The southern tier city of Elmira, N.Y. is not too happy with Time Warner Cable’s lock on the local cable market.

“There’s no competition so their prices continue to go up, their offers continue to go down, and the people here with no other competition are just paying and paying and paying,” Elmira mayor Sue Skidmore told WETM News.

Skidmore and the city council intend to hold public hearings on the cable operator’s franchise renewal before they attempt to negotiate the next 10-year agreement with the cable company.

“This gives the public an opportunity to come and say anything good or bad pertaining to the cable franchise,” said city manager John Burin. The public meeting is scheduled for 7pm, June 4, on the second floor of Elmira City Hall.

Skidmore

The city’s ability to press Time Warner Cable for lower rates or service changes are extremely limited, however. Wholesale deregulation of the cable television industry has allowed most cable operators to manage their systems as they see fit, with no obligation to accept the recommendations of local government.

This fact of life was underscored when Time Warner mailed its own vision of what a renewal agreement with the city should look like, prior to any public discussion.

The city’s lawyer, John Ryan Jr., told the Ithaca Journal the company deleted several provisions in the proposed renewal agreement that are part of the current agreement. Ryan intends to speak with the operator about those changes, and wants to see changes in the city’s favor.

In most franchise renewal agreements, the only leverage a city typically has is to threaten not to renew a cable franchise. That is a very rare occurrence, however, because it is exceptionally rare for another major cable provider to agree to service a city that cancels a franchise renewal with another company. In the end, most renewal agreements come down to handshake agreements to correct any long-standing service issues, agree to wire certain unserved areas, and negotiate over public, educational, and government access channels and franchise fees payable to the city.

The local telephone company, Verizon Communications, has no plans to provide its FiOS fiber optic service in the city, leaving customers with the competitive option of landline phone service, DSL, and a contract with Verizon’s satellite TV partner, DirecTV.

WETM in Elmira reports city officials are preparing for franchise renewal discussions with Time Warner Cable. The cable company is already on that, preemptively sending the city a franchise renewal agreement it wrote itself. (1 minute)

Growing questions are being raised about whether Comcast is violating FCC and Department of Justice policies that prohibit the cable company from prioritizing its own content traffic over that of its competitors.

Comcast’s Xfinity Xbox app offers Comcast customers access to Xfinity online video content without eating into their monthly 250GB Internet usage allowance. Netflix has called that exemption unfair, because its content does count against Comcast’s usage cap. New evidence now suggests Comcast may also be prioritizing the delivery of its Xfinity content over other broadband traffic, a true Net Neutrality violation if proven true.

Bryan Berg, founder and chief technology officer at MixMedia, believes he has found proof the cable company is giving its own video content preferential treatment, in this somewhat-technical finding published on his blog:

What I’ve concluded is that Comcast is using separate DOCSIS service flows to prioritize the traffic to the Xfinity Xbox app. This separation allows them to exempt that traffic from both bandwidth cap accounting and download speed limits. It’s still plain-old HTTP delivering MP4-encoded video files, just like the other streaming services use, but additional priority is granted to the Xfinity traffic at the DOCSIS level. I still believe that DSCP values I observed in the packet headers of Xfinity traffic is the method by which Comcast signals that traffic is to be prioritized, both in their backbone and regional networks and their DOCSIS network.

Berg also contends Comcast’s earlier explanation that its Xfinity content should be exempt from its usage cap because it travels over the company’s private Internet network is also flawed:

In addition, contrary to what has been widely speculated, the Xfinity traffic is not delivered via separate, dedicated downstream channel(s)—it uses the same downstream channels as regular Internet traffic.

Berg

Broadband traffic management is of growing interest to Internet Service Providers, who contend it can be used to manage Internet traffic more efficiently and improve speed and time-sensitive online applications like streamed video, online phone calls, and similar services. But manufacturers of traffic management equipment also market the technology to ISPs who want to favor certain kinds of content while de-prioritizing or even throttling the speed of non-preferred content. The technology can also differentiate traffic that counts against a monthly usage cap, and traffic that does not.

Quality of Service (QoS) technology can be used to improve the customer’s online experience or help a provider launch Internet Overcharging and speed throttling schemes that can heavily discriminate against “undesirable” online traffic.

