacking.

The fourth and fifth principles benefit providers enormously.  Network management itself is neither benevolent or malicious.  The people who set the parameters for that management are a different story.  A traffic-agnostic engineer might use such technology to improve the quality of services like streamed video and Voice Over IP by helping to keep the packets carrying such traffic running smoothly, without noticeably reducing speeds and quality of service for other users on that network.  There is nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. There is also nothing wrong with providing on-demand speed boosts on a pay-per-use basis, so long as the network is not oversubscribed.

But since providers are spending less to upgrade their networks, providers may seek to exploit these technologies in a more malicious way — too stall needed upgrades and save money by delivering a throttled broadband experience for some or all of their customers.  If customers can be effectively punished for using high bandwidth applications, they’ll reduce their usage of them as well.  That’s good for providers but not for customers who are paying increasing broadband bills for a declining level of service.

Some examples:

• Customers using high bandwidth peer-to-peer applications can have their speeds throttled, sometimes dramatically, when using those applications;
• Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and “fair access” policies can discourage consumers from using services like online video, file transfer services, and new multimedia-rich online gaming platforms like OnLive, which can consume considerable bandwidth;
• Preferred content can be “network managed” to arrive at the fastest possible speeds, at the cost of other traffic which consequently must be reduced in speed, meaning your non-preferred traffic travels on the slow lane;
• Providers can redefine levels of broadband service based on intended use, relegating existing packages to “web browsing and e-mail” while marketing new, extra-cost add-ons for services that take the speed controls off services like file transfer and online video, or changes usage limits.

The CWA runs the Speed Matters website, promoting broadband improvements.

It is remarkable the CWA seeks to allow today’s indecisive Commission to individually adjudicate specific disputes, instead of simply laying down some clear principles that would not leave a host of loopholes open for providers to exploit.

Big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have plenty of money at their disposal to attract and influence friends in high places.  If the Commission thought Big Telecom’s friends in Congress were breathing down its neck about telecom policy now, imagine the load it will be forced to carry when these companies seek to test the Commission’s resolve.

Opponents of Net Neutrality claim broadband reclassification will leave providers saddled with Ma Bell-era regulation.  But in truth, the FCC can make their rules plain and simple.  Here are a few of our own proposals:

1. Network management must be content-agnostic.  “Preferred partner” content must travel with the same priority as “non-preferred content;”
2. Providers can use network management to ensure best possible results for customers, but not at the expense of other users with speed throttles and other overcharging schemes;
3. Providers can market and develop new products that deliver enhanced speed services on-demand, but not if those products require a reduction in the level of service provided to other customers;
4. Customers should have the right to opt out of network management or at least participate in deciding what traffic they choose to prioritize;
5. Providers may not block or impede legal content of any kind;

In short, nobody objects to providers developing innovative new applications and services, but they must be willing to commit to necessary upgrades to broaden the pipeline on which they wish to deliver these services.  Otherwise, providers will simply make room for these enhanced revenue services at your expense, by forcing a reduction in your usage or reducing the speed and quality of service to make room for their premium offerings.

The industry itself illustrates this can be done using today’s technology.

The cable industry managed to accomplish benevolent network management with products like “Speed Boost” which delivers enhanced, short bursts of speed to broadband customers based on the current demand on the network.  Those speed enhancements depend entirely on network capacity and do not harm other users’ speeds.

Groups like the CWA need to remember that compromise only works if the terms and conditions are laid out as specifically as possible.  Otherwise, the player with the deepest pockets and closest relationships in Washington will be able to define the terms of the compromise as they see fit.

And that’s no compromise at all.

Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen outlined the union’s position on Net Neutrality before the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on Sept. 14, 2010.  (2 minutes)

Verizon’s lobbyists are warning western New York politicians that unless they defeat a state measure to allow Verizon ratepayers to share in the proceeds of any future landline network sell-offs, Verizon may take a multi-billion dollar proposed data center elsewhere.

The Niagara county community of Somerset, population 2,900, is the planned home for the new high-tech infrastructure project.  Verizon officials propose to use Lake Ontario breezes and water to help cool the energy-intensive facility, to be located on 160 acres just yards from the shoreline.  In all, the Verizon campus will consist of three buildings — each 300,000 square feet in size.  If built as proposed, it would be among the largest of Verizon’s 250 data centers around the world.

But there’s a hitch.

While Verizon project manager Bruce Biesecker showed drawings and answered questions from an eager audience of local residents, Verizon lobbyists were telling reporters the entire project could end up in another state because of legislation under consideration in the state legislature.

Our regular reader Smith6612 dropped us a note wondering if we knew about the project.  Yes, we did.  But we also noticed company officials spending almost as much time complaining about interference from Albany threatening to derail the data center as they spent talking about the project itself.  Company officials also rarely named the exact bill in question or how it would directly threaten its data center investment.

Stop the Cap! covered the introduction of New York Assembly Bill 2208/Senate Bill 7263 earlier this year.  Introduced by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) and Senator Brian X. Foley (D-Blue Point), the companion bills came in response to watching Verizon sell off large segments of its landline network in a dozen states to Frontier Communications.  Both legislators were concerned the deal forced subscribers to deal with a new phone company that earned an “F” rating from the Better Business Bureau, all while personally enriching company executives and shareholders in a tax-free transaction.  They don’t want to see a repeat performance for rural New York residents.

Brodsky and Foley argue that such sales should be in the interests of ratepayers, especially rural customers who have few alternative choices.  Their legislation would compel Verizon to share 40 percent of the proceeds of any sale with their customers — the ones that pay the monthly bills that made Verizon’s network possible.  Alternatively, Verizon could spend an equal amount on verifiable infrastructure improvements and escape writing checks to ratepayers.  In either case, the legislation forces Verizon to spend less on bonus bonanzas for a handful of deal-making executives and more on the customers who have to live with the results.

Verizon lobbyists and company officials have routinely mischaracterized the legislation, claiming it singles out the state’s largest phone company with a “40 percent tax” that “exempts cable companies.”  They have also repeatedly hinted the legislation could force Verizon out of the state.

“That weighs as heavily in our decision as do things like power, taxes, environment,” Verizon spokesman John Bonomo said. “The business climate in the state is as important as some of those other factors.”

Verizon officials have not exactly been subtle about what they want to get the multi-billion dollar project ultimately built:  solid opposition to the two bills, which garnered support from consumer and ratepayer groups and the Communications Workers of America.  The legislation passed the state Assembly but ultimately died in the Senate several weeks ago.  Verizon is obsessed about keeping such bills from being reintroduced.

With billions at stake, the western New York delegation of politicians in Niagara and nearby Erie Counties have been especially supine to Verizon’s arguments.  In particular, some Republicans in the state legislature have made it their mission to see the bill permanently killed.

Unfortunately, the quality of the reporting done by local media about Verizon’s lobbying agenda has been especially underwhelming — frequently shallow, lazy, and downright inaccurate.  The assertions raised about the Brodsky/Foley legislation in area newspapers and television news reports makes one wonder if any of the reporters actually read the bills in question.

Take Bill Wolcott’s piece in the Lockport Union-Sun & Journal.

Wolcott never strays far from Verizon’s talking points, describing the bills as “[containing] conditions for givebacks of 40 percent for telephone providers, but does not do the same with cable TV corporations.”

Wolcott does not bother to accurately depict “givebacks” in terms of what they actually are — refunds to Verizon customers.

