Hawaiian Telcom on Friday won a 15-year non-exclusive franchise to develop and market cable television service on the island of Oahu.

The telephone company will be the first major competitor to Oceanic Cable in at least a decade, at least where HawTel plans to provide service.

“We are very pleased to have reached this important milestone in the development of our exciting new video service and will have more details to share about our plans in the next several weeks,” said spokeswoman Ann Nishida Fry.

Many HawTel-watchers predict the phone company will choose an IPTV platform over a hybrid fiber-copper network to support the service, much like AT&T’s U-verse.  HawTel plans a gradual rollout as neighborhoods are “upgraded” to support the service.

Oceanic Cable president Bob Barlow said he wasn’t too concerned with HawTel’s entry into the market.  He told the Hawaiian Star-Advertiser customers should not expect any dramatic savings or price cuts.

“Most of our customers don’t bundle services, and more than 60 percent of our video costs come from programming,” he said.

Barlow expects the fiercest level of competition will come from who delivers the best customer service.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KHON Honolulu Hawaiian Telcom to Offer Cable TV 6-24-11.mp4

KHON-TV in Honolulu leads their newscast with HawTel’s approval for a cable television franchise on Oahu.  (2 minutes)

Here in western New York, the impact of more than two years of deep recession has delivered record high unemployment, wage freezes and cuts for many still holding onto middle class jobs.  Only now does it appear that the wage deep freeze is slowly coming to an end.

The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle notes total wages earned in the nine-county Rochester/Finger Lakes region for the first nine months of the year were up 2.2 percent over the same period in 2009, according to state Labor Department figures.

But while things are incrementally improving for worker bees, many of America’s corporate “queen bee” executives have maintained compensation packages that would leave one to believe the United States is enjoying double digit growth and a blazing economy.

CEO pay at large U.S. companies has risen from 80 times as much as rank-and-file workers made in 1970 to more than 260 times what they made in 2009.

Stock market gains — the S&P 500 index rose almost 13 percent in 2010 — and improved profitability were key reasons why many executives made more last year than they had in 2009. Of the 86 executives on the Democrat and Chronicle list for both 2009 and 2010, compensation increased for 66.

Take Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt.  He spent much of June talking up raising broadband pricing on his company’s customers, many of whom live in upstate New York.  While Time Warner has faced challenging economic results in their core cable television business, one would never know it from Britt’s newest compensation package, handing him a 25 percent pay raise and another $2 million in his non-stock incentive pay.  That’s a pay package worth almost $10 million dollars.  The D&C notes four other Time Warner Cable executives listed in the company’s proxy statement made from $1.2 million to $3.8 million.

 

Rogers Communications claims usage caps are not creating problems for customers, but if and when they do, the company says it will get rid of them.

Luiza Staniec, manager of public relations for Rogers’ Quebec and Atlantic Canada region, made that remarkable claim in an interview with the New Brunswick-based Times & Transcript.

“At this point there is a cap. It hasn’t really caused a problem,” Staniec said.  “If the cap begins to affect users online, we will abolish it.”

At issue is Netflix’s popular streaming service, which opened for business in Canada last year.  Consumers are embracing the $7.99 service which delivers unlimited streaming of the Netflix online library.  But an increasing number of customers are discovering that while they can watch as much Netflix as they’d like, Internet Service Providers like Rogers have usage limits in place to keep online viewing under control.

Netflix told investors to expect $50 million in operating losses in international business this year, in part because growth in Canada is being hampered by stingy usage limits and high priced broadband.  Once consumers get a broadband bill with overlimit fees attached, some are reconsidering their love affair with video streaming.

Lindsey Pinto, communications representative for OpenMedia.ca, a consumer rights organization, says a regime of usage limits in place at most Canadian ISPs will ruin high bandwidth applications and services like Netflix, as consumers find them too expensive to use.

“It takes a lot of bandwidth to stream a movie or watch Netflix,” Pinto told the newspaper. “People will stop doing things that will bring them over the cap. There will be a disintegration from these services under this model.”

Staniec counters that Rogers offers higher usage cap plans (for more money) to accommodate Netflix viewing.

“If you watch a lot of movies, pick the package with the highest cap,” she says. “If you don’t watch too many, you don’t need the high cap.”

She added Rogers is willing to be flexible, adjusting caps “to suit the consumers.”

But last summer Rogers actually reduced the usage cap of its popular Extreme service plan from 95GB to just 80GB per month, one day after Netflix announced plans to enter Canada.

[Updated 5:12pm EDT -- We heard from Ms. Staniec who wants readers to know she was respectfully misquoted by the reporter at the Times & Transcript:

"The correct message I conveyed was that our offer will evolve as customers needs/use evolves. The journalist added, 'perhaps one day they will be abolished altogether.'"