Berg further found that when he saturated his 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection, traffic from providers like Netflix suffered due to the bandwidth constraints.  Because he flooded his connection, Netflix buffered additional content (slowing his stream start time) and reduced the bitrate of the video (which can dramatically reduce the picture quality at slower speeds). But when he launched Xfinity video streaming, that traffic was unaffected by his saturated connection. In fact, he discovered Xfinity traffic was exempted from his normal download speed limit, allowing his connection to exceed 25Mbps.

While that works great for Xfinity fans who do not want their videos degraded when other household members are online, it is inherently unfair to competitors like Netflix who are forced to reduce the quality of your video stream to compensate for lower available bandwidth.

According to the consent decree which governs the merger of the cable operator with NBC-Universal, prioritizing traffic in this way is a no-no when the company also engages in Internet Overcharging schemes, namely its arbitrary usage cap:

“If Comcast offers consumers Internet Access Service under a package that includes caps, tiers, metering, or other usage-based pricing, it shall not measure, count, or otherwise treat Defendants’ affiliated network traffic differently from unaffiliated network traffic. Comcast shall not prioritize Defendants’ Video Programming or other content over other Persons’ Video Programming or other content.”

This graph shows Berg's artificially saturated 25Mbps Comcast broadband connection. The traffic in red represents Xfinity Xbox traffic, which is given such high priority, it allows Berg to exceed his usual download speed limit.

Comcast sent GigaOm a statement that denies the company is doing any such thing:

“It’s really important that we make crystal clear that we are not prioritizing our transmission of Xfinity TV content to the Xbox (as some have speculated). While DSCP markings can be used to assign traffic different priority levels, that is not their only application – and that is not what they are being used for here. It’s also important to point out that our Xfinity TV content being delivered to the Xbox is the same video subscription that customers already paid for and is delivered to their home over our traditional cable network – the difference is that we are now delivering it using IP technology to the Xbox 360, in a similar manner as other IP-based cable service providers. But this is still our traditional cable television service, which is governed by something known as Title VI of the Communications Act, and we provide the service in compliance with applicable FCC rules.”

Our View

Comcast, as usual, is talking out of every side of its mouth. In an effort to justify their unjustified usage cap, they have pretzel-twisted a novel way out of this Net Neutrality debate by paving their own digital highway on a Comcast private drive.

Comcast argues their 250GB usage cap controls last-mile congestion to provide an excellent user experience. That excuse completely evaporates in the context of its new toll-free video traffic. In fact, their earlier argument that its regionally-distributed streaming traffic should not count because it does not travel over the “public Internet” at Comcast’s expense does not even make sense.

Berg provides an example:

A FaceTime call from my house to my neighbor’s—which never leaves even the San Francisco metro area Comcast network, given that both of us are Comcast customers—goes over the “public Internet.”

Yet Comcast’s Xbox streams, which pass from Seattle to Sacramento to San Francisco through all of the same network elements that handle my video call (and then some!) are exempt from the bandwidth cap?

You can’t have it both ways, guys.

DOCSIS 3 technology has vastly expanded the last mile pipe into subscriber homes. If Comcast can launch their own private pipe for unlimited IPTV traffic that travels down the same wires their Internet service does, they can comfortably handle any additional capacity needs to support their “constrained” broadband service without the need to limit their customers’ use.

Usage caps remain an end run around Net Neutrality. Consumers given the opportunity to view content under a usage cap on the “public Internet” or using the “toll-free” traffic lane Comcast created for content from their “preferred partners” will make the obvious choice to protect their usage allowance. Comcast is certainly aware of this, and it is a clever way to discriminate through social engineering. It’s also less obvious. You don’t have to de-prioritize or block traffic from your competition to have an impact, you just have to limit it. Customers who repeatedly exceed their usage allowance face suspension of Comcast broadband service for up to one year. That’s a strong incentive to follow their rules.

Netflix is fighting to force Xfinity traffic to fall under the same arbitrary usage cap regime Netflix endures — a truly shortsighted goal. The real issue here is whether Comcast should be capping any of its Internet service.

Comcast has given us the answer, launching the very bandwidth-intense video streaming it used to decry was contributing to an Internet traffic tsunami.

It’s time for Comcast to drop its usage cap.

The NY Post reports Hulu is on the verge of leaving cord-cutters behind as the video streaming site prepares to switch to a “TV Everywhere” model that requires viewers to prove they subscribe to a pay television provider before they will be able to stream video online.

