Home » Search Results for "missouri":

America’s 25 Worst Connected Cities

Phillip Dampier December 11, 2018 Consumer News, Public Policy & Gov't 1 Comment

Using data from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS), released in September 2018 by the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance ranked all 191 U.S. cities with more than 50,000 households by the percentage of each city’s households that lack home Internet connections of any kind.

Note that this data is not an indication of the availability of home broadband service, but rather of the extent to which households are actually connected to it.

In general, affordability and familiarity are the two biggest impediments that stop someone from signing up for internet access. With broadband providers boosting speeds, but also dropping affordable lower-speed plans, a digital divide based on dollars has worsened in many communities, despite the availability of discounted internet access plans for poor families with school age children or elderly users on disability. Kansas City, Kan. is a remarkable entry at 23rd worst in the country. It, along with its much larger counterpart across the Missouri border, was the first Google Fiber city.

  1. Laredo, Texas
  2. Brownsville, Texas
  3. Hialeah, Florida
  4. Detroit, Michigan
  5. Cleveland, Ohio
  6. Memphis, Tennessee
  7. Miami, Florida
  8. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  9. Newark, New Jersey
  10. Syracuse, New York
  11. Chattanooga, Tennessee
  12. Springfield, Massachusetts
  13. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  14. New Orleans, Louisiana
  15. Shreveport, Louisiana
  16. Birmingham, Alabama
  17. Mobile, Alabama
  18. Macon-Bibb County, Georgia
  19. Richmond, Virginia
  20. Dayton, Ohio
  21. Rochester, New York
  22. Topeka, Kansas
  23. Kansas City, Kansas
  24. Baltimore, Maryland
  25. Montgomery, Alabama

Wireless Companies Bid $336 Million and Counting for 28 GHz 5G/Small Cell Spectrum

Phillip Dampier November 29, 2018 Broadband Speed, Competition, Consumer News, Public Policy & Gov't, Wireless Broadband Comments Off on Wireless Companies Bid $336 Million and Counting for 28 GHz 5G/Small Cell Spectrum

Forty companies, including hedge funds, phone companies, and wireless carriers have collectively bid $336,265,480 so far for about 2,500 28 GHz licenses (out of 3,072 available) that will be a part of the buildout of 5G millimeter wave wireless service.

The FCC is currently auctioning off spectrum in the 27.5–28.35 GHz (28 GHz) band — a very large chunk of frequencies which can offer bidders the opportunity to launch a wide bandwidth cellular data service capable of very fast internet speed. But because the frequencies involved are line-of-sight, the winning bidders will have to invest in large networks of small cell antennas that will be required to reach customers.

Citigroup analysts reviewing the auction results so far told clients they suspect there are “two outsized bidders” winning many of the available licenses, including Verizon. This is not a surprise, considering Verizon already has significant spectrum holdings in the 28 GHz band. Verizon’s current 5G service relies on this millimeter wave spectrum, but is available so far only in a handful of markets. The identity of the second major bidder remains a mystery. The spectrum licenses getting no bids are mostly in rural areas with low population density.

All the other major wireless operators — AT&T, T-Mobile, and U.S. Cellular — are also bidders. Only Sprint, currently in a merger deal with T-Mobile, is missing. AT&T has not shown much interest in offering its customers millimeter wave 5G service, and T-Mobile is planning to use 5G’s technology upgrade to bolster its existing network with more capacity and speed. Dish Network, which already controls a substantial portfolio of unused spectrum, is also a bidder and could be seeking to stockpile 5G spectrum for a future venture or sales deal with one of the other wireless companies.