Verizon’s red herring complaint of unfair treatment is also repeated by the reporter, who apparently does not realize there are major differences between Time Warner Cable, which controls the overwhelming majority of cable subscribers in western and central New York and Verizon’s telephone operations:

1. Time Warner Cable has no plans to sell off its network to the highest bidder, abandoning rural and suburban areas served today.  Verizon did exactly that in most of the dozen states it left on July 1st;
2. Verizon’s landline network provides universal service to New York telephone customers, for which it receives a substantial subsidy from the Universal Service Fund;
3. Time Warner Cable is not held to universal service standards, something Verizon rarely complains about these days now that the phone company is in the same business as Time Warner through its selectively deployed FiOS network (which incidentally is not available in the Niagara county area where the data center is proposed.)
4. Verizon’s prior landline selloffs have almost always resulted in bankruptcies for the buyers, leaving phone customers uncertain about the level of service they will ultimately receive.

The proposed site for Verizon's data center in Somerset. Lake Ontario is visible in the distance. (Courtesy: WIVB-TV Buffalo)

The Buffalo News reporter did little better, misrepresenting a fundamental part of the bill (underlining ours):

Under the weight of a multibillion- dollar deficit, the State Assembly in the spring passed a bill that would require telephone companies to return 40 percent of their proceeds to the state if they reached a joint venture with another company or sold off some of their properties in New York.

Reporter Teresa Sharp managed to bungle an important fact.  The state of New York would not receive the proceeds — Verizon ratepayers would.

Most television coverage didn’t bother to challenge the inaccurate assertions made by Republican lawmakers or Verizon representatives either.  Talking points were read and reporters simply nodded their heads.

As a public service to the Buffalo-area media, Stop the Cap! presents a primer on the actual language of the legislation Verizon wants to see dead (underlining ours):

         (1) PROVIDES SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO RATEPAYERS.
   49    (2)  EQUITABLY ALLOCATES, WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS RATEMAKING AUTHORI-
   50  TY, THE TOTAL SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM FORECASTED ECONOMIC BENEFITS,  AS
   51  DETERMINED  BY  THE  COMMISSION, OF THE PROPOSED MERGER, ACQUISITION, OR
   52  CONTROL BETWEEN SHAREHOLDERS AND RATEPAYERS.  RATEPAYERS  SHALL  RECEIVE
   53  NOT  LESS  THAN  FORTY  PERCENT OF SUCH BENEFITS; PROVIDED, HOWEVER THAT
   54  REINVESTMENT OF SUCH BENEFITS  IN  A  TELEPHONE  CORPORATION'S  IN-STATE
   55  INFRASTRUCTURE MAY BE DEEMED TO SATISFY SUCH REQUIREMENT.

What this means is that Verizon has two choices if it chooses to throw its rural New York landline customers overboard — before paying enormous cash bonuses to executives and deliver subscribers into the waiting hands of a potentially unstable buyer, up to 40 percent of the proceeds must be reinvested in improving the existing telephone network.  Barring that, the same percentage of proceeds must be returned to ratepayers in the form of refund checks or service credits.

Verizon may have a major problem giving customers their fair share, but they have no problem asking New York taxpayers for generous tax breaks.

Verizon has applied for a 20-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes, or PILOT agreement, which would deliver substantial property tax savings, not a small matter in a region with the highest property taxes in the country.  It also wants a sales tax exemption on building materials and the equipment to be installed at the data center.  The sales tax break alone is expected to cost state taxpayers up to $330 million in lost tax revenue.

Because Verizon is upset about the legislation, local politicians have done one better expressing outrage that Albany politicians could drive Verizon to pack up its data center and head out of state.

Corwin

Somerset Supervisor Richard Meyers was quoted in Wolcott’s piece suggesting New York residents don’t want any part of a bill that returns money to phone customers if Verizon sells them out.

“I’ll tell you who’s calling the shots in the Senate, and that’s the residents of New York state,” Meyers said. “The average citizen in New York state does not like this bill, and I don’t either. I think it stinks. It’s not a necessary bill, and there’s a lot of time and energy wasted.”

Assemblywoman Jane Corwin, (R-Clarence) characterized the legislation as a union plot, quoted bashing the bills in the Lockport newspaper:

“It’s a very bad bill, being pushed by the Communication Workers of America, the union that represents the workforce at Verizon,” she said. “Of all the people that stand to get hurt, it’s the employees that would get hurt the most, and the investors as well. The whole bill doesn’t make sense.”

“This bill chills any business incentive to invest in New York state … because they stand to lose 40 percent of that investment down the line. The playing field will be made uneven, if we start taking 40 percent of that potential away from Verizon and not from the cable companies and Internet companies.”

She  contends that the CWA was putting pressure on the Assembly. “The shame of it all is that it’s been driven by a special interest group. They are the ones pushing this bill.”

What is especially chilling is that Corwin never bothers to mention concern for the one group affected above all others: Verizon landline customers.  To her, they are incidental.  The CWA?  A “special interest group.”  Verizon?  A source of campaign contributions for her.  This year, she has already picked up some nice change from the folks at Big Red:

Source: New York State Board of Elections

That’s not bad for a New York Assemblywoman serving a rural district whose total campaign take since her first election is just under $125,000.

State senator George Maziarz (R-Newfane) is just as bad.

“It’s a terrible piece of legislation, and I’m doing all I can to make sure it doesn’t pass,” said Maziarz, who heads the Senate’s Energy and Telecommunications Committee.

Verizon also thanks Maziarz for his efforts, for which he has been well-rewarded in the last two election cycles:

Source: New York State Board of Elections

Maziarz

The prospect of new high technology jobs and investment are more than promising to an upstate economy that has suffered difficult economic times for years.  But Verizon’s threats to skip Somerset for its new data center because of “anti-business” hostility ignores the company’s own willingness to abandon its rural customers.  In states where Verizon has sold off landline service — ending the prospects for real improvements in broadband and other modern services — communities like Somerset were the first to go, seen as too small and isolated for Verizon’s urban-based business plans.

The legislation Verizon fears protects New York residents, including those in Niagara County, from deals that enrich a handful of executives and Wall Street bankers while delivering sub-standard service to customers left behind.  Verizon’s record of sell-offs has been a disaster for customers, forced to endure long-term service disruptions, inaccurate bills with unfair charges, low quality broadband, and high prices.

Ironically, Verizon’s fear is totally misplaced, assuming they intend to remain committed to serving customers across the state — from cities as large as New York -and- towns as small as Somerset.  Even using Verizon’s own language, they can avoid the 40% “tax” if they simply keep providing service to their customers.

That’s just one of many facts the media in western New York needs to do a much better job of communicating to their readers and viewers.

WIVB and WKBW-TV in Buffalo delivered several one-sided reports about the proposed Verizon Data Center while allow inaccurate information about Assemblyman Brodsky’s proposed bill to go unchallenged.  (8 minutes)

Another fight over retransmission consent leaves New York-area Cablevision subscribers in the middle of a dispute they will ultimately pay for.

At 12:01am Saturday, an unintended economic stimulus package kicked in for New York area sports bars as News Corporation yanked Fox network affiliates in New York and Philadelphia from Cablevision subscribers in a dispute over programming fees.

WNYW-TV (Fox), WTXF-TV (Fox), WWOR-TV (MyNetwork TV), Nat Geo WILD, Fox Business Channel, and Fox Deportes were all replaced with a looped message from Cablevision attacking Fox for negotiating in bad faith and greedily demanding more money than the cable company pays for every other New York area broadcaster, combined.