The decision to abandon viewers who have cut cable’s cord is reportedly behind last week’s decision by Providence Equity Partners to abandon Hulu, the major network-owned video operation.

The Post reports that non-cable TV subscribers are going to find it increasingly difficult to legally stream video content as program producers and networks start switching off access to those getting a “free ride.”

Among the most aggressive to stop the “freeloading” is Fox, which plans on launching talks with Comcast on a TV Everywhere deal that will require all viewers to have a paid video subscription.  Comcast itself is reported to be preparing to switch to an authentication model for online streaming of this year’s Olympics.

Don’t pay for cable, telco, or satellite TV?  No streaming video for you.

KJRH’s newsroom has been spending a lot of time this spring dealing with viewers ripped off by their telecommunications providers.  When Tulsa residents can’t get satisfaction from the local cable or satellite company, they often call Channel 2′s Problem Solvers for help.

DirecTV’s Phantom Gift Cards: The Promised Rebate That You Qualify For, Until You Don’t

Satellite TV companies are increasingly aggressive pitching discounts and rebates to win customers away from traditional cable TV or the phone company’s new IPTV service.  In addition to cheap teaser rates, many providers also sweeten the deal with high value rebate cards for customers signing multi-year service contracts.

Local resident Michael was attracted to DirecTV’s $200 Visa card rebate offer and signed up for satellite service.  Weeks later, with no rebate card in hand, he called the company to find out why, only to be told he did not qualify.  When Michael tried to cancel service because the company didn’t deliver what it promised, the customer service representative informed him he would owe $480 in early cancellation penalties.

DirecTV's fine print: Emphasis ours.

DirecTV initially stonewalled KJRH when they called on Michael’s behalf, eventually claiming he was told he did not qualify for a rebate a week after signing up for service.  But when KJRH asked to hear a recording of the call DirecTV routinely makes when customers sign up for service, they changed their tune.

“The next day, we were told Michael had been given the wrong information about the promotion and he could cancel without that $480 penalty,” the Problem Solvers’ team reports.

Michael says it is important to get everything in writing — including the names of representatives you speak with — because that can make all the difference when a company tries to squeeze out of its own promotional promises.  He’s now an ex-DirecTV customer for free, and decided to watch his favorite shows over local broadcast TV.

KJRH got called by Michael when DirecTV reneged on a $200 rebate offer that locked him into a contract that could cost him $480 to escape.  (2 minutes)

Suddenlink: Suddenly Owe $400 in April for Service You Canceled In January

Tulsa resident Lucille got the shock of her life this month when she opened a bill from Suddenlink charging her $400 for cable service she canceled in early January.

The past due bill came without warning and Lucille says she never received any phone call, bill, or letter notifying her charges were still accumulating on her account.

When she called Suddenlink, they told her that service was never discontinued, and she owed the money.

Lucille may have been born at night, but not last night.

Angered by Suddenlink’s intransigence, she called KJRH for help.  The station went to the top — calling Suddenlink’s corporate headquarters.

In short order, a company representative researching the dispute found Lucille’s cancellation request, as well as the customer service representative who never processed it.

That representative will be attending Customer Service 101 re-training classes, and a company executive called Lucille directly to apologize.

Not only that, a local Tulsa Suddenlink worker arrived with a $100 refund check — the credit balance owed her for service she paid one month ahead to receive.

While both Lucille and Michael benefited from the threat of both companies being portrayed in a bad light on the evening news, an unknown, uncounted number of customers may not win similar satisfaction.

Many customers simply give up pursuing unpaid rebate promotions (or forget about them altogether), and DirecTV’s nearly $500 early termination fee is a strong incentive to grudgingly stay with the satellite provider until your contract runs out.  Lucille, 88 years old, was not going to be intimidated by Suddenlink’s insistence she owed the money (or the implications of being called a past due deadbeat — an especially scandalous notion for older Americans).

Both consumers did something else: they wrote down names, times, and dates of their communications with the companies.  That can go a long way to winning satisfaction. So can filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau, which can usually prompt a contact from a higher-level customer service representative more willing to give a complaining customer the benefit of the doubt.

KJRH got a call from Lucille about an unexpected $400 Suddenlink cable bill for April… for service she canceled in January.  (2 minutes)

At a time when cable operators are more reluctant than ever to overbuild into another operator’s territory, something very strange is going on in central North Carolina.