The qualified bidders:

8538 Green Street LLC MetaLINK Technologies, Inc.
Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative NEIT Services, LLC
Aries Wireless LLC Nemont Communications, Inc.
AT&T Spectrum Frontiers LLC Northern Valley Communications, LLC
BDCIH Wireless, LLC Nsight Spectrum, LLC
Beyerle, David E Nuvera Communications, Inc.
BroadBand One of the Midwest, Inc Panhandle Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Pine Belt Cellular, Inc.
Central Broadband 24/28 GHz Consortium Rock Port Telephone Company
Cityfront Wireless LLC SANN Consortium
Cordova Telephone Cooperative, Inc. T-Mobile License LLC
Crestone Wireless L.L.C. TelAlaska Cellular, Inc.
Day Management Corporation Townes 5G, LLC
Frontier Communications Corporation Trace Fiber Networks, LLC
FTC Management Group, Inc. Tradewinds Wireless Holdings, LLC
High Band License Co LLC Union Telephone Company
Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc. United States Cellular Corporation
Inland Cellular LLC Universal Electrical Contractors
LICT Wireless Broadband Company, LLC Western Independent Networks, Inc
Mark Twain Communications Company Windstream Services, LLC

Bidding starts at $200 per available county, and many rural licenses could be won for precisely that amount, with only one interested bidder offering the minimum bid.

The highest bids are just over $10,000,000 each for two licenses in the Honolulu, Hawaii market. Bids in excess of $2 million are currently on the table in these counties:

California: Kern
Colorado: El Paso
Florida: Volusia
Illinois: Winnebago
Iowa: Linn
Louisiana: East Baton Rouge
Maine: Cumberland
Missouri: Greene
Nebraska: Lancaster
Nevada: Washoe
Oregon: Jackson
Pennsylvania: Lancaster, Berks, York, Lehigh, Luzerne, Northampton, Dauphin
Texas: Cameron, Hidalgo
Wisconsin: Dane

Democrats Urge Voters to Kick Out Republicans to Push Forward State Net Neutrality Laws

Phillip Dampier October 23, 2018 Consumer News, Net Neutrality, Public Policy & Gov't Comments Off on Democrats Urge Voters to Kick Out Republicans to Push Forward State Net Neutrality Laws

Sen. Hoylman

New York is one of several reliably “blue” states that could have net neutrality protections in place as early as next year if voters get rid of the Republican majority in state legislatures that have blocked free and open internet proposals from becoming law.

Sen. Brad Hoylman (D/Working Families-Manhattan), is sponsor of S8321, a comprehensive bill enacting net neutrality in the State of New York. The bill was expected to easily pass the State Assembly, but Republicans in the State Senate seem to have helped bury the bill in committee.

“A free and fair internet is a cornerstone of our 21st-century democracy. The sentiment is unfortunately not shared by the federal government,” Hoylman complained. “Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, believes that big telecom corporations have the first amendment right to block or throttle any website at their discretion. States must take possible every measure to protect free speech and the rights of consumers, and California has taken a bold first step in enshrining these rights into law. New Yorkers unequivocally deserve the same protections Californians do, which is why I hope the legislature will bring my equivalent bill  S8321 to a floor vote next session.”

Hoylman was hopeful New York would join California in passing a comprehensive state net neutrality bill to counter the FCC’s abandonment of net neutrality under Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. Hoylman said if New York and California both enshrined net neutrality into law, it would extend protection to one-fifth of the U.S. population. That bill has almost no chance of passage as long as Republicans maintain control of the State Senate. That is why an increasing number of Democrats are calling on voters in New York and other states to turn out in upcoming elections and vote against Republicans that serve corporate interests while voting against their constituents.

Electing Democrats to state legislatures could alter the influence of corporate-backed groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that facilitates corporations interested in writing bills companies hope will become law. Having a Democratic governor might also help protect initiatives like municipal broadband, which has been under assault by many Republican-controlled state legislatures with state laws attempting to dissuade or strangle community internet services from threatening large phone and cable company duopolies.

Net Neutrality was a hot button state issue in California this year, where it faced surprisingly strong opposition from an organized telecom industry and its lobbying force. The bill finally became law in late September. It now faces a Justice Department lawsuit, courtesy of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who called the law “extreme and illegal.”

