The Consumerist covers a minor bungle by Comcast, which sent e-mail to a whole mess of their customers heralding a 50 percent speed increase in huge, bold print that was not to be:

Customers who waded into the text accompanying the festivities discovered the speed increase was only meant for so-called “Economy Service” customers who were getting upgrades from 1Mbps to 1.5Mbps.  A few days later, the requisite “apology for our error” e-mail was headed out — to the wrong customers:

Share/Save

Broadband for America is the product of the nation's largest phone and cable companies.

Broadband for America has begun assaulting the airwaves with a high-priced advertising campaign claiming that “broadband is leading the [economic] recovery” but is threatened by “1930s telephone regulations,” urging Congress to get involved to stop broadband reform.

The 30 second ads blanketed cable and several Sunday morning news shows yesterday.

What the ads don’t mention is Broadband for America is actually one giant front group backed by large phone and cable companies.  In a study released last fall, Stop the Cap! found virtually every single “coalition” member, including so-called “independent consumer advocacy groups,” do substantial business with, or have received significant financial contributions or board assistance from companies including AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast.

Well-financed by the telecommunications industry it directly represents, Broadband for America seeks further deregulation and wants Congress to stop the FCC from enacting broadband reforms ranging from “truth in marketing” and billing to Net Neutrality.

The “honorary co-chairs” of the group are Michael Powell, the same Bush Administration FCC chairman that badly bungled the FCC’s approach to broadband policy thrown out in the courts earlier this year, and former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., who left public service for a very lucrative career in “dollar-a-holler” advocacy and working as a lobbyist for the economic-vampire investment bank Goldman Sachs (something Broadband for America left out of his online biography.)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Broadband for America, a telecom-backed astroturf group, is running these advertisements promoting the agenda of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast to try and stop broadband reform policies.  (1 minute)

Share/Save

WMC-TV in Memphis compared rates among providers to check and see if mandatory Comcast service represented a good deal for Mid-America renters.

Mid-America Apartment Communities, a nationwide apartment management company, continues to unveil new mandatory cable service fees on renters — this time for eight Mid-America apartment complexes in Memphis, Tennessee.

Memphis renters began receiving word of the new required $40 a month Comcast cable package late last month and the controversy has sparked additional media attention.

Mid-America earns a significant kickback bonus from Comcast for mandating cable service on all of its renters.  That upsets many renters who choose not to have cable service, or subscribe to a satellite provider like DirecTV or DISH.  The $40 fee doesn’t go away if you don’t want the service.  Earlier in July, Stop the Cap! covered Mid-America’s mandatory cable service introduction in other parts of Tennessee and Texas.

Legal experts say the arrangement is perfectly legal, so long as it is not imposed unilaterally on renters.  Instead, Mid-America includes the mandatory cable clause in its new renter and lease renewal agreements.  If you don’t want to pay the fee, your only option is to move somewhere else.

The $40 Comcast package delivers 100 digital channels, 45 music channels, and one on-demand channel.  That appears to coincide with Comcast’s Digital Starter package, which normally runs $51.50 a month in Memphis.

Some current Comcast subscribers who rent from Mid-America do appreciate the discount and the convenience of paying cable charges as part of their monthly rent.  But others do not want to be compelled to pay for Comcast service they don’t want or cannot afford.  For them, the extra $40 a month charge is effectively a rent increase.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WMC-TV’s ‘Investigators’ Team took a look at Mid-America Apartments’ new mandatory cable charges imposed on its Memphis renters.  (4 minutes)

Share/Save

Netflix has a big problem.

As it gradually shifts its operations towards more instant, on-demand video streaming of movies and TV shows subscribers want, some well-connected studios and distributors have a vested interest in stopping Netflix in its tracks.

Among the most threatened is Time Warner’s HBO, which has watched premium movie channel subscriptions erode for years as consumers dump pay-TV for lower cable bills and Netflix subscriptions.  For up to five dollars less than what cable systems charge for HBO, Netflix customers get access to unlimited video streaming and can still check out one movie at a time on traditional DVDs.

Netflix is slowly evolving their business towards streaming and away from costly and labor-intensive DVD rentals-by-mail.  Customers enjoy the instant access to programming — no waiting for the mail or getting on a waiting list for popular titles.  Netflix does not have to pay ever-increasing postage rates either, or replace lost or damaged DVDs.

But for Netflix streaming to succeed, the company needs agreements with content producers — Hollywood studios and distributors — for so-called “streaming rights.”

One contract wins the right to obtain and rent out the physical DVD’s, which Netflix has had no problem in obtaining… eventually.  But another, separate agreement is needed win the rights to stream movies or TV show over the Internet.

So far, most of Netflix’s streaming agreements cover older movies and TV shows that have already found their way to Hulu or have been run to death on premium movie channels.  Anyone for Big, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, or Class Action?  These are all listed by Netflix as “new releases.”

Now Netflix wants to expand their library to include additional titles and they’ve run into a roadblock – HBO.

The premium movie channel controls streaming rights not just for its own programming, but also for Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, and Universal.  Those three movie studios produce an enormous amount of movies and television shows, and without being able to contract streaming licenses, Netflix may be in big trouble.

HBO's Go service streams HBO movies, specials, and series to "authenticated" HBO subscribers

HBO intends to keep those shows, as well as its own, exclusively for itself and its cable and telco-TV partners.  As part of the TV Everywhere concept, HBO will dramatically expand its own streaming movie service — HBO Go, currently only available to authenticated Comcast and Verizon FiOS HBO subscribers.  Everyone else can forget about it.

The pay television industry — cable, satellite, and telco-TV, is more than happy to accommodate HBO sticking it to Netflix.  HBO Go could help sustain the premium movie channel and sell more subscriptions.

The video war means that Netflix will be in the DVD rental-by-mail service for years to come, if only to serve up movies and TV shows from those three studios.  More likely, however, is that Netflix will find a partner to help return fire — denying HBO access to movies controlled by Netflix.

Ultimately, consumers are likely to follow the content.  If Netflix controls it, consumers will sign up for that service.  If the cable industry controls it, they’ll be forced to keep their cable subscriptions.  It’s a high stakes game either way.

Share/Save

Reardon is fine with this vision of your online future.

Marguerite Reardon confesses she’s confused.  She doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about regarding Google and Verizon teaming up to deliver a blueprint for a corporate compromise on Net Neutrality.  In a column published today, Reardon is convinced she’s on a debunking mission — to deliver the message that rumors of the Internet apocalypse are premature.

As I read the criticism of Google and Verizon’s supposed evil plan to demolish the Internet, and as I hear about “protests” of several dozen people at Google’s headquarters, I scratch my head and wonder: am I missing something?