The dispute sent sports fans scurrying for access to weekend sporting events blacked out on the cable system serving Brooklyn, Long Island, and parts of Connecticut and New Jersey.  Cablevision customers were denied yesterday’s New York Giants-Detroit Lions football game and Philadelphia Phillies-San Francisco Giants baseball playoff game.  For a brief period, Fox raised the ante by also blocking Cablevision broadband subscribers from accessing Fox programming on Hulu, until political pressure and complaints from consumer groups forced Fox to retreat.

At issue, as always, is money.  Broadcasters are increasingly insistent on being paid for the right to retransmit their programming over cable systems.  Without agreements, a broadcaster can insist that a cable system drop their station(s) from the lineup until a retransmission consent agreement can be reached.

For years, many smaller independent stations fought to get on cable systems — for free — especially in areas where poor reception made it difficult to watch.  Broadcasters increased local advertising rates thanks to the extended viewing area many cable systems provide.

But now that local ad revenue is not what it used to be, and with viewers going online for access to their favorite shows, agreements increasingly require cash payments for permission to carry stations.

For the nation’s largest television market — New York City, the amounts exchanged can be staggering — well over $100 million dollars each year.  With that kind of money at stake, disputes have become almost routine, and area viewers are sick of it.

“It’s all about the money,” complained resident Joe Figueroa. “They’re always greedy.”

Figeroa and fellow Bronx resident Shinequa Gaillard told WNBC-TV these disputes always leave customers in the middle.

Fox briefly yanked its shows on Hulu Sunday for Cablevision customers attempting to bypass the dispute

“I think neither one of the two are thinking about the customers and the viewers — neither one of them,” Gaillard said. “As consumers, what can we do? Nothing.”

Briefly over the weekend, viewers hoping to bypass the dispute by watching Fox programming on Hulu learned the network had decided to involve Cablevision’s broadband subscribers in the fight as well — blocking access to Fox-owned content.  Some of our readers, include PreventCAPS, noticed.

Stop the Cap! reader and Cablevision subscriber Jim in Garden City, N.Y., discovered the programming blockade when he tried to watch an episode of COPS on Hulu.

“Fox has gone hardball on us by blocking Hulu for anyone with a Cablevision IP address,” Jim writes. “This is how these bastards operate, cutting off programming even for those like me who don’t even have cable TV and should not be involved in this debate at all.”

Jim uses a rooftop antenna to access local stations, and does not subscribe to a Cablevision video package.  He’s convinced this is exactly why we need Net Neutrality enforced by law in the United States.

“Imagine if this was Comcast-NBC vs. Fox,” he warns. “Do you think Comcast wouldn’t think twice of pulling the plug on Fox’s website and video content if the two hated one-another?  They’d flip that switch off in a second.”

The implications did not go unnoticed by Free Press and other consumer groups.

“Consumers should have the right to watch online content, and this access should not be tied to a dispute over cable television carriage arrangements,” said S. Derek Turner, research director for Free Press. “This move is also an example of a major user of public spectrum abusing the public interest.”

The matter quickly also went political, triggering an angry response from Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) urging the Federal Communications Commission to step in and “actively defend Internet freedom and consumer rights.”

A few hours after statements like that, Fox pulled back and restored access, but the point was made for those who recognize media companies have major involvement in online and over-the-air programming.

Israel

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), whose district includes shut-out Cablevision subscribers, thinks these disputes have become way too common.

Cablevision subscribers have endured short-term lockouts from Food Network and HGTV, networks owned by ABC-Disney, and now this latest dispute with Fox.  Israel wants binding arbitration for these types of disputes, if only to shield customers from one side or the other yanking access:

“I spoke to officials today at the FCC and they confirmed they have offered to mediate arbitration and pledged to keep the heat on both parties to come to the table without disrupting service.  Haven questioned Chairman Genachowski about this issue in March, I know that he shares my concerns about the continued brinkmanship of these negations that threaten to leave customers in the dark.  I’m disappointed that both parties haven’t agreed to hold Giants fans harmless while negotiations continue.”

While Cablevision announced it was willing to enter arbitration to resolve the dispute, Fox officials refused, claiming it would reward bad behavior by the cable company.

Both players have their own websites defending their respective positions and trying to sign up viewers to help fight the battle.

News Corporation, which owns Fox, runs KeepFoxOn and is encouraging Cablevision subscribers to cancel subscriptions and switch to Verizon FiOS or satellite television.  It also accuses Cablevision of hypocrisy over their resistance to paying “fair fees” for Fox-owned programming.

Lew Leone, vice president and general manager of News Corporation’s WNYW and WWOR-TV says Cablevision wants special treatment:

Instead of negotiating like a responsible business, Cablevision decided to make this your problem in the hope that if they caused you, the viewer, enough inconvenience, then politicians would intervene.

That is what Cablevision’s call for “arbitration” is all about.   But ask yourself – do you think Cablevision would be ok with someone else stepping in to decide the price you pay them for cable and broadband service?

And the Cablevision family certainly doesn’t allow arbitrators to set the rates for their cable channels like MSG and AMC.  In fact, just a few weeks ago, MSG and MSG Plus went off the dial for millions of DISH Network subscribers – and MSG did not ask for arbitration.

Cablevision has called us greedy. It’s an interesting charge, given the fact that the price we’ve offered Cablevision for FOX5 and My9 is more than 70% lower than what the Cablevision family charges other cable operators for MSG and MSG Plus.

Frankly, it is hard to believe a company like Cablevision is accusing anyone else of greed.  Cablevision customers pay an average of $149 per month including up to $18 for broadcast stations – and that earned them an average profit of over $795 per subscriber last year.  Yet, they have only offered to pay less than a penny a day for FOX5 and My9.

Cablevision has stated that they intend to provide you with a rebate.  But if the rebate is equal to what they offered Fox for our stations, you can look forward to a credit of less than 30 cents on your next bill.

Cablevision officials fire back that they won’t be bullied.  The Cablevision website, along with a video airing on blacked out channels, accuses Fox of greedily demanding $150 million for stations, many of which customers can watch for free over-the-air:

• Cablevision currently pays 70 million dollars per year for News Corp’s programming (which includes channels such as FOX 5, My9, FOX Business Network, National Geographic Wild, and FOX Deportes), and now they are asking for more than 150 million dollars for the exact same programming – no new programming, just another 80 million dollars per year for News Corp.
• Cablevision has reached agreement with every other major broadcast station, including CBS, NBC, ABC and Univision. But News Corp is demanding more in fees for FOX 5 and My9 than Cablevision and our customers pay for all of the other broadcast stations combined!
• We think in these economic times that this is outrageous, especially since FOX 5 and My9 are available for free over the air, and they make many of their most popular shows available for free on the Internet.
• News Corp has pulled the plug on their most popular programming, holding viewers hostage until their unreasonable demands are met. NFL Football, the MLB playoffs and World Series, House and Glee are just a few of the programs that News Corp is depriving their viewers of in an attempt to bully us into accepting their unfair demands.
• Cablevision is willing to accept binding arbitration from an independent 3rd party to settle this dispute. We call on News Corp to accept binding arbitration, and to put FOX 5 and My9 back on the air for our customers until we can come to a fair agreement.

Both sides have publicized their views in the local media, including full page ads in New York tabloids.  One from Fox targeted Cablevision’s owners personally, accusing the Dolan family of getting top dollar for lesser-watched sports networks under the MSG umbrella while playing hardball over program fees for channels 5 and 9, heavily viewed in the New York area.