To date, 30 state legislatures have introduced bills that creatively require internet providers in their states to preserve and maintain net neutrality regardless of what the FCC has to say about the matter. Four moderate states (Washington, Oregon, Vermont, and California) found strong bipartisan support for the preservation of net neutrality this year. In states where legislative branch opposition exists, governors have signed Executive Orders that proclaim a state will only issue contracts to telecom companies that pledge to abide by net neutrality. Six state governors (Montana, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Vermont, and Rhode Island) have signed such orders, although state legislatures have yet to take the bigger step of making net neutrality a state law.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has issued a rundown of current net neutrality legislation as of October, 2018:

NET NEUTRALITY LEGISLATION BY STATE

STATE STATUTE SPONSOR SUMMARY STATUS

Alaska

AK H 277

Representative Kawasaki (D)

Making certain actions by broadband internet service providers unlawful acts or practices under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Failed

Alaska

AK S 160

Senator Begich (D)

Making certain actions by broadband internet service providers unlawful acts or practices under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Failed

California

CA S 460

Senator De Leon (D)

Prohibits internet service providers in the state from taking certain actions regarding the accessing of content on the internet by customers. Ensures that public purpose program funding is expended in a manner that will maximize internet neutrality and ensure the fair distribution of services to low-income individuals and communities. Establishes a process whereby an internet service provider in the state is required to certify to the commission that it is providing broadband internet access service.

Pending

California

CA S 822

Senator Wiener (D)

States the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to effectuate net neutrality in California utilizing the state’s regulatory powers and to prevent internet service providers from engaging in practices inconsistent with net neutrality.

Enacted

Colorado

 CO H 1312

Representative Hansen (D)

Concerns the protection of the open internet; disqualifies an internet service provider from receiving high cost support mechanism money or other money received to finance broadband deployment if the internet service provider engages in certain practices that interfere with the open internet and requiring an internet service provider that engages in such practices to refund any such money received.

Failed

Connecticut

CT H 5260

Representative Winkler (D)

Requires state contractors to adopt a net neutrality policy; requires Internet service providers that are state contractors to adopt a net neutrality policy.

Failed

Connecticut

CT S 2

Senator Duff (D)

Requires internet service providers to register and pay registration fees and requires the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to apply net neutrality principles to internet service providers and enforce such principles with civil penalties.

Failed

Georgia

GA S 310

Senator Jones (D)

Provides that any internet service provider engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband internet access service; prohibits any internet service provider from blocking lawful content, applications, services, and nonharmful devices.

Failed

Georgia

GA H 1066

Representative Wallace (D)

Relates to state purchasing, so as to prohibit the state from contracting with companies that do not provide a certification as to net neutrality; provides for legislative findings and declarations; provides for definitions; provides the elements of net neutrality.

Failed

Hawaii

HI S 2088

Senator Chang (D)

Requires a provider of broadband internet access services to be transparent with network management practices, performance and commercial terms of its broadband internet access services. Prohibits a provider of broadband internet access services from blocking lawful websites, impairing or degrading lawful internet traffic, engaging in paid prioritization, or interfering with or disadvantaging users of broadband internet access services.

Failed

Hawaii

HI H 1995

Representative Ing (D)

Regulates broadband internet service providers to ensure a free and open internet. Establishes a task force to examine the costs and benefits of creating a state-owned public utility company to provide broadband internet service. Executive order passed on 2/5/18 requiring all state agencies to contract with ISPs that adhere to net neutrality principles.

Failed

Hawaii

HI H 2256

Representative Ohno (D)

Requires a provider of broadband internet access services to be transparent with network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband internet access services. Prohibits a provider of broadband internet access services from blocking lawful websites, impairing or degrading lawful internet traffic, engaging in paid prioritization, or interfering with or disadvantaging users of broadband internet access services. Requires an applicant of a broadband-related permit seeking a state-granted or county-granted right to attach small cell or other broadband wireless communication devices to utility poles to comply with certain practices.

Failed

Hawaii:

HI S 2644

Senator Baker (D)

Companion legislation to H. 2256.

Failed

Illinois

IL S 2816

Senator Cullerton (D)

Provides that no state agency may contract with an internet service provider for the provision of broadband internet access service unless that provider certifies, under penalty of perjury, that it will not engage in specified activities concerning internet access and use.