The Google-Verizon Net neutrality proposal I read last week doesn’t sound nearly as apocalyptic as Free Press, a media advocacy group, and some of the most vocal critics out there have made it sound.

In fact, most of proposal sounded a lot like a plan FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski offered nearly a year ago, which many Net neutrality proponents seemed to support.

In short, Google and Verizon say they agree to a set of rules for the Internet that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or degrading lawful content on the Internet. Broadband providers would also not be allowed to take action to impede competition.

This is pretty much what Genachowski has proposed.

OK, terrific. There is agreement.

But wait, Net neutrality zealots are still unhappy.

Hmmm… “zealots?”  Reardon probably just angered the majority of CNET’s readers, who now find themselves labeled as crazed Internet online freedom fighters — net fundamentalists who want absolute protection against big Internet Service Providers tampering with their Internet Experience.

Where can I get my membership card?

Reardon’s “debunk” consists of her narrow, inaccurate definition of Net Neutrality pounded into a pre-conceived notion of what is and is not possible in a competitive broadband marketplace.  In short, she’s satisfied we can all move along… there is nothing to see here:

What Free Press and Public Knowledge don’t seem to realize is that AT&T and Verizon already offer differentiated services today with enhanced quality of service to business customers. Verizon’s Fios TV and AT&T’s U-verse TV services are also examples of managed Internet services that are delivered to consumers. And the last time I checked, no one, other than their cable competitors, has complained about AT&T and Verizon offering competition in the TV market.

The truth is that if Verizon and AT&T wanted to cannibalize their broadband business with premium broadband services, they’d already be doing it. But they aren’t, because there hasn’t been a market for it.

The reality is that consumers are in control of what type of services are offered. If the public Internet can adequately deliver a service for free, then there’s no need to pay for it. But if someone can provide a better service over a dedicated network and there are consumers willing to pay for it, then why shouldn’t it be offered? Isn’t that why some people subscribe to a 768Kbps broadband service for $15 a month, and others pay $100 for a 50Mbps service?

So let’s debunk the debunk.

First, Net Neutrality is not about stopping broadband providers from offering speed-based tiers of service.  In fact, that’s the Internet pricing model we’ve all come to know and love (although those prices are just a tad high, aren’t they?)  Free Press and Public Knowledge do not object to ISPs selling different levels of broadband speed tiers to consumers and businesses to access online content.

Net Neutrality isn’t about stopping ISPs from selling some customers “lite” service and others “mega-super-zippy Turbo” service — it’s about stopping plans from some ISPs to establish their own toll booths on the Internet to charge content producers twice — once to upload and distribute their content and then a second time to ensure that content reaches a particular ISPs customers on a timely, non-speed-throttled basis.  Consider this: you already pay good money for your own broadband account.  How would you feel if you sent an e-mail to a friend who uses another ISP and that provider wanted to charge you 20 cents to deliver that e-mail?  Don’t want to pay?  That’s fine, but your e-mail might be delayed, as paying customers enjoy priority over your freebie e-mail.

A lot of broadband customers may never understand the implications of giant telecom companies building their own toll lanes for “preferred content partners” on the Internet because they’ll just assume that stuck online video or constantly rebuffering stream is the fault of the website delivering it, not their provider intentionally pushing it aside to make room for content from companies who paid protection money to make sure their videos played splendidly.

Second, Reardon need only look to our neighbors in the north to see a non Net Neutral Internet experience in Canada.  There, ISPs intentionally throttle broadband applications they don’t want users running on their networks.  They also spank customers who dare to try what Reardon insists Verizon would never stop — using their broadband service to watch someone else’s content.  With the application of Internet Overcharging like usage limits and consumption billing schemes, cable companies like Rogers don’t need to directly block competitors like Netflix.  They need only spike customers’ broadband bills to teach them a lesson they’ll not soon forget.

Within days of Netflix announcing their imminent arrival in Canada, Rogers actually reduced the usage allowances of some of their broadband customers.  If you still want to watch Netflix instead of visiting Rogers pay-per-view cable menu or video rental stores, it will cost you plenty — up to $5 per gigabyte of viewing.

Reardon seems to think giant providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast care about what their customers want and wouldn’t jeopardize the customer relationship.  Really?  She herself admits she hates paying for hundreds of channels she never watches, yet providers are deaf to complaints from customers demanding an end to this practice.  What about the relentless price hikes?  Wouldn’t that drive off customers?  Perhaps… if customers had real alternatives.  Instead, with an effective duopoly market in place, subscribers pay “the man,” pay an almost identical price from the “other guy,” or go without.

Providers understand their power and leverage in the marketplace.  Until serious competition arrives, it would be a disservice to stockholders not to monetize every possible aspect of broadband service in the United States.

The check against this naked aggression on consumers’ wallets is from consumer groups who are fighting against these big telecom interests.

Before dismissing Net Neutrality “zealotry,” Reardon should experience the Internet in Canada and then get back to us, and more importantly those consumer groups she flicks away with disdain, and join the fight.

Share/Save

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski needs another calcium supplement to stand up against powerful broadband interests. Let's send him one.

When citizens get active and get involved, they can make a difference.  That’s true even with giant corporations like Verizon Communications.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been straying as of late.  In 2009, his nomination to chair the Commission came with a lot of promises he’s now threatening to break with the American people:

• to make the FCC more open and accountable to the public interest;
• to promote and expand broadband to underserved Americans;
• to protest the open Internet with strong Net Neutrality protections.

Genachowski watched Comcast use the federal courts to invalidate much of his agency’s authority over broadband because of flawed policies and bad compromises made by the previous administration.  Providers lived with that arrangement until it inconvenienced them.  Then they sued… and won.

History teaches us that making the same mistakes all over again will bring similar results.

Chairman Genachowski is wrong to think brokering secret, back room deals with major corporate broadband providers will solve America’s broadband issues.  Verizon, AT&T, Google, Comcast, and the other players do not answer to the FCC — they answer to their stockholders and Wall Street.  While corporate deals are struck behind closed doors, it is you and I that face living with the results and we don’t even have a seat at the table.

I, for one, am not interested in living in a broadband gated community with AT&T working the front gate.

Genachowski has apparently forgotten he is supposed to be working for the American people, not for America’s broadband duopoly. Not too long ago, Genachowski’s office hinted it might be prepared to cave on meaningful broadband reform.  Outraged citizens flooded the FCC and told him to grow a spine and stand up for our interests and he followed through announcing broadband reform was finally on the way.