Staniec would like our readers to know she herself made no statement about the issue of abolishing usage caps.]

While North American ISP’s call 3Mbps DSL “revolutionary” for rural America and dream of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing everywhere else, Australia is poised to take broadband to a level North America can only imagine.  Watch this documentary on Australia’s fiber-based National Broadband Network future and how it will transform their economy and culture, and then ponder what your Internet Service Provider is doing these days.

While we scratch our heads wondering how to wire West Virginia for slow speed DSL, Australia is planning to rip out copper wire networks everywhere.  While we fight over communities trying to get their citizens 21st century broadband speeds from community-owned providers private companies want to ban, Australia will deliver the same fiber speeds to 90 percent of the country, whether it’s ‘economically viable’ (to investors) or not.  As we watch a handful of giant telecom companies try to mess with broadband pricing to further increase their profits without delivering any improvements in service, Australia is going to rid itself of artificial limits on broadband usage.

But Australia’s NBN goes much farther than just delivering fast broadband.  It builds a foundation to transform virtually every aspect of Australian life:

• Rural Australia’s economic viability is guaranteed a future with the availability of fast and reliable broadband for businesses large and small;
• Telemedicine means patients seeking routine care and follow-ups can conduct them from the comfort of their own homes;
• Telecommuting means less energy consumption, less traffic, and reduced costs in roadway maintenance as workers do their jobs away from the office without wasting precious time in traffic;
• Telelearning provides rural students with access to the same high quality education city students receive, and ongoing education can be managed anytime, anywhere, even for those with existing jobs and families;
• Australian businesses can reach new customers across the world, increasing sales, whether they sell a digital product or one that leverages online shipping and tracking tools to complete delivery anywhere;
• Millions of Australians will have access to the same high speed broadband, delivering a platform for the development of large-scale, next generation applications that don’t make sense in countries where broadband is a patchwork of speeds, service, and basic availability.
• It means a broadband network so far advanced above that found across North America, it could change Australia’s standing in global commerce, and impact our own.

Embarrassed yet?  Worried about America and Canada becoming broadband followers instead of leaders?

You should be.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Australia's NBN June 2011.flv

Australia’s National Broadband Network  (38 minutes)

Australia’s march towards an all-fiber future took an important step last week when the government announced a wide-ranging agreement with Telstra, the country’s largest phone company, to use Telstra’s existing infrastructure to help construct a national fiber network.

After two years of negotiations, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Thursday announced an $11 billion deal between Telstra and NBN Co to allow NBN to use Telstra’s existing conduits, poles, and network facilities to provide a foundation for the construction of the all-fiber network and the removal of existing copper wiring.

The deal is expected to save the government millions by not having to construct redundant facilities.

The network is expected to take a decade to complete, and will provide optical fiber broadband to at least nine out of ten Australian households.  The project will make Australia a global broadband leader, far ahead of the United States and Canada and most of western Europe.

As part of the deal, Telstra agreed to pay $2 billion for upgrades to its own infrastructure in preparation of migrating customers to the NBN.  Telstra’s CEO, David Thodey, said the agreement ended the uncertainty surrounding Telstra’s possible association with NBN and will allow his company to focus on customer service.

Gillard and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy turned on Australia’s first connection to the NBN in May at the Presbyterian Ladies College in Armidale in the east Australian state of New South Wales.

The town is one of five test markets where the NBN will first operate.  Areas in Melbourne, Townsville, coastal New South Wales and South Australia will also be switched on in coming months.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Network NBN Switched On 5-11.flv

Nine Network in Australia covered the opening of the country’s National Broadband Network in Armidale earlier this year, and what it means for Australians as fiber broadband replaces older technology.  The opposition gripes the government is spending too much on the network.  (7 minutes)

Liberal opposition to the NBN has been fierce in some quarters, with Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull claiming the government is overspending on a network that delivers fiber straight to the home.  Gillard accused the conservative opposition of seeking to rip installed fiber straight out of the ground if they were to come to power, a charge Turnbull rejects as ridiculous.

 

He prefers a “fiber to the neighborhood” approach, similar to AT&T U-verse, which he says will bring good enough speeds to Australians faster and cheaper than an entirely fiber based network would.  But fiber proponents claim the costs will come down as the network construction ramps up, delivering economy of scale.  The government also believes fiber to the home is more upgradable and more reliable than a hybrid fiber-copper network.