Pending

Illinois

IL H 5094

Representative Andrade (D)

Amends the Telecommunications Article of the Public Utilities Act; requires broadband providers to publicly disclose accurate information regarding network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband internet access service sufficient for consumers to make informed choices concerning the use of the service; restricts broadband providers from blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices subject to reasonable network management practices.

Pending

Idaho

ID H 425

Representative Jordan (D)

Outlines duties, unlawful acts and requirements for disclosing certain information for internet service providers.

Failed

Iowa

HF 2287

Representative Liz Bennett (D)

Requires a communications service provider publish a provider’s reasonable network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband service and prohibits communications service providers from blocking lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, unless pursuant to a reasonable network management practice. The bill defines “reasonable network management practice” to mean a practice that is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate technical network management purpose

Failed

Kansas

KS H 2682

Representative Parker (D)

Prohibits state contracts with internet service providers that do not adhere to net neutrality principles.

Failed

Maryland

MD H 1655

Delegate Reznik (D)

Specifies the circumstances under which a broadband internet access service provider may handle certain customer personal information in a certain manner; establishes a mechanism through which a broadband internet access service provider may obtain customer consent to have certain personal information handled in a certain manner; prohibits a broadband internet access service provider from taking certain actions based on whether a customer has given consent.

Failed

Maryland

MD H 1654

Delegate Frick (D)

Specifies the circumstances under which a broadband internet access service provider may handle certain customer personal information in a certain manner; establishes a mechanism through which a broadband internet access service provider may obtain customer consent to have certain personal information handled in a certain manner.

Failed

Massachusetts

MA S 2610

Senate Committee on Ways and Means

The committee on Ways and Means to whom was referred the Senate Bill to protect consumers by prohibiting blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization in the provision of internet service (Senate, No. 2336) (also based on Senate, No. 2376),– reports, recommending that the same ought to pass with an amendment substituting a new draft entitled “An Act promoting net neutrality and consumer protection” (Senate, No. 2610).

Pending

Massachusetts

MA S 2263

Senator Creem (D)

Establishes a Special Senate Committee on Net Neutrality and Consumer Protection.

Adopted 1/18/2018

Massachusetts

MA H 4222

Representative Rogers (D)

Provides for net neutrality and consumer protection.

Pending

Massachusetts

H4151

Representative Vargas (D)

Legislation to assure net neutrality by internet service providers and the equal treatment of data on the internet, and to prohibit discrimination or charge disparity of user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment or method of communication. Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy.

Pending

Massachusetts

MA 2336

Senator L’Italien (D)

A person or entity engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service in Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall not: Block lawful content, applications, services or nonharmful devices; impair or degrade lawful internet traffic; engage in paid prioritization.

Pending

Minnesota

MN S 2880

Senator Latz (D)

Relates to broadband service. Prohibits certain activities by Internet service providers serving Minnesota customers and those under contract to the state or political subdivisions.

Failed

Minnesota

MN H 3033

Representative Thissen (D)

Internet service providers serving Minnesota customers and those under contract to the state or political subdivisions prohibited from certain activities.

Failed

Minnesota

MN S 3968

Senator Bigham (D)

A bill for an act relating to broadband service; prohibiting certain activities by Internet service providers serving Minnesota customers and those under contract to the state or political subdivisions.

Failed

Minnesota

MN H 4411

Representative Hillstrom (D)

Relates to broadband service; prohibits certain activities by Internet service providers serving Minnesota customers and those under contract to the state or political subdivisions.

Failed

Missouri

MO H 1994

Representative Ellebracht (D)

Establishes provisions for net neutrality.

Failed

Nebraska

NE L 856

Senator Morfeld (D)

Adopts the internet Neutrality Act; changes communications provider requirements under the Nebraska Telecommunications Regulation Act; changes financial assistance provisions relating to the Nebraska Internet Enhancement Fund.