It’s time to send the chairman another calcium supplement:

• Retweet this act.ly petition to demand that Genachowski accounts for his inaction.
• Answer these two questions to get the FCC to work for you and not AT&T.
• Learn more about getting involved in the fight to win Net Neutrality protections.

This fight is far from over.

Share/Save

Cricket, the regional wireless carrier that claims to offer “unlimited” data plans that really are not, has jacked up prices on its wireless broadband plans and reduced wireless data usage allowances.

Cricket used to charge $40 a month for 5GB of monthly usage, $60 for 10GB.  No more.

Now the company wants you to pay more for less:

2.5GB for $40, 5GB for $50, and 7.5GB for $60 is hardly "respeKting" your wallet

Thankfully, existing Cricket customers are grandfathered into their existing $40 for 5GB plan, so they do not face the price hike and allowance cut.

Cricket’s claimed speeds up to 1.4Mbps are fiction — in our own tests we found service never exceeding 650kbps, and often averages 500kbps or less in the Rochester, N.Y. area.  When Cricket cell sites become congested, as they have in the southeastern part of the city, speeds can drop to 56kbps or less, making the service completely unusable.  While web page browsing and audio streaming are acceptable using Cricket, video streaming is not.  YouTube and other video multimedia was too painful to watch.

Cricket’s best advantage in the wireless broadband market was its pricing.  Customers accepted dramatically reduced coverage areas (don’t expect Cricket to work outside of the city, nearby suburbs, and adjacent major highways), slower speeds, and a “Fair Access Policy” that throttles your connection to dial-up speeds (or less) once you exceed your monthly allowance, all in return for service priced $20 less than most of the competition.  The modem is usually free or deeply discounted, and there is no contract requirement.

But at Cricket’s new pricing, consumers should take a look at Clearwire’s new 4G service, Comcast High Speed 2Go, or Road Runner Mobile instead.  Clear’s 4G-only plan offers unlimited access for $40.00 a month without a “Fair Access Policy” throttling your service to dial-up speeds, and much faster service than Cricket can provide.  The only downsides are the up front cost of the modem and being sure 4G is available in your area.

Clear, Comcast High Speed 2Go and Road Runner Mobile offer 4G service plans with a fallback option to 3G coverage for about $55 a month.  Clear and Comcast do not limit 4G usage, but do limit 3G access to 5GB per month before overlimit fees apply.  Road Runner Mobile offers unlimited access to both 3G and 4G service.

Cricket likes to claim it “respeKts your wallet.”  Raising prices and reducing usage allowances isn’t exactly a sign of respect.

Share/Save

What a great way to introduce U-verse to Chattanooga — headline news that an AT&T technician pepper-sprayed three dogs owned by a Chattanooga woman with a repellent known to be stronger than police pepper spray.

The nightmare for Janelle Lawrence began last week when an AT&T technician came on her property unannounced and began working in her fenced-in yard.

Janelle greeted the technician and asked him if her dogs, who were sharing her yard with the AT&T employee bothered him.

“He said not anymore.  I pepper sprayed them,” Janelle told WRCB, a Chattanooga television station.

She also noticed her dogs reeling in pain.

“My pug had pepper spray all over her body and was having trouble breathing and it got all over my arms and I started burning,” Lawrence says.

Lawrence says the technician was rude to her and refused to show her I.D. or a work order.

She recorded his truck number off the back of his work truck and called the main office demanding to know why he was there when she doesn’t subscribe to any of the company’s services.

AT&T told WRCB they didn’t need Janelle’s permission to enter her property or spray her pets.

AT&T issued a statement to the station:

“An AT&T technician has been working on this street all week for this week’s U-verse launch in Chattanooga. This AT&T technician needed access to the easement area on this fenced-in property, which is in a public right of way.”

Janelle remains deeply upset at AT&T and the employee, who appears not to be suffering any ill-effects to his job from the incident.

“You can do something to me and I’ll take it all day, but if you touch my little angels,” Lawrence says that’s where she draws the line.

The pepper spray incident took a considerable amount of shine off AT&T’s U-verse launch event, particularly for potential customers who are also pet owners like Stop the Cap! reader Sam who pointed this incident out to us.

“The same quick-drawing AT&T technician that attacked this poor woman’s pets could be aiming for yours or mine next,” he writes. “As long as this guy is still employed by AT&T, I wouldn’t have U-verse in my house even if they gave it to me for free.”

As far as Sam as concerned, AT&T pepper sprays their customers with high bills and bad service on a daily basis anyway.

“These guys have no shame buying their way into Tennessee with another one of those statewide deregulation bills that brought lots of campaign cash for supporters and very little for consumers,” Sam writes. “I signed up for EPB Fiber service, which is owned by the city, costs me less than either the cable or phone company, and delivers real fiber optic service right to my house.”

Sam also notes the guy who installed it loved his two dogs and cat.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WRCB-TV was the only station in Chattanooga to spend more than a few seconds on U-verse’s introduction in the city this week, but it wasn’t the kind of PR AT&T was exactly hoping for.  [Warning-Content may upset sensitive viewers.]  (2 minutes)

All this during an underwhelming launch week for AT&T’s U-verse in the River City, which garnered almost no attention in the local broadcast media, except for the pepper spraying incident.  The local newspaper put the story in its Business section.

Chattanooga residents now enjoy a fifth choice for several traditional services offered by cable or satellite:

• Comcast — incumbent cable operator
• EPB — municipally owned power utility and fiber-to-the-home provider
• AT&T — U-verse brings better speeds and service than traditional DSL from the phone company
• DirecTV — Satellite TV
• DISH — Satellite TV

The biggest savings residents will find from Comcast and AT&T comes when bouncing back and forth between new customer promotions.  Or you can just stick with EPB, which seems to offer the same prices for new and old customers.  For broadband customers, EPB delivers (by far) the fastest Internet speeds — up to 100Mbps upstream and downstream.  Comcast comes in at second place, and AT&T U-verse tops out at around 24Mbps if you are lucky.

Once promotional pricing from Comcast and AT&T expire, savings are highly elusive.  Price comparisons are extremely difficult because of channel line-ups, bundled equipment, and different Internet speed tiers and phone calling plans.  Making the best choice means sitting down and exploring channel lineups, HD channel tiers, how much broadband speed you require, and what kind of phone service you want, if any.