Time Warner Cable is moving into the neighborhood — one already receiving service from a community-owned cable operator.  That would be like Time Warner moving into one of Comcast’s service areas.  For some reason, those large cable companies completely avoid competing head-to-head, but where community-owned provider MI-Connection has managed to sign up around 15,000 customers for service, Time Warner Cable has also arrived.

As a result, customers north of Charlotte, in communities around Davidson and Mooresville, are getting some amazing prices for cable television, phone, and broadband.  Time Warner will even deliver an offer right to your front door.

Susan Wagner in Mooresville got her deal when she threatened to cancel Time Warner Cable and return to MI-Connection.

“(Time Warner) gave everyone a really good offer when they first came in and then drove up the price after a while,” Wagner told the Charlotte Observer.

When Wagner called to cancel, Time Warner sent an employee to her door offering to slash her cable bill by $50 a month, enough to keep her business.

Other residents in nearby Cornelius are also getting prices substantially lower than residents in cities like Charlotte, where many residents have one choice for cable: Time Warner.  Sam, a Stop the Cap! reader in the Morrison Plantation neighborhood, noted they skipped the last few rate increases from the cable company.

“You just call and tell them the rate is too high and as soon as they find out you have MI-Connection as an alternative, they lower the price,” he said. “My niece in Charlotte can’t get the same deal even when we gave her the details — it’s only good in areas where MI-Connection operates.”

That leaves Charlotte residents paying $35-50 more a month than savvy customers further north can have for the asking.

“It sounds like predatory pricing to me when the company offers a special low price that people like my niece are probably subsidizing on their higher bill,” Sam suspects.

The Observer reports Time Warner is also laying cable in other neighborhoods, such as Heritage Green, where the cable company is soliciting business from MI-Connection subscribers door-to-door.

MI-Connection’s CEO, David Auger, formerly from Time Warner Cable himself, claims he’s unconcerned about Time Warner’s aggressive overbuild of his service area.

But the state’s largest commercial cable company has been signing up some of MI-Connection’s current customer base and successfully holding its existing customers in place with significant discounts on service.  Since last July, MI-Connection signed up 667 new customers, but also lost 577 others, most likely to Time Warner Cable.

MI-Connection was launched from the ashes of a bankrupt Adelphia Cable system acquired by the communities of Mooresville and Davidson.  After investing in a needed system upgrade, the community owned provider relaunched service nearly identical technically to other cable systems.  Unlike Wilson and Salisbury, where new fiber-to-the-home systems were built, MI-Connection offers a more traditional cable package.

That makes competition with Time Warner Cable more difficult, but the community provider is trying.  Time Warner Cable’s regular pricing in the area runs $68.49 a month for 85 basic channels.  MI-Connection sells 86 channels for $61.99.  But when customers call Time Warner to complain about their higher prices, the cable operator dramatically lowers them to keep the customer’s business.

“The regular price only matters until you call and complain about it,” says Sam.

There have been complaints, but many of them are less about the cable bill and more about politics.  MI-Connection has not come cheap either town, which had to cover some of the costs of a needed system upgrade and service installation, estimated to run about $1,000 for every new customer signed.

Last fall, mayoral challenger Vince Winegardner made local government involvement in broadband a political issue, saying the purchase of the cable system was a mistake.  He lost his bid, but the system’s money needs remain a frequent topic of discussion in all of the communities involved in MI-Connection, and earlier this year the company company asked for $1.1 million from Davidson and Mooresville to ride out the rest of the fiscal year.

Time Warner’s recent interest in invading a fellow cable operator’s service area and slashing prices for those customers has raised the question whether their overbuild is about competition or predatory pricing to drive MI-Connection out of business.

Wagner doesn’t seem to mind either way, telling the Observer it is a “win-win” for her, scoring a lower cable bill with Time Warner.

But Sam isn’t so sure the savings will last.

“It seems pretty clear to me that Time Warner isn’t hurrying to compete with Comcast or Charter — just MI-Connection and that makes me suspicious,” Sam says. “After spending all that money to ban community broadband in the state, they now seem to be trying to drive out of business the handful of companies that were exempted.”

“My niece is probably paying for this right now on her cable bill too, and once MI-Connection is out of the way, those prices will shoot right back up,” Sam concludes.

A fiber optic network may be only as good as the marketing that sells it.