Right now, Cablevision pays about 25 cents per month for both broadcasters.  News Corporation reportedly wants a dollar per month.

Forbes entertainment columnist Lacey Rose warns these repeated battles may bring unintended consequences from viewers, especially for Fox:

The networks’ current strategy –block programming while trading barbs with the cable operator in question—may do more harm than good, however, as consumers are (further) incentivized to find new ways to occupy their time. (Much as they did during the 100-day writers’ strike, when new scripted programming was shelved for months.) Still more worrisome, the resulting fees that will be passed down to already cash-strapped subscribers in the form of higher cable bills could end up pushing them away forever.

In an era of 1,000-plus channels and infinite entertainment on the Internet, the broadcast networks are already in a precarious position with younger viewers, which advertisers pay a premium to reach. Blackouts or not, nearly 70% of cord cutters are under the age of 34, according to a BTIG study released last month — and that doesn’t include a growing subset of these younger, tech-savvy viewers who never even bother with a cable subscription, preferring entertainment outlets like Hulu and Netflix for their content.  Though the networks are loathe to admit it, viewership continues to decline as the median age of the audience at the big four rises. In fact, thus far this season the median age of a prime-time viewer is 50 years old, according to The Nielsen Company.

But at least for now, as negotiations continue in the third day of the programming blackout, there appears to be no end in sight.  Cablevision has even engaged in some programming blackouts of its own, denying access to today’s New York gubernatorial debate to Verizon FiOS, which prompted an angry response from the phone company.

“Verizon FiOS TV customers and millions of other viewers served by other providers across the state have essentially been blacked out of the debate, denying them their rights as citizens and voters, since Cablevision is the sole broadcaster of the event,” said Michelle Webb, general manager and chief programming officer of FiOS1, Verizon’s news channel for Long Island and northern New Jersey. “And while the broadcast will be available on certain websites and some radio, those may not be practical solutions for many people.”

Stop the Cap! brings you a comprehensive roundup of coverage from the New York area regarding the Cablevision-Fox dispute, with coverage from WNYW, WABC, and NY 1 television, Cablevision and Fox themselves, and WINS and WCBS Radio.  (14 minutes)

Frontier Communications continues to alienate customers up and down the state of West Virginia with more service outages, billing problems, and emergency 911 service interruptions.

This time, it’s the community of Marmet that suffered an outage the company described as “temporary.”  Service to the area’s Metro 911 emergency operations center was interrupted Monday and residents knew what to do when Frontier could not deliver landline service that works — they grabbed their cell phones.

In Dunbar, the funeral director at Keller Funeral Home noticed he stopped getting calls from local area customers after Frontier took over operations July 1st.  Michael McCarty told a Charleston television station Frontier initially blamed him for the problems, but later discovered malfunctioning switching equipment was at fault and forked over a $344 refund.  McCarty’s business probably took a bigger financial hit than that when potential customers could not get through — for months.

“People would call, but it wasn’t ringing here,” McCarty told the Charleston Gazette. “There really wasn’t much we could do but wait it out.”

Two dozen complaints about Frontier’s performance are still pending at the West Virginia Public Service Commission.  The state’s consumer advocate says Frontier’s service quality in the state is not improving.  Frontier blames Verizon’s aging and poorly maintained network for most of the problems.

But many of Frontier’s complaints, not just in West Virginia, are about unfair early cancellation fees, inaccurate billing, lost service orders, and lousy customer service.  Here’s a sample:

• “The customer service representative was extremely rude and angry. We called in response to the unfair cancellation fee of $250.00. Last week we were told that we had until 9/30 to opt for other phone service without a cancellation fee. Each representative gives different information. Small business were treated horribly by Verizon and now Frontier. After the rudeness, I will never bring my business service back to Frontier!”
• “I have fought this company for six months because every month they cannot get billing right. They are the absolute WORST I have ever dealt with. They charge for services not wanted. They charge late fees when none should have been charged and then didn’t remove them after admitting their mistakes. If you have any other choice, avoid Frontier like it’s a plague, because it is.”
• “They never processed my order to transfer my service. I called back 4 times in a week to get them to do their job. On the last day, I was left on hold for 2 hours in the morning and then 1.5 hours in the afternoon, only to be told I would have to wait another 3 days for a servicemen to come out. The wait times were nothing less than abusive.”
• “Horrible folks to do business with. Verizon sold my FiOS/Phone account to Frontier and soon afterward mysterious charges for “ID protect” etc. started appearing on my bill. Whenever I call their service, it loops and hangs up. I tried the option for “we will call you back” – when it calls back , it will give another number to call back, where you have to wait again. Can’t wait to get rid of them.”
• “Frontier recently bought out Verizon’s service in my area. The automated phone tree system goes in loops and hangs up on you. Furthermore, once I finally figured out how to get someone on the line (responding to every question the automated system asked with “operator”) and moved up to a supervisor… the supervisor got very short with me when I tried to cancel my service and then hung up on me. When I called right back, I got an automated message saying the offices were closed.”

Some enterprising Frontier customers have learned their hold times will be much shorter if they opt to speak with a Spanish-speaking operator.  “Many of the call centers are in Florida anyway, so you may get a bilingual operator no matter which language you choose,” writes our reader Danielle.  “I cut my hold times from over an hour to less than five minutes this way.”

Meanwhile, one of Frontier’s primary competitors in the state, Citynet, accused Gov. Joe Manchin’s office of wasting $126 million in taxpayer money that will benefit Frontier Communications far more than state residents starved for broadband.

Citynet CEO Jim Martin urged federal officials Wednesday to suspend the grant after the state defended plans to allocate a large amount of the grant exclusively to connect state agencies.

“The state’s response clearly highlights why the federal government needs to suspend the award until there are major modifications to the plan,” Martin said. “It is clear from the state’s letter that little will be done with the federal taxpayer funds to increase the availability of adequate and competitively priced high-speed infrastructure in West Virginia. The current approach will cost the state future job growth.”

Martin is upset that more than half of the grant, $69 million dollars, will be spent on Frontier’s behalf to construct a broadband network for the state government.  The agencies who get access will still have to pay Frontier market rates for high speed broadband access, despite the fact taxpayer dollars were spent to construct the network Frontier will operate.

Manchin

Citynet wants stimulus funding diverted to construct a “middle mile” broadband network that every telecommunications company can access at wholesale rates to deliver improved broadband services to residents and businesses, not just government buildings.

Martin says the Manchin Administration is making “blatantly false” claims that the stimulus money would deliver high-speed Internet to 700,000 homes and 110,000 businesses.  Unless those homes and businesses are stuffed into government agency buildings, it won’t.

According to Martin, all of the benefits will go to only two places — state agencies and Frontier’s pockets.

“It’s a political favor to Frontier,” Martin charged.

“The citizens of West Virginia deserve transparency and accountability from their public servants, and this is even more true given the magnitude and importance of the need for broadband enablement in our state,” Martin said Wednesday. “I was born and raised in West Virginia, and I am aware of the consequences this program could have for West Virginia in terms of job growth and competing for high-paying 21st century jobs.”

Too many inquiries can damage your credit score

While the passage of the CARD Act has protected consumers from some of the worst credit card tricks and traps, the legislation left plenty of loopholes which credit card companies are increasingly exploiting to minimize risk and generate additional revenue.  As credit card companies continue to reduce credit limits and close accounts, both permitted under the legislation, they are increasingly using “excessive credit inquiries” as an excuse for taking that action.