Most of the triple-play bundled promotions including standard cable, Internet and phone service will run between $119-139 a month before taxes, fees, and equipment costs.  If you sign a contract, Comcast will throw in a free iPod Touch.  Providers will keep your package price-increase-free for the length of any contract you sign.  That could be important, because AT&T and Comcast have been increasing their rates at least annually.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Raw video from the Chattanooga Times Free Press captured the launch party for AT&T U-verse in the city.  (34 seconds)

McCormick - An AT&T Friend for Life

While AT&T was patting itself on the back for its wonderfulness, AT&T took special care to extend personal credit to Rep. Gerald McCormick (R-Hamilton County) for shepherding the Competitive Cable and Video Services Act of 2008 through the Tennessee General Assembly.  It helped deregulate the telecommunications industry in Tennessee and de-fang oversight agencies tasked with protecting consumer interests.  The result has been a myriad of customer service nightmares for Tennessee residents, particularly for those who are with AT&T and have faced repeatedly inaccurate bills and terrible customer service.

McCormick was right there in the press release to help celebrate the achievement:

“As Tennessee policymakers, our goal was to increase investment throughout the state and give consumers more choices and innovative new services, and I’m honored to help AT&T celebrate this launch,” Rep. McCormick said.

AT&T invested $180,000 in Tennessee lawmakers like McCormick to do the right thing by AT&T and pass the bill.  The Chattanooga Times Free Press delivered a breakdown in April 2009 summing up the spending as AT&T pushed forward its bill:

State Election Registry records show AT&T’s PAC gave almost $180,000 to candidates, usually incumbents, as well as PACs operated by legislative leaders and caucuses and parties in the two-year 2008 campaign cycle.

The PAC, funded by top executives, gave $2,000 to Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, R-Blountville, the Senate speaker, records show. The PAC gave another $8,000 to Mr. Ramsey’s leadership PAC, known as RAAMPAC, according to records.

The AT&T PAC contributed $5,000 to then-House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, D-Covington, and another $4,000 went to Mr. Naifeh’s leadership PAC, the Speaker’s Fund, records show.

Rep. Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga, who is sponsoring the AT&T-backed deregulation bill, reported receiving $1,250 from AT&T’s PAC in 2007, records show.

“I don’t know how much money I’ve gotten from them,” Rep. McCormick said Tuesday. It is “up to each individual legislator whether they let that kind of thing influence them. I would hope that nobody would. I certainly don’t. I don’t need the campaign money that bad, to be honest with you.”

Janelle Lawrence and her beloved pets enjoyed none of this AT&T largesse — just the literal sting of the results.

Share/Save

Comcast subscribers in cities across the country are getting as hot as the summer as they learn the cable company is jacking up prices again — for many the second time in a year.  This time, the rate hikes are blamed on the cost to deliver an expanded lineup of HD channels, increased programming costs, and new cable modems.  Yet on the eve of the European Union approving a proposed Comcast-NBC Universal merger, many Comcast cable customers are beginning to wonder if all of these rate hikes are going to pay for that deal.

Here is a sampling of press reports from across the country on the latest round of increases:

San Francisco Chronicle: Comcast Corp. said it is raising rates for California cable and Internet customers by an average of 3.8 percent starting Aug. 1. The average video customer will see their monthly bill increase by $2.49 from $60.76 to $63.25 a month. Internet service will also increase for the first time in five years from $44.72 to $46.67 a month, a $1.95 increase. Andrew Johnson, regional vice president for Comcast California, said the increase is necessary to pay for more programming choices, new features, faster Internet speeds and improvements to customer service.  The last rate increase came October 15, 2009 when rates went up just over 1 percent.

The Record (Stockton, Calif.): For the second time in less than 10 months, Comcast Corp. customers in San Joaquin County face price increases for cable television service and, for the first time in five years a boost in charges for a cable Internet connection, the company announced recently. Customers in Stockton, Manteca, Lathrop and San Joaquin County served by Comcast will see an increase of nearly 4 percent in their cable bills beginning Sept. 1. Notices began going out to subscribers late last week. Other Northern California areas served by the cable giant will see prices change Aug. 1.

“They’ve got you tied in,” said Art Hickey of Stockton, who has five television sets in his home and subscribes to the highest tier of digital service. “They tease you with those six-month deals and 12-month deals and they don’t say what it’s going to be after that. People buy into it and then they’re just stuck with it,” he said.

So why not try another source of television?

“I haven’t compared, and I don’t want to because it’s a nuisance,” Hickey said.

The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, Wash.): Most of Spokane’s Comcast subscribers will see price increases in their Internet and video services effective in August, the cable company announced. Comcast’s last price increase went into effect October 2009. According to Comcast spokesman Walter Neary, most Spokane cable television subscribers will see an average monthly increase of about $3.21, or 4.9 percent. Customers who subscribe to Limited Basic, the least expensive package of Comcast TV channels, will have no increase in their monthly bill. Limited Basic includes all over-the-air local stations and the public, education and government channels.

Customers who pay for Comcast cable Internet will see two increases – a modem rental fee that will rise to $7 from $5 per month, and a $3 hike for monthly Web service. Subscribers who bundle Internet with either Comcast voice or TV service won’t pay the $3 hike, but will still see the modem fee increase, Neary said. Subscribers can eliminate the modem fee by buying their own modem. The Internet price hike reflects increased investment by Comcast in additional security services for subscribers and technology upgrades, Neary said. Another price increase, not reflected in Comcast’s stated 4.9 percent average monthly hike, is a $2 hike in the “HD technology fee.” TV subscribers who see HD Comcast channels will pay $8 per month for that technology fee, said Neary.

York Daily Record (York, Penn.): Comcast Cable is about three weeks away from putting into effect its second price increase in less than one year. On Aug. 1, the company will boost the average York County customer’s bill by roughly 3.5 percent, said Bob Grove , a spokesman for Comcast Cable’s Keystone Region. That increase is on top of a 1.9 percent price hike for the average Comcast customer that took effect Nov.1. The current rate increase is rooted in Comcast’s company-wide digital upgrade that calls for a jump in the number of high-definition channels to climb from 50 to 100, Grove said. Also, Comcast’s on-demand video menu will increase from 18,000 choices, 4,000 of which are HD, to 20,000 selections with 5,000 of those coming in as high-definition, he said.

“We’ve continually invested in next-generation technology to support new product features, more programming choices and improvements to customer service,” according to a statement released by Comcast concerning the increase. However, for those currently enrolled in a Comcast promotion, your bill will remain unchanged until that particular deal ends, Grove said. “Nearly half of all Comcast customers are on some kind of promotion,” he said.

Public Opinion (Chambersburg, Penn.): Many Comcast customers will see an increase in their monthly bills starting next month. The average customer bill in the Chambersburg area will increase by about 3.5 percent, according to a company spokesperson. The new rates take effect Aug. 1. A customer with standard cable or digital starter service will now pay $63.50 a month, or $3.50 more. Expanded basic, digital preferred, digital premier and total premium services are also increasing by $3.50 a month. Limited basic service, digital economy and family tier services are not affected. Economy, Performance and Blast! tiers of high-speed Internet will be increasing $2 a month. Monthly prices for the Ultra and Extreme 50 tiers will not change. Digital voice services will also cost $1.95 more a month.