Failed

New Jersey

NJ A 2131

Assemblymember Chiaravalloti (D)

Directs Board of Public Utilities to prohibit internet service providers from installing broadband telecommunications infrastructure on certain poles or underground facilities unless internet service providers adhere to principle of net neutrality.

Pending

New Jersey

NJ A 1767

Assemblymember Quijano (D)

The bill directs the Division of Consumer Affairs  to establish the “New Jersey internet Service Provider Registry,” and promulgate regulations requiring all ISPs to affirmatively disclose to the division any prioritization policies, agreements with content providers for prioritization, and the material terms for their agreements with their customers.

Pending

New Jersey

NJ A 2132

Assemblymember Chiaravalloti (D)

Prohibits awarding of public contracts to internet service providers, unless internet service providers adhere to principle of net neutrality.

Pending

New Jersey

NJ A 2139

Assemblymember Chiaravalloti (D)

Requires cable television company to commit to principle of net neutrality as condition of approval of applications for municipal consent to system-wide franchise.

Pending

New Jersey

NJ S 2458

Sen. Cryan (D)

Directs BPU to prohibit Internet service providers from installing broadband telecommunications infrastructure on certain poles or underground facilities unless Internet service providers adhere to principle of “net neutrality.”

Pending

New Jersey

NJ A 1767

Assemblymember Quijano (D)

Establishes New Jersey Net Neutrality Act.

Pending

New Jersey

NJ A 2131

Assemblymember Chiaravalloti (D)

Directs Board of Public Utilities to prohibit internet service providers from installing broadband telecommunications infrastructure on certain poles or underground facilities unless internet service providers adhere to principle of “net neutrality.”

Pending

New Jersey

NJ S 1577

Senator Cruz-Perez (D)

Establishes the New Jersey Net Neutrality Act.

Pending

New Jersey

NJ S 1802

Senator Turner (D)

Prohibits awarding of public contracts to internet service providers, unless internet service providers adhere to principle of net neutrality.

Pending

New Mexico

NM H 95

Representative McCamley (D)

Relates to trade practices; enacts a section of the unfair practices act to prohibit and make subject to penalty certain acts for internet service providers.

Failed

New Mexico

NM S 39

Senator Morales (D)

Prohibited Broadband Internet Service Acts, Relates to trade practices; enacts a section of the unfair practices act to prohibit and make subject to penalty certain acts.

Failed

New York

NY S 8321

Senator Hoylman (D)

Provides regulatory control of internet service providers by the public service commission, requires internet neutrality and relates to the placement of equipment on utility poles.

Pending

New York

NY S 7175

Senator Parker (D)

Amends the State Finance Law; requires that a state agency, governmental agency or political subdivision, or public benefit corporation or municipality only contract with net neutral sources of internet services; establishes a revolving fund for the establishment of municipal internet service providers; makes an appropriation.

Pending

New York

NY S 7183

Senator Carlucci (D)

Relates to instituting internet service neutrality; provides the Public Service Commission with jurisdiction over monitoring internet service providers; requires a certification for internet service neutrality in certain state contracts.

Pending

New York

NY A 9057

Assem. Cahill (D)

Relates to state contracts being only with internet service providers compliant with net neutrality and establishes a revolving fund for the establishment of municipal internet service providers; appropriates $250 million therefor.

Pending

New York

A8882A

Assem. Fahy (D)

Relates to instituting internet service neutrality; provides the Public Service Commission with jurisdiction over monitoring internet service providers; requires a certification for internet service neutrality in certain state contracts.

Pending

North Carolina

S 736

Senator Jay Chaudhuri (D)

Preserves an open internet in the state; appropriates funds for statewide broadband access.

Pending

North Carolina

H 1016

Representative Grier Martin (D)

 Establishes procedures for procurement of broadband services by state and local government entities to support the principles of net neutrality.

Pending

Oklahoma

OK S 1543

Senator Pittman (D)

Relates to Corporation Commission; creates the Oklahoma Net Neutrality Protection Act; defines terms; prohibits purchase of internet services from certain persons in certain circumstances; establishes procedures for the purchase of internet services through certain contracts; establishes grievance procedures for certain contracts; excludes certain contracts from act; creates the Municipal Internet Service Provider Revolving Loan Fund; appropriates certain amount to fund.