If that is true, Fort Wayne residents have made their choice, and they prefer Comcast Cable over Frontier Communications FiOS.

City officials released figures this week showing Comcast has a clear lead in the Indiana city.  Both companies pay the city franchise fees to do business in Fort Wayne, and Comcast paid almost $435,000, almost double Frontier Communications’ $262,556.

Ft. Wayne, Indiana

Frontier assumed control of the fiber optics network when it purchased the local assets of Verizon Communications.  But Frontier quickly found that volume pricing for video programming gave the old owner a decided advantage.  Frontier found programming prices for its comparatively smaller footprint far higher than what Verizon paid, and quickly began encouraging its fiber video customers switch to DirecTV satellite service.  Comcast responded with a billboard campaign that suggested Frontier was getting out of the fiber business, and encouraged customers to come back to cable.

Some did, but Frontier says it remains committed to its inherited fiber network, even though it lost over 10,000 customers last year.

“We’ve completed our evaluation of our business model and pricing,” Frontier’s Matt Kelley told the Journal-Gazette. “We’re offering an attractive bundle price. Customers are recognizing the quality and value, and that it’s a very compelling service.”

Frontier does appear to be serious about maintaining the broadband and phone service attached to its FiOS product, but has been looking for ways to bring down the wholesale cost of cable television programming and so far has shown no interest in expanding it.

“Our focus is not on FiOS video deployment,” Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter told investors in 2010. “The costs to install, set up and market new FiOS video customers are very expensive and, in our view, uneconomical.”

That’s less of a problem for Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator.  It enjoys volume discounts few other providers can negotiate.  Comcast always had a built-in advantage associated with its incumbency.  Getting customers to switch providers isn’t easy.  But despite the presence of an advanced fiber optic network operated by the competition, Comcast has held on to customers.

“Our customers that are staying with us and joining us are enjoying our services, especially since the introduction of our Xfinity home security management system,” said Comcast’s Mary Beth Halprin, not missing an opportunity to pitch the cable company’s latest new product line. “The home security service costs $39.95 a month and provides around-the-clock monitoring and allows customers to watch live-streaming video from wireless cameras using an iPhone or iPad.”

If you thought paying an average of $86 a month for basic pay television and premium movie channels in 2011 was out of line, just wait.  A new report predicts you could pay $123 by the year 2015 and $200 by 2020 — and that only includes the TV portion of your bill.

That is in keeping with typical annual rate increases, typically blamed on “increased programming costs,” which currently run an average of six percent a year.

The NPD Group, who published the findings, predicts consumers may not sit still for that kind of monthly cable television bill, especially as household incomes for the middle class continue to remain stagnant, even as high fuel and health care prices continue to march higher.

The pay television industry isn’t entirely responsible for the annual rate hikes that nearly always outpace the rate of inflation.  The real money is in programming production and distribution, which is why giant companies like Comcast, Bell, Rogers, and Viacom are buying up programming studios, distributors, and networks at a rapid pace.

With new players like Netflix, Amazon, and Redbox joining traditional pay television and broadcast network bidders, auctions for exclusive licensing agreements bring higher and higher bids.  Ultimately, consumers pay the price in the form of higher bills.  Even cable networks, sensing an increase in the value of their programming, are extracting higher monthly fees at contract renewal time.

The last to arrive at the programming money party?  Local over-the-air broadcasters that used to beg cable companies to carry their channels on the local lineup.  Now some are demanding as much as $5 or more per month per subscriber to allow the cable operator to keep carrying the stations.

“As pay-TV costs rise and consumers’ spending power stays flat, the traditional affiliate-fee business model for pay-TV companies appears to be unsustainable in the long term,” said Keith Nissen, research director for The NPD Group. “Much needed structural changes to the pay-TV industry will not happen quickly or easily; however, the emerging competition between video on demand and premium-TV suppliers might be the spark that ignites the necessary business-model transformation of the pay-TV industry.”

In other words, the more consumers cut cable’s cord and go find other ways to watch their favorite shows, the more unsustainable the traditional pay television business model will become.  Some industry watchers believe cord-cutting is not a major issue.  Others believe continued rate increases will drive customers to cancel service, particularly when alternatives are available. But NPD believes economic factors are the biggest reason for cable cord-cutting.  Those ex-customers are switching back to free “over the air” television, which now delivers better picture quality and often includes additional channels that increase the number of viewing options.