Centre Daily Times (State College, Penn.): Comcast this week started sending out another round of mailings notifying customers of another change. But this time around the mailing isn’t warning of an impending digital conversion, or announcing the addition of more high definition television channels. This time around, it’s a notification of a rate increase. Effective Aug. 1, the average price for Comcast in the State College area will go up about 3.5 percent.

The company cited technology and infrastructure investments when contacted for comment. “These investments make it possible to deliver continued innovations, such as more HD and On Demand choices, converged services, faster Internet speeds, multi-platform content and new services consumers want and value,” said Bob Grove, director of public relations for the Keystone region of Comcast. Grove said the recent digital conversion by the company was one of the cost factors, as well as other programs that have included increasing Internet speeds for customers in the area. He noted that bills for customers whose service operates under one of the company’s promotions will not be affected until the promotion period expires.

Share/Save

A major owner of apartment complexes in 13 states in the southeast and south-central United States has a deal for you, whether you like it or not.

Mid America Apartment Communities, which maintains a portfolio of 42,252 apartments, is requiring its residents to purchase cable television from providers like Comcast or they’ll find the $40 month cable fee tacked on their rent, water, or refuse collection bill.  They call it a wonderful savings opportunity for their residents.  But a Stop the Cap! investigation followed the money and discovered the real benefits are in kickbacks paid to Mid America by participating cable companies.

Mid America is extending the policy to all of its apartment complexes over the coming months, notifying residents about its new CableSaver program through flyers.  Enrollment in the program is automatic for new residents, and will take effect for existing residents upon the renewal of their annual lease agreement.

Known as “bulk buying,” apartment complexes can receive preferential discounts for their residents if they commit to mandatory cable service for each apartment.  In Chattanooga, residents of Mid America’s Hamilton Pointe, Hidden Creek, Steeplechase, and Windridge Apartments were notified this month they’ll be compelled to spend $40 a month for Comcast’s Digital Starter Package.

Mid America owns apartment complexes in 13 states. All of them will find the CableSaver program coming their way sooner or later.

The mandating of cable service is not going down well with every resident, particularly those who purchased satellite TV equipment or who have service with other providers like AT&T’s U-verse or Verizon FiOS.  While Mid America isn’t banning competing cable services from serving its complexes, residents will still be forced to pay for cable service in addition to whatever their current provider charges.

Lydia Ramirez of Chattanooga lives in a Mid America Apartment Communities property.  She told WDEF-TV News, ”We told them that we are not interested in this but they say it’s mandatory. And so here we are.”

Ramirez just had Dish Network installed but says she’s been told she will have to pay for Comcast cable, too, if she renews her lease.  She said, ”We don’t want Comcast and we feel that should be our choice instead of them making it mandatory.”

Instead of being allowed to choose satellite or other cable providers, Ramirez says being forced to go with Comcast is kind of like being told you can only grocery shop at Food Lion.  Ramirez adds, “I don’t see how they can do that. I think we as tenants have an option to choose what cable company we want to go with.”

Some renters in Houston, Texas have been there and done that.  Late last year, KPRC-TV reported residents at The Reserve at Woodwind Lakes got a deal they couldn’t refuse.  A letter from the front office promoted an exciting new offer: It reads the complex “has teamed up with a cable company to bring you an exclusive offer that will allow you to enjoy expanded basic service at a greatly reduced rate.”  Sounds great until you get to the second line of the letter, which uses language only a credit card company could love:

“If you have not yet chosen to opt in, the reduced rate of $40 will be added to your water and trash bill once your renewal takes effect.”

Text of a flyer delivered to Houston-area renters at a Mid America complex

In other words, your “choice” to “opt in” is neither.

Mid America is selling this mandatory cable program as a real money-saver.  But we discovered it’s actually a real moneymaker for Mid America, who earns compensation from kickbacks paid by cable companies in return for cramming cable service down renters’ throats.

Kickbacks for cable is nothing new in the rental business.  Complex owners used to routinely make exclusive deals with providers to deliver service to residents, often through contracts that kept competitors out.  But a 2007 FCC ruling made such exclusive arrangements illegal.  A Federal Court of Appeals agreed: cable companies cannot have exclusive rights to provide service in apartment buildings that they wire.  But complex owners and cable operators discovered an enormous loophole — complex owners can force residents to pay mandatory cable fees as part of their rent so long as they did not bar would-be competitors from also providing service.  But given that renters would already be paying for service, it is unlikely they’d choose another and pay double or more for duplicated cable service.

Cable companies like Comcast enter into these agreements because they provide guaranteed revenue for minimal cost, thanks to “install it once” cable wiring and bulk billing.  Since many renters are also young — renting their first apartment after leaving home — establishing a relationship with those customers may make them customers for life.  Cable companies can also use the program as an opportunity to sell add-on services to renters, such as broadband, digital phone, and premium channel packages.

But why would a company like Mid America want to alienate at least some of their renters who do not want to be forced to pay for cable service?  The answer is easily found in Mid America’s publicly disclosed financial reports — Mid America makes a healthy profit from the CableSaver program.

Mid America owns apartment complexes in these states

Mid America’s quarterly 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission shows the company is earning so much money from cable companies like Comcast, it has broken the revenue out into a new section of its financial report.

In the first quarter of 2010, as Mid America introduced its CableSaver program, the company reported earning $1.3 million dollars in revenue from cable kickbacks.  The company tells investors its new mandatory cable program will become an important source of new revenue for the complex owner:

“We continue to develop improved products, operating systems and procedures that enable us to capture more revenues. The continued roll-out of ancillary services (such as re-selling cable television), improved collections, and utility reimbursements enable us to capture increased revenue dollars.”

It’s all a part of a profit-making strategy to increase shareholder value and stick residents with increasing costs to deliver fatter profits.  Renters might be interested to know the company has more in store for them in the coming months:

Our goal is to maximize our return on investment collectively and in each apartment community by increasing revenues, tightly controlling operating expenses, maintaining high occupancy levels and reinvesting as appropriate. The steps taken to meet these objectives include:

• [...] developing new ancillary income programs aimed at offering new services to residents, including telephone, cable, and internet access, on which we generate revenue;
• implementing programs to control expenses through investment in cost-saving initiatives, including measuring and passing on to residents the cost of various expenses, including water and other utility costs.