Failed

Pennsylvania

PA H 2062

Rep. Wheatley (D)

Prohibits Internet service providers from engaging in practices which curtail equal access to lawful Internet content, applications, services or use of nonharmful devices; imposes civil penalties.

Pending

Oregon

OR HB 4155

Representative Williamson (D)

Prohibits public bodies from contracting with broadband Internet access service providers that engage in certain network management activities based on paid prioritization, content blocking or other discrimination

Enacted

Rhode Island

RI H 7076

Representative Kennedy (D)

Would require internet service providers to follow internet service neutrality requirements.

Pending

Rhode Island

RI S 2008

Senator DiPalma (D)

Would require internet service providers to follow internet service neutrality requirements.

Pending

Rhode Island

RI H 7422

Representative Regunberg (D)

Would establish the Net Neutrality Protection Act of 2018, prohibiting unreasonable interference with or unreasonably disadvantaging end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband internet access service or the lawful internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. This act would take effect upon passage.

Pending

South Carolina

SC H 4614

Representative McKnight (D)

Enacts the South Carolina net neutrality preservation act; defines relevant terms; provides that a telecommunications or internet service provider engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service publicly shall disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device.

Pending

South Carolina

SC H 4706

Representative Smith (D)

Enacts the net neutrality protection and maintenance act; defines relevant terms; provides that a telecommunications or internet service provider engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service publicly shall disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of these services.

Pending

Tennessee

TN H 1755

 Representative Clemmons (D)

If an internet service provider contracts to supply internet service to a state governmental entity or submits a response to contract to supply internet service to a state governmental entity, is discovered to have knowingly violated this chapter in the performance of the contract, the chief procurement officer shall declare that person to be prohibited from contracting for or submitting a response for any contract to supply goods or services to a state governmental entity for a period of one year from the date of discovery of the violation of this chapter

Failed

Tennessee

TN S 1756

Senator Harris (D)

Companion bill.

Failed

Tennessee

TN H 2405

Representative Thompson (D)

Relates to telecommunications; creates a task force of the General Assembly to study the effects of overturning the FCC’s net neutrality rules.

Failed

Tennessee

TN S 2449

Senator Harris (D)

Companion bill

Failed

Tennessee

HB2253, SB2183

Senator Harris (D); Representative Clemmons (D)

Telecommunications – As introduced, requires any internet service provider that provides internet to the state to provide a net neutral internet service.

Failed

Virginia

VA S 948

Senator Wexton (D)

A provider of broadband services shall be prohibited from offering or renewing services to consumers within any locality in the commonwealth in which certain media is throttled, blocked, or prioritization on the basis of its content, format, host address or source.

Failed

Virginia

HB705

Delegate Carter (D)

A provider of broadband services shall be prohibited from offering or renewing services to consumers within any locality in the commonwealth in which certain media is throttled, blocked, or prioritization on the basis of its content, format, host address or source. Virginia house panel kills ‘net neutrality’ bill on 2/6/18.

Failed

Vermont

VT H 680

Representative Stevens (D)

An act relating to protecting consumers and promoting an open internet in Vermont.

Failed

Vermont

VT S 289

Senator Lyons (D)

Would enact the Vermont Broadband Internet Privacy Act, providing for the protection of consumers and promoting an open internet in Vermont.

Enacted

Washington

WA H 2282

Representative Hansen (D)

An act relating to protecting an open internet in Washington state.

Enacted

Washington

WA S 6423

Senator Ranker (D)

Establishes a process whereby an internet service provider certifies to the commission that it is providing broadband internet access service in accordance with the requirements similar to net neutrality.

Failed

Washington

WA H 2284

Representative Smith – R

An act relating to protecting an open internet in Washington state.