NPD Group research shows most consumers don’t want to exert too much effort to hunt down online programming. Most will put up with their current provider as long as they deliver the shows they want at a price they can afford.  What could change that?  Easy-to-access to a-la-carte programming, perhaps available from services that may soon come built-in with the newest television sets.

“Pay-TV providers offer a convenient, one-stop shop for subscribers, and the majority of customers like it that way,” said Russ Crupnick, senior vice president of industry analysis for The NPD Group. “There is an open window for the industry to meet consumer needs and become to television what iTunes is to music; however, there is also a definite risk if pay-TV providers don’t capitalize on the opportunity — and soon.”

In late February, LIN Television, owner of Norfolk’s NBC affiliate WAVY and Hampton Roads’ Fox station WVBT was engaged in a high profile battle with Cox Cable over retransmission consent fees — the price the cable company pays to put over the air broadcast stations on the cable dial.  While neither side would say exactly how much money was involved, Cox Cable customers will foot the bill starting April 2nd, when the Virginia cable operator raises rates up to 18.3% for basic cable — the fourth rate hike since 2009 and the second in 10 months.

A breakdown:

• TV Starter (broadcast basic + a handful of basic cable networks) up 18.3% — was $18, now $21.30
• TV Essential (local stations + 40 popular basic cable networks) up 5.5% — was $59.99, now $63.29
• Digital set top box rental up $1 to $6.99
• Cox Internet Essential (3Mbps) up 16% — was $24.99, now $28.99

LIN Media owns local stations around the country.

Cox officials blamed the rate increases on the cost of programming, notably for local stations.

“Programming costs are rising much faster than the rate of inflation,” Felicia Blow, a Cox spokeswoman, wrote in an email to the Virginian Pilot. “While we absorb much of the increase incurred [...] we must pass on a portion of the increases to our customers.”

Local broadcasters across the country are aggressively pursuing retransmission consent fees as the traditional advertising model for free, over the air television, has been challenged by the soft economy and poor ad sales.  Parent companies that own clusters of local stations also see the fees as a lucrative new revenue stream for themselves and their investors.

Over the past decade, Cox generally has raised its prices about once a year, notes the Virginian Pilot. The company began speeding up the timetable in 2010. With the latest change coming in April, Cox will have boosted rates for at least some parts of its service – particularly the cost of its most popular package – four times since November 2009.  Approximately 90 percent of 416,000 Hampton Roads-area Cox customers will be paying more for cable service this spring as a result.

WAVY in February reported on its parent company’s battle with Cox Cable in this self-serving story aired on its evening newscast.  (3 minutes)

This afternoon, the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights held a hearing on the potential antitrust implications of a deal between Verizon and some of the nation’s largest cable companies that would deliver Verizon warehoused, unused wireless spectrum owned by four of the nation’s largest cable operators and open the door to Verizon Wireless pitching cable television subscriptions.  The hearing: “The Verizon/Cable Deals: Harmless Collaboration or a Threat to Competition and Consumers?” lasts 2 hours, 23 minutes.

Time Warner Cable’s online streaming apps that deliver dozens of national cable networks to authenticated cable TV subscribers have never included local broadband television channels, until now.

The cable operator announced it has added 26 local stations to the lineup, but they are viewable only if you have Time Warner Cable service in the New York City region.

The new channels include primary over the air stations and digital “sub-channels” that include niche, classic, ethnic, and special interest programming:

• WCBS HDTV (CBS)
• WNBC HDTV (NBC)
• NBC NY Nonstop
• WNYW HD (Fox)
• WABC HDTV (ABC)
• Live Well HD
• WABC News Now
• WWOR HD (My9)
• WPIX-HD (PIX11)
• WPXN HD (ION)
• WXTV HD (Univision)
• WFUT HD (Telefutura)
• WNJU HD (Telemundo)
• WFME
• WLIW (PBS)
• World
• WLNY (TV 10/55)
• WMBC
• WNJN HD (or WNJB or NJN1) – PBS
• WNYE (NYC TV Life)
• WRNN
• WNET (Thirteen HD)
• V-ME
• Create
• Kids13
• Rise (Al Jazeera)

Time Warner says they have an interest in expanding local station streaming in other cities sometime this year.  When we know which cities and stations will be included, we will pass them along.