Most of all, Australians are celebrating the imminent end of usage-based pricing, fair access policies that reduce speeds of heavy users to near-dial-up, and the fact they are likely to be among the top-five ranked broadband nations globally when the network is complete.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sky News ABC NBN and Telstra Achieve Deal 6-23-11.flv

Sky News and ABC report on the government’s deal with Telstra to retire the nation’s copper wire network and work together to build fiber to the home to virtually every Australian. (7 minutes)

Several weeks ago, the Netherlands’ former state-owned telephone company — Koninklijke KPN N.V. — thought it would be a fine idea to charge their mobile customers extra subscription fees for accessing popular online services like Skype, YouTube, and Facebook.  KPN’s proposal would have added €3 a month for the privilege of using Skype.  Want to update friends on Facebook?  That will run €0.02 per megabyte.  YouTube?  €0.50 per hour.  Not a single Euro would be passed along to any of these companies, however.  KPN itself would bank the entire amount.

The Dutch Parliament reacted to news of this, and other recent controversy involving the country’s mobile providers, by introducing strong Net Neutrality regulation in Parliament — the second country after Chile to do so:

1. Providers of public electronic communication networks which deliver internet access services and providers of internet access services do not hinder or slow down applications and services on the internet, unless and to the extent that the measure in question with which applications or services are being hindered or slowed down is necessary:

a. to minimise the effects of congestion, whereby equal types of traffic should be treated equally;
b. to preserve the integrity and security of the network and service of the provider in question or the terminal of the enduser;
c. to restrict the transmission to an enduser of unsolicited communication as referred to in Article 11.7, first paragraph, provided that the enduser has given its prior consent;
d. to give effect to a legislative provision or court order.

2. If an infraction on the integrity or security of the network or the service or the terminal of an enduser, referred to in the first paragraph sub b, is being caused by traffic coming from the terminal of an enduser, the provider, prior to the taking of the measure which hinders or slows down the traffic, notifies the enduser in question, in order to allow the enduser to terminate the infraction. Where this, as a result of the required urgency, is not possible prior to the taking of the measure, the provider provides a notification of the measure as soon as possible. Where this concerns an enduser of a different provider, the first sentence does not apply.

3. Providers of internet access services do not make the price of the rates for internet access services dependent on the services and applications which are offered or used via these services.

4. Further regulations with regard to the provisions in the first to the third paragraph may be provided by way of an administrative order. A draft order provided under this paragraph will not be adopted before it is submitted to both chambers of the Parliament.

5. In order to prevent the degradation of service and the hindering or slowing down of traffic over public electronic communication networks, minimum requirements regarding the quality of service of public electronic communication services may be imposed on undertakings providing public communications ­networks.

The new bill, expected to pass the Dutch Senate as early as this week, would ban mobile providers from nickle-and-diming customers for the applications they run on their mobiles.  It’s a far different approach than Net Neutrality policies in the United States, which exempt cell phone companies.

KPN’s original announcement that it was introducing extra charges for certain popular mobile applications raised privacy concerns in Parliament over exactly how KPN knew what their customers were doing with their phones.  That’s a question the Netherlands Consumer Authority wanted answers to as well.

KPN was accused of using “deep packet inspection” to monitor the activity of their customers.  In April, KPN discovered many of them were using an alternative messaging service called WhatsApp to bypass paying SMS text message charges.

Labour MP Martijn van Dam was unimpressed with KPN’s defense of its monitoring customer activity.  Although the company said the monitoring practice is widespread, it denied it was violating the privacy of its customers in the process.  van Dam suggested that would be akin to “a postal worker who delivers a letter, looks to see what’s in it, and then claims he hasn’t read it.”

van Dam is a co-author of the Net Neutrality bill that soon followed and is expected to pass over the objections of mobile companies, who claim they will be forced to raise prices in response.

New language in a spending bill likely to pass would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from spending any of its budget contemplating approval of LightSquared’s application to deliver a national 4G wireless network over frequencies detractors claim would hamper or block use of GPS signals.

The language voted on in the House Appropriations Committee was approved by members of both political parties on a voice vote — another sign Congress is serious about stopping any provider from interfering with GPS technology.  A combination of concerns from the U.S. military, civil aviation, law enforcement, and private industry got a full hearing in Washington last Thursday, as GPS users complained of grave risks LightSquared could cause to aircraft in flight and the general defense of the country.

Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wisc.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, was concerned GPS interference might even cause an in-flight emergency. “In aviation, there’s no room for error,” Petri said.

Last week, just prior to the hearing, LightSquared announced its intent to move the service further away from the GPS band, but industry groups remain resolute the proposed changes would be incremental and still pose an interference problem.

Congress’ vote would seem to indicate they agree, putting the entire LightSquared project in jeopardy.

This week, new questions are also being raised about the management of LightSquared.  Critics charge the company knew about the interference issue years ago, and did little or nothing to mitigate it. Some suspect the company was banking on a lobbying effort and pressure from the White House with an interest of expanding broadband to help push through an approval despite the interference threat.

John Byrne from IDC’s wireless and mobile infrastructure research group told the Washington Post LightSquared is now faced with proving interference will not be a problem before it will win approval.