That’s why one Raleigh, N.C. Time Warner Cable customer was very unhappy to see not one, but two credit inquiries on his credit report from the cable company when he signed up for service back in July:

TIME WARNER CABLE - RALEIGH
Hide Details 	07/13/10, 07/12/10

These “hard pulls” appear on credit reports under the “inquiries” section and are provided to other creditors as an indication of how much new credit you are applying for over a two year period.  While one or two of these inquiries are unlikely to dramatically impact your overall credit score, someone moving to a new home or planning to purchase one might run into some reluctant creditors unwilling to extend credit at the best possible rates for those who have six or more inquiries in the last 12 months.

According to Fair Isaac, the company that produces the FICO score, those with six or more inquiries on their credit reports are up to eight times more likely to declare bankruptcy than people with no inquiries on their reports.

As credit card issuers continue to be risk averse, a sudden appearance of hard inquiries on a credit report can be enough to deny you approval for a new account or help trigger a “credit review” which, in combination with other factors, can lead to a major credit line reduction or even account closure.

Pentagon Federal Credit Union, one of the nation’s best-rated credit unions, is also among the most sensitive to lots of inquiries, fearing potential customers are “pyramiding credit” through rapid fire applications.

Time Warner Cable is not alone in pulling credit reports on their new customers.  Comcast, AT&T, DirecTV and Verizon also obtain credit reports for customers signing up for cable, satellite, landline, and/or mobile service, and some customers have seen their FICO scores drop as a result.

Fair Isaac says the impact from inquiries will vary from person to person based on their individual credit histories.  For most people, one additional credit inquiry will take less than five points off their FICO score. But inquiries can have a greater impact if you have few accounts, a short credit history, are trying to rebuild credit, or are on the edge of moving from one score range to another.  Some creditors that manually check applications may ignore or discount credit inquiries from cable and phone companies, because it’s not the same as applying for a credit card, but automated systems may not be so forgiving.

More upsetting to some are why these companies are placing hard inquiries for credit reports on their subscribers’ credit files in the first place, especially when many customers had no idea they would try.

“Creditors can review credit reports and report them to credit bureaus as “soft” or “hard” inquiries,” writes our reader Tabitha, who had her credit report pulled when she called requesting a lower rate from Comcast.  “If they make a soft inquiry, that’s no big deal because no other creditors will see this on your report.  But Comcast made a hard inquiry and that does show up and it dropped my FICO score six points.”

Tabitha moved into her Philadelphia-area home eight months ago, opening a new checking account, establishing accounts with local utility and cable companies, switching her cell phone carrier, and dealing with Comcast.  Altogether, that resulted in six hard inquiries on her credit report.

And many credit card companies absolutely hate to see that.  Here’s a copy of a letter rejecting one consumer’s request for credit because there were “too many inquiries” for credit in his or her credit file:

Chase hates to see a lot of inquiries from creditors on credit reports. That alone can be sufficient to deny you credit from them. (Click to enlarge)

If Discover Card discovers a whole mess of inquiries on your credit report, you’ll discover a rejection letter from them in no time at all, as this customer discovered:

Discover Card's automated credit analyst software will reject credit requests out of hand if there are too many hard inquiries on your credit report. (Click to enlarge)

We have been able to find credit inquiries from cable and phone companies for everything from establishing service as a new customer to relocating to a new address or even upgrading or downgrading your level of service.  Establishing postpaid cell phone service almost always has resulted in a credit report pull, and most customers are aware of that when they sign up.  But should a cable company do a credit check just for calling them up and asking for a lower rate?

Bargaineering has some tips to help get these inquiries permanently deleted from your credit report from all three major credit bureaus.  It can be as easy as just writing a letter.  The Time Warner Cable customer in Raleigh called the cable company to demand they remove at least one of the duplicate hard inquiries, and Time Warner managed to do him one better by deleting all of them from his credit file, which suits him just fine.

You paid for "lightning fast" speed, but are you actually getting it? Find out!

In areas where limited competition between broadband providers has broken out, consumers are discovering their local providers advertising faster, higher priced tiers of Internet service.  But do you really get the speeds you are paying for?

There are a number of factors that can impact your speed — the quality of the lines to your home, whether you are accessing the Internet through a wireless connection, and how much congestion your provider copes with during peak usage times.  Here are some tips to consider:

If your speeds are simply awful — nearing dial-up at times –  especially when the weather is poor outside, you should first suspect a problem with your connection.  Call your provider and request a line test to determine if there is an obvious fault with the lines running to your home or business.  The usual culprits are cracked cable fittings, worn out insulation, water getting into the wiring, or squirrels that have used your phone or cable line as a toothpick.  If the line test is not definitive, request a service call to check your lines.  Phone cables are especially prone to water damage, often inside terminal boxes located well off your property.  Cable TV lines suffer from corrosion, insulation that has fallen away or cracked, or fittings that need replacement.  If critters have chewed through the outer cable, you will often also see the results on your television with a downright lousy picture.  The biggest problems always seem to appear in the spring and fall during major climate transitions.

If you notice speeds are much slower during the early evening and weekends and you are on a cable connection, your cable company has probably oversold service in your neighborhood and too many users are trying to share the line at the same time.  Cable companies can divide up the traffic by splitting the neighborhood’s connection back to the cable company in half.  The upgrade is usually done at a box or facility somewhere in the neighborhood, not at your home.  If this prime time slowdown occurs on a DSL or fiber connection, chances are the provider doesn’t have a wide enough pipeline to the Internet to accommodate customer demand in that town or city.

A squirrel's favorite chew toy may be your broadband cable or phone line.

Also remember that DSL connections from the phone company are sensitive to the distance between your home and the phone company’s central office.  Don’t pay for higher speed tiers of service if your phone line simply refuses to support those speeds.  Downgrade your service to a speed level you can realistically expect to receive in your home.

If you access the Internet over a wireless connection from a router, a major speed logjam can occur if your Wi-Fi signal faces interference from neighbors sharing the same wireless channel.  Sometimes just running a microwave oven can obliterate certain wireless connections or significantly slow them down.  If your signal strength meter shows poor or fair reception, try reorienting your wireless router.  The higher you can place the router and keep it free of obstructions the better.  Walls, floors, and even metal filing cabinets can degrade wireless signals.  Many wireless routers have two antennas.  Try orienting one antenna vertically and the other horizontally and see if it makes a difference.  Sometimes moving a router across the room can make a significant difference.  You can also try changing wireless channels if you routinely see a large number of neighbors’ Wi-Fi connections all piling on the same channel you use.

The best way to gauge what kind of Internet speeds you are getting is to perform a free speed test at different times of the day.  Your service provider may have its own test website to visit (try Googling the name of your provider, your nearest city and “speed test” in a one sentence search).  Broadband Reports has several different speed tests to try as well.

If you are not getting what you are paying for, be sure to complain and get some money back.

KNXV-TV in Phoenix explains how to make sure you are getting the Internet speeds you are paying for with some free speed test websites.  (2 minutes)

Big Telecom Cash works its magic

As the fall elections near, the rhetoric and sheer nonsense from those opposed to important consumer broadband reforms has reached a fever pitch.  And as our reader Karen writes, too many Americans and the candidates they support just don’t get it.