Unfortunately for residents, short of moving, there is no escaping these fees. Some residents have contacted their member of Congress or the FCC to complain about the loophole that allows a complex owner to charge for cable service residents don’t always want. Another way to send a message is to tell Mid America you will not do business with them until they make the CableSaver program truly optional. If the company stands to lose more money than it receives from cable company kickbacks, it may choose to amend its policies.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We have four reports on this story, courtesy of WDEF-TV Chattanooga, Tenn., and KPRC-TV in Houston, Texas  (10 minutes):

1. The FCC bans exclusive cable contracts forcing renters to buy service from one provider.  (KPRC-TV 10/31/2007)
2. Can Complex Choose Your Cable Company? In Houston, Mid America Forcing Renters to Buy Comcast Cable.  (KPRC-TV 1/7/2010)
3. Four Chattanooga Area Apartment Complexes Make Comcast Cable Mandatory for Renters. (WDEF-TV 7/12/2010)
4. AT&T U-verse Arrives in Chattanooga (But Won’t Be Too Attractive to Mid America Residents). (WDEF-TV 4/30/2010)

Share/Save

Earthlink, which depends on phone and cable companies to deliver its broadband service, has imposed a monthly usage limit of 250 gigabytes on its customers obtaining service from Comcast.

Customers began receiving postcards in May notifying them about the change in service terms which took effect July 1st.  Earthlink blamed the usage limits solely on Comcast, noting they were dependent on other companies to provide the infrastructure necessary to reach customers:

Comcast and other cable providers provide portions of the network that EarthLink High Speed Cable service uses to deliver broadband Internet access. EarthLink provides the other portions of the network and services like Webmail and the myEarthLink Start Page®.  EarthLink works with its business partners, like Comcast, to manage the network infrastructure.  [...]Because Comcast is EarthLink’s business partner in providing the EarthLink Powered by Comcast Service, EarthLink is working closely with Comcast in implementing this Usage Cap.

Internet providers routinely sell the benefits of their broadband accounts to better accomplish data-heavy activities like online video using their service, even though in some cases all of that "heavy use" is being used as an excuse to implement usage limits on customers.

In reality, Earthlink offers little more than a handful of its own services to customers.  Most of its network connectivity, billing, and other services are handled by the providing cable or phone company.  Customer support with many technical issues is handled by Earthlink’s own off-shore technical support staff.

Still, Earthlink had offered an alternative to those threatened with Internet Overcharging schemes by Time Warner Cable and Comcast because the company had not adopted those usage limits until Comcast insisted they follow suit.  Presumably with this precedent in place, any other Overcharging schemes imposed by these providers would also impact their respective Earthlink customers.

For those violating the usage limits, enforcement won’t come from Earthlink.  Instead, the provider warns, Comcast will be the entity that comes down on your head.

For now, Earthlink customers will have to call the company (888-327-8454) to determine how much data they’ve used during the month as the Comcast data usage meter is apparently only for Comcast customers.

Share/Save

I’d like to hear your impressions of Clear’s 4G wireless broadband service, which is also known as Road Runner Mobile in Time Warner Cable territories or Comcast High Speed 2Go where Comcast provides cable service.

I am specifically looking for speed results, coverage impressions — whether the coverage maps reflect reality or not, and what type of wireless modem you’ve chosen with the service.  Also, customer service impressions are welcomed.  Feel free to leave your comments in our comment section or use the Contact Us link above if you’d prefer to remain anonymous.  Please remember to include your city and state.

YouTube is littered with negative reviews and complaints about the service, but I’d like to hear from our readers.

Here is one annoyed customer who literally attached her USB modem to a broom handle and mounted it halfway up the side of her home and still could not connect. (Warning: Profanity) (3 minutes)

Share/Save

Comcast spent $3.1 million dollars of its subscribers’ money in the first three months of 2010 lobbying elected officials to approve its proposed merger with NBC-Universal and putting a stop to Net Neutrality proposals, according to disclosure statements files in the House clerk’s office.

Comcast has spent over $10 million dollars a year trying to keep broadband reform, ownership limits, and oversight regulators at bay.  Most recently, it is dedicating considerable time and resources lobbying elected officials, with campaign contributions in hand, to get federal approval for its proposed 51 percent ownership stake in NBC-Universal, making the nation’s largest cable operator also the owner of a two major television networks, and a studio that produces movies and television shows.

Share/Save

Walt Mossberg (left) discusses the current state of American broadband with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski (right)

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowki told attendees at the D: All Things Digital conference America scores dead last in a study measuring the rate of change in broadband innovation.  American broadband is stuck in neutral while every other ranked nation is moving forward faster in understanding the importance of deploying fast, reliable, and universal broadband.  Genachowski directly ties broadband to improving local economies, propelling growth in jobs, and improving education and health care.

Unfortunately the American duopoly most Americans cope with maintains a stranglehold on efforts to bring America literally up to speed with competing nations.  Worse, there is no end in sight as long as America relies entirely on incumbent providers to get the job done.

Americans pay some of the highest prices in the world for mediocre broadband, and it’s only getting worse with the introduction of usage limiting schemes like data caps and so-called consumption billing.

Genachowski is attempting to facilitate improved broadband across the United States, but is hampered by private industry undermining the FCC’s authority to help push improvements forward.  Recent industry-driven court challenges to the FCC’s authority have led to the agency seeking a different path to regain its regulatory footing.

The FCC chairman sees the biggest challenges coming in wireless broadband, where a spectrum shortage is limiting potential capacity and available bandwidth.  Genachowski seeks an accommodation with the nation’s television stations to relinquish UHF spectrum where possible to bolster wireless networks.

Conference host Walt Mossberg challenged Genachowski on why more isn’t getting done and why accepting the current state of the marketplace is acceptable.  He also criticized providers for charging high prices for slow service and attacked Comcast for its set top box, claiming if there was an open market for these things, no one would buy it, that it would be the worst thing on the shelf.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Excerpts from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s visit with Walt Mossberg at the June 2nd D: All Things Digital conference.  (6 minutes)

Share/Save

Caswell County, North Carolina

A new bill from Rep. Bill Faison (D-Orange, Caswell) would offer one North Carolina county the chance to build its own municipally-owned cable and broadband provider to deliver service to places other providers refuse to go.

H2067, “An Act to Allow Caswell County to Provide Internet Services, An Authorized Purpose Under Cable Television,” would authorize Caswell County to build its own municipal broadband system by adding cable television systems to a list of defined public enterprises.  That opens the door to selling bonds to raise private funds for system construction.