“At this point I think you have to assume that the deployment is on hold until those concerns are addressed to the satisfaction of the FCC and all of the congressmen and senators that are on the FCC on this issue,” Byrne said.

A Bradford, Maine couple blames FairPoint Communications for setting the stage for a recent fire in their home caused when a poorly repaired utility pole exposed low hanging wires eventually making contact with a passing truck, which created an energy surge igniting an electrical fire in their home.

“I thought we got hit by lightning. Everything started popping in the house,” Joseph Nunez told WABI-TV. “So, then I go upstairs, we have a ton of books upstairs, everything is in flames. We had perfect kindling for a fire. We have clothes and a library up there.”

The State Fire Marshal blamed an electrical malfunction, most likely caused by the fallen power lines formerly attached to FairPoint’s pole.

The utility has since replaced the pole, but Nunez believes the root cause of the fire was insufficient repairs done to the pole after an earlier storm.

“Three months ago after a wind storm they never put it up right,” Nunez said. “They put that band-aid of a little pole over there with some straps.”

A FairPoint spokesman said they can’t confirm if the pole in question had ever been damaged or repaired, but they’re looking into it.

The local fire department arrived early enough to prevent the fire from causing extensive damage to the Nunez home, built in 1850.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABI Bangor Couple Blames FairPoint for Fire 6-16-11.flv

WABI-TV in Bangor reports on the domino effect: a poorly maintained utility pole provides for low hanging wires, a truck makes contact with those wires, the resulting voltage spike ignites a fire in a couple’s home.  (1 minute)

Frontier Communications’ DSL service delivers abysmal results for customers looking for quality time with Netflix.  For the second quarter running, the independent phone company’s ability to keep up with Netflix’s high quality video is about on par with a garden slug in a triathlon — yes, it may eventually reach the finish line, but you’ll be dead before it happens.  Even more embarrassing for Frontier, their service is occasionally beaten by Clearwire, a wireless ISP with a bandwidth throttler that can reduce your online experience to the painful days of dial-up if deemed to be using “too much.”

“Frontier sucks,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Doug in Charleston, W.V. “After they took over where Verizon fled, my ability to watch Netflix online became a source of endless frustration, so now I limit myself to mailing DVD’s back and forth.”

Remarkably, Charter Cable, which does poorly in customer satisfaction surveys, is again the runaway winner, followed by Comcast, the heavily usage-capped Cable One, Time Warner Cable, and Cox.  Verizon and AT&T only deliver middling performance.

Bright House Networks, a cable company primarily serving Florida and other southeastern states says it has no plans to implement Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps or consumption billing.  But a company spokesperson went even farther, telling Tampa Bay Online the cable company was not even considering them.

Bright House, which relies on Time Warner Cable’s programming negotiators and sells broadband under the Road Runner brand, was among the only companies in Florida that was willing to go on record stating they were not considering limiting broadband customers.

Other providers were unwilling to follow Bright House’s lead:

• AT&T: “2 percent of our customers were using 20 percent of our bandwidth,” said an AT&T spokesman, so the company slapped 150GB usage limits on DSL customers, 250GB on U-verse customers.  The overlimit fee is $10 for every 50GB extra.
• Verizon Florida: “At this point, we’ve not implemented any usage controls or broadband caps.  We’ll continue to evaluate what’s best to ensure our customers get the highest quality broadband service for the best value,” the company said.  But it also added: “We’re continuing to evaluate usage-based pricing for our wireline broadband customers.”

“Bandwidth caps stifle consumer choice,” said Parul Desai, public policy counsel for Consumer’s Union.  Desai notes customers do not sign up for pricey high-speed FiOS broadband service from companies like Verizon just to read e-mail.  Customers who are willing to pay premium prices for super high speeds certainly don’t want a usage cap devaluing their broadband package.

Comcast, for example, uniformly limits consumption to 250GB per month, even on high speed plans delivering over 50Mbps service.

“It’s like building a rocket that you blow up after it reaches 250 feet into the air,” says Stop the Cap! reader Will in Tampa, who shared the article with us.  “What is the point of having 50 or 100Mbps service from any provider if they slap a limit on it like that.”

Will thinks customers will abandon higher speed packages in droves once they realize they really can’t use them.

“With some of these companies talking about caps around 40GB per month, you can’t even take your connection for a test drive,” he says.  “You might as well stick with basic speeds, just to remind and discourage you from putting yourself over their stupid limits.”

Desai suspects broadband companies will try limiting their customers, if only because they face few competitors consumers can use instead and they have video services to protect.  But she suspects some consumers will either abandon or seriously downgrade their broadband service and find other ways to trade large files and content.

“It’s not inevitable they’re going to succeed,” she told TBO. “People only find value in broadband because of what they can access with it. If more people feel constrained, they’ll start looking for another way.”