Here in Delaware, Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell exemplifies what Net Neutrality supporters are up against — complete ignorance and big cash contributions.  Before she went into hiding, I attended one of Christine’s rare public events and asked her about where she stood on Net Neutrality and her response was she believed “all sides should be represented on the Internet.”  So she thinks Net Neutrality is about views expressed online, not stopping the telecom industry from slowing or blocking access to websites.

At least 35 of the Tea Party groups are opposed to Net Neutrality, mostly because their financial backers (big corporations and billionaire-funded front groups) have convinced members they should be.  Many others are stupid enough to believe Glenn Beck and his pal Phil Kerpen at Americans for Prosperity who say Net Neutrality will “censor” the Internet or turn control of it over to Barack Obama.

Conservative groups heavily funded by corporate interests they refuse to identify are backing various chapters of so-called “Tea Party” groups and feeding them talking points generated by companies like AT&T and Verizon in opposition to Net Neutrality.  The Center for Individual Freedom runs a website StopNetRegulation, edited by conservative activist Seton Motley, dedicated to derailing broadband reforms.  Motley was also quoted in The Hill in late September warning Republicans about antagonizing Tea Party types with their support for Net Neutrality in Congress.  Only then his comments came as leader of the group “Less Government.”  Judging from the organization’s website, Motley is also in favor of reduced size websites because his amounts to a single sentence.

Seton is convinced the end of the net world, as we know it, comes November 30th when the government could “seize control of the Internet.” That’s the date of the FCC’s November meeting, at which Seton suspects Julius Genachowski will finally move to reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service. 

Seton completely misrepresents reclassification as saddling the Internet with “the same rules as landline telephones.”  I read that claim somewhere before… oh yes, straight from AT&T and Verizon lobbyist talking points.

It doesn’t matter to Seton and other conservatives that Genachowski went out of his way to say he would not be applying any onerous telephone-era regulations on today’s broadband providers.  In fact, Genachowski’s actions to date have moved at such a glacial pace, friends have to occasionally check his pulse to make sure he’s still with us.

So what is so big, bad, and scary about Net Neutrality?  It simply guarantees your Internet Service Provider doesn’t start throttling your speeds when accessing websites and Internet applications they dislike, cannot block access to websites critical of their agenda, and are not allowed to extort payments from content providers just to allow traffic onto “their” networks.

While that may pose a Halloween freak-out for the profit-obsessed phone and cable companies, it’s hard to find actual consumers (not paid by said providers) who want their Internet service blocked or slowed down.

Seton goes way over the top turning this into a First Amendment free speech issue.  That argument only works for the likes of AT&T and Verizon who find their corporate right to overcharge people for broadband being infringed.

Seton then argues his view must be right because even minority groups support his position.  As readers here already know, most of the groups he names to bolster his argument are “dollar-a-holler” organizations willing to peddle the phone and cable company agenda on their letterhead in return for donation checks.

So have many additional normally Democrat paragons, including several large unions: AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America (CWA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); several racial grievance groups: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Minority Media and Telecom Council (MMTC), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Urban League; and an anti-free market environmentalist group: the Sierra Club.

If you ever wondered why AT&T and Verizon spend so much on contributions to these interest groups, Seton Motley just handed you the answer — so he and the companies he supports could name drop them in arguments against pro-consumer broadband reform.  And considering the CWA and IBEW represent phone company workers, it’s not a surprise to see them on their side of this issue either.  Wherever you look amongst those in opposition to Net Neutrality, a check from AT&T and/or Verizon is almost always waiting to be deposited.

The Obama-Has-Concentration-Camps-crowd parked on Andrew Breitbart’s website ate it up and wrote comments like this:

The communist can’t control the people with a internet that is out of control, all dictatorships have the power over what the people can read, free thinkers in this day and age are considered terrorist, Republicans, conservatives, anti abortionist, Oath Keepers, Christians, ex military, people who think the Constitution is still the law of the land, my lord, the communist can’t have these sorts communicating with each other over the internet, why, they may all come together one day and put a stop to the one world government goal, you know, the goal of making the world one big slave camp.

This kind of wild opposition has even corporate Republicans on edge, according to The Hill.  A major talking point of Net Neutrality opposition is that such “sweeping changes” should not be enforced by the FCC, but from legislation enacted in Congress.  But because Tea Party elements are opposed to the concept altogether, and Republicans are loathe to hand Democrats their votes on much of anything, even a corporate-friendly Net Neutrality bill introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) went up in flames.  Waxman’s bill would have enacted some protections, but only until 2012, at which point it was open season on broadband consumers.

The Hill piece delivered a disappointing fact of life for much of today’s Congress, beholden first to corporate interests (underlining ours):

In a striking sign that people who normally align themselves with telecommunications companies may line up behind the bill if it is industry-backed, ardent net-neutrality critic Brett Glass, founder of a wireless company, is open to it. He tweeted on Monday, in a note to Americans for Prosperity executive Phil Kerpen, that the Waxman legislation seems “more reasonable than I expected.”

In a note earlier this month, analysts at Stifel Nicolaus wrote that although Republican House members “may not have incentive to solve a political problem for Democrats,” some may support the bill “if there’s a push by” phone and cable companies and at least some Internet companies.

But the shilling for Big Telecom has never been a one-party-problem.  While Republicans appear to be moving in lock step against Net Neutrality, a number of groups and politicians on the Democratic left have also been only too willing to take AT&T money and run to a microphone to oppose a free and open Internet.

The Los Angeles Times gave plenty of space on an issue we’ve written repeatedly about on Stop the Cap!:

Key minority groups are backing the carriers’ efforts to thwart the net neutrality proposals, which would, for instance, prohibit carriers from charging more to give some residential and corporate customers priority in delivering online content.

“When you give national civil rights groups millions of private dollars, there’s no firewall strong enough to keep that money out of their policy,” said Malkia Cyril, executive director of the Center for Media Justice.

Cyril and other consumer and public advocates have been buoyed by comments from Federal Communications Commission member Mignon L. Clyburn, a prominent African American and daughter of Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.).

She said in a speech in January that she was surprised that most statements and filings by “some of the leading groups representing people of color have been silent on this make-or-break issue” of net neutrality.

“There has been almost no discussion of how important — how essential — it is for traditionally underrepresented groups to maintain the low barriers to entry that our current open Internet provides,” Clyburn said.

AT&T's cash machine benefits groups like LULAC

At issue are the enormous contributions from big phone and cable companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon that routinely translate into what we’ve called “dollar-a-holler” advocacy.  After the checks get deposited, many of these groups generate innocent sounding letters of support for the latest merger, deregulation, or policy debate — always in favor of Big Telecom and too often directly against the interests of the people they claim to represent.

No group better exemplifies this than the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a particularly eager player in the cash for advocacy game.  And the group doesn’t care whether the money comes from Verizon or AT&T.  They’re on board with both.

Brent A. Wilkes, executive director, penned this guest editorial for the Houston Chronicle, for which he was called an “idiot” by at least one of the newspaper’s readers:

Net-neutrality rules should prevent broadband providers from engaging in anti-competitive behavior, but they should not be commandeered to insulate wealthy Internet applications companies from paying their fair share of the broadband bill. Any new rules must protect consumers both by ensuring their unfettered access and by shielding them from having to shoulder all the costs for faster broadband networks that our nation so badly needs. Such an approach will not please the special interests, but it will be a double win for consumers.