Faison told us that a 2005 ruling in the BellSouth (today AT&T) v. Laurinburg case, a state appeals court ruled that communities had the right to build systems to deliver broadband service to their residents.  He told IndyWeek there are many areas in his district and beyond that have been bypassed by cable and DSL service providers, with little hope in sight that many of the residents he represents would ever see anything beyond dial-up.

In making his case for the bill, Faison cited as an example electrical co-ops across the state that brought basic utilities services to under-served towns. “High speed internet is just as important today as electricity was in another era as a basic service,” said Faison, a proponent of municipal broadband.

“We need to supply to every one. Where AT&T will go and provide at a reasonable cost, I am happy to let them do it—but where they won’t go, someone must step up and bring that service to those people,” he added.

Faison

We had a few moments to talk to Rep. Faison about his bill and its timely introduction during the ongoing heated debate over S1209, a poison pill bill that would stop municipal broadband projects in the state.

He told us Caswell County officials appealed to him as their State Legislator to introduce the bill so they could move forward on their project, and H2067 concisely delivers within the parameters of the 2005 court case.

It will be interesting to watch progress on Faison’s H2067 in contrast to the anti-consumer S1209, introduced by Sen. David Hoyle (D-Gaston).  The only downside to Faison’s legislation is that it is limited to Caswell County.  But Faison also shows the way forward for other legislators to introduce similar bills to authorize projects in the areas of the state they represent.

For Caswell County residents, it means the potential to finally get quality broadband service after years of broken promises from incumbent providers.  Comcast of Danville, Virginia provides limited service, mostly in parts of Yanceyville, the county seat.  AT&T offers limited DSL service, but not to several areas of the county.  Those unlucky enough to be bypassed still rely mostly on dial-up.

Rep. Faison deserves your support for being a legislator that truly represents his constituents, and his actions illustrate he thinks of them first.  Please take a moment to write or call to thank him for his vision on this important issue and his support for getting the job done.

Rep. Bill Faison — Bill.Faison@ncleg.net — (919) 715-3019

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here is a senior citizen and a librarian in Caswell County, trying to live life without acceptable broadband.  These are real people with real stories to share. Broadband is not a luxury for these residents.  (4 minutes)

Share/Save

Click here to view the embedded video.

Congress doesn’t seem to know right from wrong, but we do.

It’s not right when big insurance companies write health care laws when millions can’t afford to see a doctor.

It’s not right when big oil companies write energy laws as gas prices skyrocket.

It’s not right when Congress passes trade bills that send our jobs overseas.

Congress won’t change until we change the people we’re sending to Washington.

–Rep. Heath Shuler’s 2006 campaign commercial

That was less than four years ago.  Apparently these days Rep. Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) believes it -is- right for large telecommunications companies to censor online content, slow down Internet services they don’t want you to use, and allow the phone and cable industry to control broadband policies in this country.

Shuler’s abandonment of his mountain values was made easier with $23,000 in campaign contributions from a grateful industry.

Shuler

When those telecom checks cleared the bank, Shuler went to work for big telecom companies, becoming a leading opponent of consumer-friendly Net Neutrality.

For his supporters who once had high hopes for the Democratic congressman first elected in 2006, it’s been one disappointment after another.

Last fall, Shuler was a co-signer of a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski opposing Net Neutrality.  To reiterate the point, many of the same co-signers of last fall’s letter were back on board with a second letter sent last month.

The latest letter was a godsend to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and other Net Neutrality opponents who are using it to suggest there is considerable bipartisan opposition to broadband reform.

Many of his constituents are not impressed with Shuler’s legislative record these days.  One of them is Dave Houck:

I have long since had it with Mr. Shuler.  I admit it, I have no more patience for him.

[...]

I campaigned for you, and phone banked for you, and made cash contributions.  Today I find out that you are against net neutrality, that you signed a letter to the FCC Chairman supporting AT&T and other large corporations — choosing corporations over the people.

In 2010 I will be voting for anybody who runs against you, Democrat or Republican, as you have consistently demonstrated in the three years you have been in Congress that you are quite simply not up to the job of representing the people of Western North Carolina.  You and the “Blue Dog Coalition” are surrogates for corporate interests; you do not have the interests of the people of North Carolina at heart.  Or at least that’s the message you are sending to me.

I’m just fed up.

North Carolina's 11th District is currently served by Rep. Heath Shuler

Similar sentiments from upset residents in his district are voiced all over Shuler’s Facebook page.  Why not add yours?

Then give his office a call or drop him an e-mail.

Ask Rep. Shuler how standing with big phone and cable companies against consumer broadband protection could ever represent western North Carolina mountain values.

Tell him trusting AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable with our broadband future is like trusting BP to protect the Gulf Coast.

Let him know you were disappointed with his decision to sign the first letter opposing Net Neutrality last fall, but now you are simply appalled he’s done it again.

It’s not right when big phone and cable companies have the power to write their own legislation and stop pro-consumer protections like Net Neutrality.  Where is the Rep. Shuler who campaigned on doing the right thing in 2006?

If Shuler won’t change his mind on an issue as important as this, perhaps we need to take his own advice and change the person the 11th district sends to Congress.

Share/Save

Los Angeles County's cable franchise map dating back to 2005 shows the county divided between Adelphia, Comcast, and Time Warner. Today, Time Warner Cable controls most of the county's cable service but still relies on some legacy equipment in place from the days of Adelphia and Comcast. Calabasas was formerly served by Adelphia. (click to enlarge map)

Some southern California residents continue to express anger and frustration at some poor business and customer service practices provided by Charter Cable and Time Warner Cable, both of which provide service in the community of Calabasas.

Unfortunately, city officials had their hands tied in resolving consumer complaints because California is one of several states that abandoned local cable franchising in favor of less accountable statewide cable franchises that carry few terms and conditions that protect California consumers.

The Calabasas Communications and Technology Commission dealt with several complaints raised by residents during its May meeting, often echoed by the commissioners themselves.

From the Calabasas Patch:

Resident Alvin Lindenauer spoke about his dissatisfaction with Charter.

“Charter has a long history of being less than competent in providing cable service,” he said.

Lindenauer’s complaints with Charter included misleading advertising, poor customer service and, most prominent, “improper billing practices.”

He said he received several erroneous notices of past due payments that resulted in forced late fees.

Lindenauer referred to Charter as “corrupt and deceptive” in its business practices.

He proposed that the commission hold Charter Cable more accountable for its service and reduce the city’s long-term contract with the company.

Charter Cable officials denied the company was either corrupt or deceptive, stating the company will work to address any customer service or billing complaints.