Failed

West Virginia

WV S 396

Senator Ojeda (D)

West Virginia Net Neutrality Act. A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service in this state shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms. A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet service in this state, insofar as such a person is so engaged, may not: block, degrade, paid prioritize, block devices.

Failed

West Virginia

WV H 4399

Delegate Lovejoy (D)

Bill to amend the Code of West Virginia, 1931 all relating to net neutrality for state government; requiring the state to utilize net neutral internet services and associated activities; and providing exceptions thereto.

Failed

Wisconsin

AB909

Representative Brostoff (D)

The bill adheres ISPs to follow net neutrality principles and requires the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to create and implement a complaint process for responding to violations of the bill’s provisions.

Pending

Wisconsin

SB743

Senator Larson (D)

Companion bill of AB909

Pending

Most pollsters expect Democrats will pick up seats in state legislatures, governor races, and the U.S. House of Representatives, but perhaps not as many as initially thought because of overall voter intensity and well-crafted redistricting by Republicans to protect their majorities in several key states. Governor races become key in years nearing the Census, taken every decade. The results of the Census trigger a wave of redrawing district boundaries to conform to changing population numbers in states. Some will pick up more House seats, while others lose them. The party in charge of the legislature and the governor typically have the authority to redraw district maps, except in a few states where non-partisan experts manage the task without favor to any political party. Those candidates elected in the next few election cycles will be key to that redistricting process.

But industry observers do not believe electing Democrats alone will be key to net neutrality enactment. In California, a handful of Democrats who received large campaign contributions from the telecom industry hampered efforts to enact net neutrality or tried to water down the language. In other states, some legislators held jobs in the industry and still favor positions friendly to phone and cable companies.

Some states may also be waiting to see what the courts do with the Justice Department lawsuit against the State of California, something that USTelecom, one of the industry’s biggest lobbying organizations, also recommends.

Cable One Raking It In With Rate Hikes: 47% Margin Highest in the Cable Industry

Phillip Dampier March 12, 2018 Cable One, Competition, Consumer News, Data Caps, NewWave Communications 1 Comment

Cable One, the Phoenix-based mid-sized cable operator serving some of the poorest communities in the country is charging some of the nation’s highest prices for broadband service, raking in an unprecedented 47% margin in the fourth quarter of 2017, the highest in the cable industry.

That growth has come courtesy of CEO Julie Laulis, who has doubled down on data caps — automatically enrolling customers in higher priced plans if they exceed data caps three times in any 12-month period, raised prices, and ended most new customer and customer retention promotions in favor of ‘take it or leave it‘ pricing, especially on broadband service. Laulis has also decided to devote most of Cable One’s marketing efforts on selling broadband service, while de-emphasizing cable television. As a result, customers dissatisfied with Cable One’s lineup are encouraged to leave quietly.

Because video programming is costly to provide and broadband is relatively cheap to offer, the more the company can extract from its internet customers, the higher the profits earned. In 2011, cable television represented 49.1% of Cable One’s $779 million in revenue, with residential and commercial broadband comprising 34%. Today, 57% of Cable One’s $960 million in revenue comes from selling internet service. Cable One not only de-emphasized its video business, it also raised prices on internet service to further enhance earnings.

New customers coming to Cable One can subscribe to an entry-level broadband plan of 100 Mbps with a 300 GB monthly data cap for $55 a month. There are no discounts or promotions on this plan. But Cable One also requires customers to lease ($10.50/mo.) or buy an added-cost cable modem, raising the price higher. To prevent customers from taking advantage of promotions on higher speed products, Cable One requires customers to disconnect from service for a full year before being considered a new customer once again.

Laulis

Cable One has been able to raise prices and attach stingy usage caps to customers primarily because there are no good alternatives in the rural markets it prefers. One analyst said 77% of Cable One’s customers are in largely rural areas of Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Montana and Oklahoma. But prices are clearly getting too high for some, because the company lost more video and phone customers that it gained in new broadband subscriptions during the fourth quarter of 2017.

The fact Cable One broadband is now considered by many subscribers to be “too expensive” is also reflected by the extremely anemic broadband growth at Cable One. In 2017, the company added just 1.5% to its residential broadband customer base, despite very limited competition from phone companies.