From AT&T’s talking points to Wilkes editorial.  “Wealthy Internet applications companies” already pay for their own bandwidth and for the Internet’s expansion.  Search engine companies like Google and Yahoo! construct data centers with their own money just to maintain their services to consumers, generating jobs and helping local economies.  Wilkes ignores the fact broadband providers already earn plenty from their subscribers — consumers and businesses who pay a monthly fee so they can access those “wealthy Internet applications companies.”

But that is not enough.  Now broadband providers want to be paid twice.  To facilitate their argument, they’ve invested more than a million dollars in LULAC alone to defend their position, which ultimately brings Latinos (and everyone else) the high broadband bills today that Wiles scaremongers will be forthcoming tomorrow.

Wilkes was shocked, shocked by the implication that phone company money would have anything to do with LULAC going out of its way to comment on arcane telecommunications policy issues, always in favor of its benefactors.

“It’s kind of like saying the minority organizations can’t think for themselves,” Wilkes said, adding that any suggestion that minority groups were mouthpieces for the industry was “offensive.”

Verizon played along:

“I can tell you we do not, and have not ever, given money to minority organizations so that they will support our positions on any topic,” said Peter Thonis, a spokesman for Verizon Communications Inc. “We talk to many groups about our positions, and some agree with us and some do not.”

So if Verizon talked to Stop the Cap! about their positions, do you think we’d receive a handsome check from the phone company?

Britt cut out all of the middlemen and picked up the phone to personally lobby FCC Chairman Genachowski about broadband reform.

The Times documented numerous other examples:

For instance, David Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president, joined the board of the National Urban League three years ago as part of a three-year partnership to promote the league’s various educational programs. Comcast, now seeking FCC approval to buy a controlling interest in NBC Universal, was recognized that year for being one of several sponsors to donate $5 million or more to the organization.

On the local level, the Greater Sacramento Urban League has Barbara Winn, a Sacramento-area director of external affairs for AT&T, as its chairwoman and Linda Crayton, Comcast’s senior director for government affairs in California, as vice chairwoman.

That affiliate’s president, David B. DeLuz, wrote to the FCC in January that net neutrality rules “will strongly reduce broadband network investments and ultimately raise prices.” DeLuz said in an interview that the two telecom executives on the chapter’s board have not influenced its net neutrality stance.

“The Urban League does not engage in pay to play,” he said. “Just because [telecoms] write a check to us doesn’t mean they write the only check to us.”

The most remarkable part about the Urban League’s argument is that in a sea of corporate cash, competing checks can cancel each other out.

While the blizzard of bucks continues to descend on Washington, Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt decided his cable company could cut out the middlemen and go right to the man with the plan to reclassify broadband.  Unlike ordinary consumers, Britt had no trouble getting FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to take his call, allowing him to personally lobby against Net Neutrality and those nasty broadcasters trying to overcharge him for permission to carry local broadcast stations on the Time Warner Cable dial.

It seems like only yesterday AT&T’s Ed “Our Pipes” Whitacre was clamoring for the right to deliver the Internet to consumers his way, complete with pay walls and speed throttles.  Very little has changed since Big Ed left for Government Motors with his $158 million AT&T golden parachute.  The name at the top has changed, but AT&T still recognizes money buys friends and influence.  (2 minutes)

Verizon prepaid customers can buy this basic phone from Walmart for just $15.88. But if you want to use this phone on a postpaid plan, Verizon charges up to $200 for the same phone unless you renew your contract.

As AT&T and Verizon discover an increasing amount of their revenue and profits come from their respective wireless divisions, they’re testing the waters to determine just how much more consumers are willing to pay for cell phone and wireless broadband services.

Verizon Wireless has spent the past year closing loopholes of various kinds and herding an increasing number of customers into mandatory data plans which can add up to $30 a month per phone to your monthly bill.  AT&T wants more if you plan on early upgrades for your cell phone.  A quick review:

Verizon Wireless Locks Down Prepaid Phone Models: Anyone who has shopped for a prepaid phone has probably noticed them dangling from hooks in Walmart and other stores at prices starting around $20.  Most of these prepaid phones are basic models or those deemed cutting edge a few years ago.  Take the LG 5600 — the Accolade.  It’s a phone your father would be comfortable with, covering the basics and designed primarily for making and receiving phone calls.  Verizon Wireless’ retail price for its “postpaid” customers (those who get and pay a bill every month) is $199.99 for the Accolade.  Of course, if you sign a new two-year contract, the phone is free.  But you can find the exact same phone, labeled for Verizon’s prepaid service at prices as low as $15.88.

Verizon claims the deep, deep discounts on prepaid phones are made back from the higher prices prepaid customers pay for airtime.  Some enterprising Verizon postpaid customers have sought these models out to replace or upgrade a worn out or broken phone without having to sign a new two-year contract.  Some other prepaid companies have also activated Verizon’s prepaid phones on their own network, including Page Plus.

Verizon has put the kibosh on both practices.  Customers seeking to activate a prepaid phone on a postpaid account must first use the phone in prepaid mode for a minimum of six months prior to its conversion to postpaid use.  Until very recently, some customers discovered a loophole around this requirement — registering a prepaid phone first on Verizon’s website and then activating it by dialing *228.  So long as a phone had never been activated, it often could be used on a postpaid account from the date of purchase.  But now Verizon tracks which phones are intended for postpaid and prepaid use, and that loophole has been closed.

Page Plus, which resells Verizon’s network, also had to stop activating Verizon prepaid phones almost a year ago.

As a result, those who want discounted cell phone service but keep Verizon’s robust network coverage have been forced to buy handsets at retail pricing, purchase one of several mostly refurbished phones direct from Page Plus, or activate an older phone no longer in use.

Avoiding the Data Plan: What drives an increasing number of Verizon off-contract customers towards “creative solutions” for upgrading their more than two year old phones is resistance to the expensive data plan required for most of their newest and best phones.  For these customers, renewing a contract means a plan change that includes $30 a month extra for data services or a phone downgrade to a basic model to avoid a data plan. Verizon’s remaining data-plan exempt handsets are:

• Verizon Wireless CDM8975
• LG Accolade™
• LG Cosmos™
• Pantech Jest™
• Samsung Gusto™
• Verizon Wireless Salute™
• Verizon Wireless Escapade®
• Samsung Haven™
• Samsung Intensity™
• Samsung Convoy™
• Motorola Barrage™

Would you renew a two-year service contract if you had to downgrade your next new phone to a basic model to avoid a mandatory data plan?

For large families accustomed to mid-level phones, the prospect of being stuck with a Jitterbug-like-downgrade or a $30 data plan has kept many from renewing their contracts, sticking with what they already own.

When AT&T announced the end of its flat rate smartphone plan, it said the lower pricing on smaller allowance data packages would represent “savings” for consumers reluctant to upgrade.  It’s hard to accept the same company that set prices so high for data usage in the first place has consumer interests at heart with usage-limited alternatives, especially when they no longer offer an unlimited option for customers who want one.

Verizon also plans to drop its unlimited plan in the near future.  Also on tap is a gradual shift away from so-called “mid-level” phones that consumers can purchase with a reduced rate, but still-mandatory $10 data plan.  Verizon increasingly will push customers between two stark choices — a high-powered, battery-eating smartphone that will give you a heart attack if you drop it or a very basic, stripped down phone with features commonly found on handsets five years ago.

This kind of pricing is driving some cash-strapped consumers to prepaid alternatives, such as Page Plus and Straight Talk on Verizon’s network and Wal-Mart’s new family prepaid plan on T-Mobile.  This is especially true if customers just want to talk and text.

AT&T’s Increases ‘Early Upgrade Price’ for Data-Friendly Smartphones by $125

Boy Genius Report obtained a copy of an AT&T memo to its sales force notifying them the price for “Early Upgrade Pricing,” traditionally charged customers who must have the latest and greatest, or accidentally lose or destroy their existing phone, is going up — way up, from $75 to $200:

Beginning Oct. 3rd, Early (Exception) Upgrade pricing for Smartphones will increase from the two-year price plus $75 to the two-year price plus $200.  This change does not apply to iPhone or Basic and Quick Messaging Phones.

Example: BlackBerry Torch $199.99 two-year price + $200 Early Upgrade fee = total price $399.99, a savings of $100 off the No-Commitment price of $499.99.

In return for just a $100 discount, customers sign a new two-year contract that begins with the phone’s replacement.  That contract includes the usual early termination fee of $325, which decreases by $10 per month.  AT&T watchers speculate the price change was designed to stop resale of relatively new phones on sites like eBay or Craigslist, where sellers charge near-retail prices and eat the formerly low penalty for an early upgrade.  It also makes the price of getting the very newest phones that much higher.

Courtesy: Boy Genius Report

Cell Phone Lobby Resists Requirement for Early Warnings Alerting Customers Their Data Allowance Is Almost Gone: “It Will Cause Customer Confusion and Frustration”

Liz Szalay had to dip into her 401(k) retirement account to pay the family’s $2000 Verizon Wireless bill, gone wild with data fees her 14-year old son ran up searching for and downloading songs.

“I would never have allowed my son to accrue such charges, if I had known,” Szalay, a secretary in Niles, Michigan, told Bloomberg News. “What I did to prevent this from happening in the future was have his Internet access completely blocked by Verizon, but not before they made off with a boatload of money.”

Had Szalay received a text and/or e-mail message warning her one of the phones on her account was approaching 80 percent of its monthly data allowance, or was already at risk of racking up huge fees, it would have been possible to stop the damage before it began.

Sen. Udall wants legislation to warn consumers before they run up enormous wireless bills. The industry calls such warnings "confusing and frustrating" for consumers.

Senator Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, wants to make sure she gets that warning.  Udall drafted legislation that would require companies to warn customers when they have used 80 percent of their allotment.

“It’s difficult for the carriers to get up and argue against greater transparency on bills and notifications,” Christopher King, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in Baltimore told Bloomberg. “It’s becoming an issue on the front burner of regulators’ minds.”

The industry’s lobbyists are trying to block the legislation anyway.

The CTIA, the wireless industry lobbying group, is fiercely trying to kill Udall’s bill, claiming warnings will cause “customer confusion and frustration” and that carriers already offer customers the opportunity to check their usage by visiting carrier websites or via a text message.

The lobbyist solution requires consumers to be vigilant and check daily to make sure they don’t exceed any limits.  Udall’s idea puts the onus on phone companies to warn customers, who often have family members that have no idea what kind of cash bonanza they can provide a wireless provider just by using data features built into their phones.

Szalay’s son has a phone that doesn’t require a data plan, but incurs an enormous $1.99 in charges for every megabyte accessed online.  Verizon’s own website notes customers can consume 183 megabytes of data streaming music just five minutes a day for a month.  That’s $364 in data charges.  Five minutes downloading games — 440 megabytes or $875 in data fees.  One need not use their phone for hours a day to incur enormous fees for data usage.  Szalay’s son could have managed the $2,000 bill he caused using his phone for less than 15 minutes each day.

Verizon does not allow customers hit with these bills to retroactively sign up for a data plan to cover the costs, which are the same to Verizon whether a consumer incurs them on an unlimited $30 monthly data plan, or on a pay per use plan with a stinging penalty rate.

And the company objects to any government official telling them to warn customers before the overlimit fees kick in.

“We have several measures in place that allow our customers to monitor their usage and protect against overages — this is a proactive approach on Verizon’s part,” Verizon’s Smith told Bloomberg in an e-mailed statement.

How to Protect Yourself

Both Verizon and AT&T are masters of extracting a maximum amount of money from customers’ pockets.  Verizon is increasingly risking its high rating for customer service and quality by finding new ways to nickel and dime even long time customers to death.  AT&T already has earned a bad reputation and can’t drop much further unless it adopts Sprint’s old strategy of driving its own customers away.  Only through education and careful consideration of your family’s actual usage can you safely navigate around these shark-like wallet biters.

1.  Avoid cell phone company insurance plans unless you are concerned about theft.  With “early upgrade” plans, even at AT&T’s $200 price, it may not be worth paying an expensive monthly fee for insurance.  Also consider Squaretrade, a third party warranty/replacement provider.  They charge considerably lower prices than most (Google around for coupon codes offering up to 30 percent off).  If your phone breaks or is damaged, and you are not on a contract, you might find a suitable refurbished replacement through websites like eBay.  Just make sure the phone wasn’t designated for prepaid service to avoid activation hassles.

2.  If you want Verizon network quality, but don’t want to pay Verizon’s diamond-platinum pricing, consider doing business with one of the new prepaid providers offering month-to-month service that uses the same network as Verizon itself.  Walmart sells Straight Talk, but also consider Page Plus, which offers 1,200 minutes of call time, 1,200 texts, and 50MB of data use for $29.95 per month.  The only downside is that most prepaid providers don’t sell family plans, meaning each user pays the same price.  Walmart’s new prepaid plan changes that with the introduction of a shared family plan, with additional lines given discounted pricing.  But the discounts are not as good as postpaid plans offer, and the service relies on T-Mobile, which is not well-regarded for coverage outside of metropolitan areas.

3.  Smartphones, in addition to being expensive, often deliver horrible battery life.  Some won’t even make it through an entire business day.  Before seeking out one of these premium phones, consider whether you will actually use their features.  Is it worth the price of a $30 a month data plan if you only occasionally use the phone for wireless Internet?  Bragging rights come with a $200 up front price tag and a two year contract that will run up to $720 just for the data plan over two years.  If you drop it, lose it, or it gets stolen, the retail price for most of these phones is north of $500.

4.  Carriers design “gotcha” data pricing into their assumed revenue models.  They know even with online tools, nobody wants the hassle of checking their allowance for data every day, especially when most stopped checking their voice minutes allowance years ago.  While carriers occasionally waive gigantic bills, especially when the media gets involved, you can restrict data access on some or all of your phones if you do not have a data plan and don’t care about this feature.  You should support Senator Udall’s bill as well.  Carrier excuses that a warning message will cause confusion and frustration are laughable.  Getting a $2,000 wireless bill in the mail will cause far more of both.  That the industry objects to even this common sense approach illustrates just how rapacious wireless companies are for additional profits.

5. Educate everyone on your plan about the implications of using the phone to download music and games or watch video.  Unless you are on a flat rate plan, you may want to simply tell your family not to use their phones for these kinds of services without asking permission first.  This gives you an opportunity to check your allowance before Verizon gets a chance to reduce your bank balance.

We have four reports covering consumer news on cell phones that can save you money:  KSHB-TV in Kansas City takes a look at Walmart’s new prepaid family plan using T-Mobile’s network, WIVB-TV in Buffalo reports Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) wants carriers to stop international roaming charges when customers end up making and receiving calls on a Canadian provider’s network from the American side of the border, WFTS-TV in Tampa provides tips on getting lower rates from your cell phone company and WTEV-TV in Jacksonville helps customers analyze cell phone bills for savings.  (6 minutes)