MoffettNathanson’s Craig Moffett has complained all winter that Cable One is sacrificing broadband subscriber growth in favor of profits from price increases.

“[Cable One has] the most limited broadband competition of any publicly traded operator, and they have the lowest starting penetration,” Moffett told his investors. “Should they not be growing broadband the fastest of anyone? If price elasticity is greater than anyone thinks, how long is the runway, not just for Cable One, but for any operator choosing a strategy of price increases rather than unit growth?”

Cable One is also squeezing its newest customers at its latest acquisition – NewWave, which now features pricing very similar to Cable One. It recently started to turn over past due NewWave customers to collections after going 40 days past due. Previously, it was 90 days before account holders were threatened with cancellation and collections.

For now, NewWave’s introductory offer remains: 100 Mbps High-Speed Internet is $39 for the first three months before these rates kick in:

100Mbps 150Mbps 200Mpbs 200Mpbs 200Mpbs
Monthly Price* $55 $80 $105 $130 $155
Download Speed Up To 100 150 200 200 200
Upload Speed Up To 3 5 10 10 10
Best for # of Household Devices 5 8 10 10 10
Data Plan 300GB 600GB 900GB 1200GB 1500GB
Household Needs Download files/music
Power surfing		 Occasional gaming
Mulitple surfers		 Serious gaming
Mulitple devices & users		 Serious gaming
Mulitple devices & users		 Serious gaming
Mulitple devices & users
Home Wifi Included* Included* Included* Included* Included*
Streaming Video HD Video Multiple HD Video Multiple HD Video Multiple HD Video
iTunes Downloads of 45 minute show 15.6 seconds 10.8 seconds 7.8 seconds 7.8 seconds 7.8 seconds

*Plans & pricing for new customers. Rates do not include optional modem fees of $10.50 per month. Rates subject to change. Taxes and fees not included.

 

Sinclair Offers to Sell WPIX, WGN to Win Approval of Tribune Station Deal

Phillip Dampier February 21, 2018 Competition, Online Video, Public Policy & Gov't Comments Off on Sinclair Offers to Sell WPIX, WGN to Win Approval of Tribune Station Deal

Sinclair Broadcast Group has told the Federal Communications Commission it is willing to sell two well-recognized TV stations in Chicago and New York owned by Tribune Media if it will help win approval of its $3.9 billion acquisition of Tribune-owned stations by the Justice Department and FCC.

The move is a sign Sinclair may be concerned its blockbuster acquisition might not get approved if the deal remains mired in the regulatory review process.

The filing is effectively a new application because it fundamentally changes the structure of the deal and its impact on several TV markets where Sinclair could own multiple stations in a single city.

Few expected Sinclair would offer to divest WGN-TV Chicago and WPIX-TV in New York, which are major market stations with major advertising revenue. Sinclair also offered to sell off KSWB-TV, San Diego’s FOX affiliate, to keep Sinclair under the FCC’s theoretical 39% nationwide audience cap, which was watered down in 2017 by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to count UHF stations at only 50% of their actual viewing audiences — a direct benefit to Sinclair, which already owns and controls an enormous station group that had been constrained from getting much larger.

As part of the revised proposal, Sinclair will sell one or more stations in the following markets, with FOX often mentioned as a potential buyer:

  1. Seattle, Washington;
  2. St. Louis, Missouri;
  3. Salt Lake City, Utah;
  4. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma;
  5. Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem, North Carolina;
  6. Grand Rapids, Michigan;
  7. Richmond, Virginia;
  8. Des Moines-Ames, Iowa.

But Sinclair is seeking a waiver to continue to own two of the top four stations in Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem, N.C., Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York, Pa., and Indianapolis, Ind.

Selling WPIX and WGN will likely make a significant dent in Sinclair’s acquisition expenses, if the deal is approved.

WPIX and WGNhave been owned by Tribune since both stations first signed on in 1948.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Links:

Stop the Cap!