Cable commissions like those in Calabasas actually hold almost no power over incumbent cable or competing phone company video offerings.  The federal government deregulated the vast majority of cable operations as part of the 1996 Communications Act.  While many municipalities have cable boards or commissions, most are little more than venting stations for frustrated residents who feel their local provider is unresponsive.  Sometimes appeals like those by Lindenauer can get the attention of company executives and “guilt them” into intervening with intransigent customer service agents, especially when the media is watching.

Calabasas residents were also upset with Time Warner Cable — primarily because of its set-top boxes and a recent “upgrade” to its program guide software.

Customers are upset with the company’s legacy Motorola cable boxes still used on the part of the system originally owned by Adelphia.  Some residents inquired about why Time Warner doesn’t use the “more reliable” Scientific-Atlanta converters used in other parts of Los Angeles county.

Calabasas residents also complained Time Warner’s cable signals are intermittently plagued by “tiling,” an irritating digital artifact that appears like a series of small boxes that appear frozen or moving across a digital picture.  Company officials responded that the problems are in software, not in the set-top boxes, and they would work on them.

Time Warner’s Los Angeles county cable system is actually configured of several different cable systems acquired from Comcast and bankrupt Adelphia Cable a few years ago.  Those systems still have important differences in technology and channel lineups.  Despite those differences, Time Warner Cable collectively controls most of Los Angeles county’s cable systems.  Charter has most of the rest.

[You can watch the commission's proceedings from their video archive.  Start watching at 17:35 to view Mr. Lindenauer's complaint and follow-up.]

Share/Save

The Denver Post this morning did a major disservice to its readers in a heavily slanted editorial objecting to the reclassification of broadband service to restore the FCC’s traditional oversight authority over Internet providers.

In their piece For Web and Broadband Regulation, Less is More, the editors at the Post delivered less facts and more industry talking points.  It even mislead readers by quoting from two Republican FCC commissioners, completely ignoring the Democratic majority that would likely prevail in a vote on the matter.

The editorial forgets to mention why this debate is taking place.  Readers should have been made aware the broadband industry the Post celebrates as successful under a light touch regulatory philosophy effectively-won total deregulation in a game changing court decision that stripped the FCC’s authority to provide checks and balances over today’s duopoly broadband market.

Ed Whitacre, AT&T

Comcast sued after the FCC punished the company for deliberately interfering with customers’ broadband speeds for certain Internet applications (despite Comcast’s initial denials).  The Post characterizes such behavior on the part of the nation’s largest cable company as “only a couple documented issues, which were quickly resolved.”  How does the Post think these were resolved?  The FCC used the authority it now no longer has to pressure Comcast to stop.  What stops the next “documented issue?”

AT&T’s former chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre gave Americans plenty to worry about in 2005 when the nation’s largest phone company infamously declared that popular web sites should not be expected to use AT&T’s “pipes for free.”  That attitude is still being defended today by millions of dollars in lobbying, fake grassroots astroturf campaigns, and industry bought-and-paid-for “research studies.”  Why spend all that money on a “resolved” issue?

But the most offensive part of the Post‘s piece was a completely dishonest attempt by the editors to imply there is widespread bipartisan opposition to common sense broadband regulation like Net Neutrality.

We had the opportunity Wednesday to talk with two FCC commissioners about the dual proposals for reform. They voiced concerns about an FCC move to redefine broadband networks as highly regulated telecommunications services.

Meredith Attwell Baker, who was nominated to the commission by President Obama, called the reclassification dangerous, adding it was a “brand new model.” FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell, nominated by President George W. Bush, worried about the unintended consequences that might come out of an additional layer of regulation.

On the right side of the Commission, the two Republican members Meredith Attwell Baker, a former telecom industry lobbyist and Robert M. McDowell.

How clever of the Denver Post to dangle the implication that Baker, being appointed by Obama, is somehow an ally.  She is not.  The Post only spoke with the two Republican minority commissioners for its editorial.  Atwell was appointed by Obama under long-standing FCC rules which require that only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party.  There is no practical difference between Atwell and McDowell.  Why didn’t the newspaper speak to at least one of the majority Democrats on the Commission, all of which are expected to support Chairman Genachowski?  Because that would have dramatically weakened the provider’s editor’s arguments and talking points.

Of course, there is nothing “brand new” about Title II authority.  It has been used successfully to oversee today’s increasingly deregulated landline marketplace to protect rural Americans who don’t have competitive choices should their phone company provide abysmal service.  What was new was the defective mechanism used by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, under the Bush Administration, to oversee broadband using what the courts determined was phantom authority.

There is nothing about those regulations “ill-suited” to restoring the FCC’s lost authority, which is the ultimate game plan here.  Providers have fed talking points, which editors at the Denver Post apparently devoured, suggesting everything from unintended consequences to the sky falling down should the FCC be able to implement its National Broadband Plan on its terms.  Providers want the power to control and implement broadband deployment on their terms — the same ones that have left millions without any real broadband options at all, and the rest of us with slow service at high prices.

We hope that process ends with succinct and limited rules that apply to broadband providers, but leave them relatively unfettered so the Internet continues to be a place for entrepreneurs, thinkers and dreamers to pursue their ideas.

These are all noble goals, but they cannot be achieved if a handful of giant broadband providers start extorting fees from content producers and engaging in other abusive behaviors.  The Post seems to think America is a world-leader in broadband, yet we are not.  This country is now handily beaten by several Asian nations and even cities within the former Soviet Union and its east European bloc.  Just this week Ookla released a speed index report that tells the truth about America’s broadband experience:

Here are the top 10 U.S. cities and their corresponding 30-day average speeds:

1. San Jose, Calif. 15.02 Mbps
2. Saint Paul, Minn. 14.53 Mbps
3. Pittsburgh, Pa. 14.18 Mbps
4. Oklahoma City, Okla. 12.12 Mbps
5. Brooklyn, N.Y. 12.10 Mbps
6. Tampa, Fla. 12.05 Mbps
7. Bronx, N.Y. 12.01 Mbps
8. New York, N.Y. 11.85 Mbps
9. Denver, Colo. 11.68 Mbps
10. Sacramento, Calif. 11.34 Mbps

The global top 10:

1. Seoul, South Korea 34.49 Mbps
2. Riga, Latvia 27.88 Mbps
3. Hamburg, Germany 26.85 Mbps
4. Chisinau, Republic of Moldova 24.31 Mbps
5. Helsinki, Finland 20.58 Mbps Mbps
6. Stockholm, Sweden 19.97 Mbps
7. Bucharest, Romania 19.68 Mbps
8. Sofia, Bulgaria 18.99 Mbps
9. Kharkov, Ukraine 18.15 Mbps
10. Kaunas, Lithuania 17.46 Mbps

With evidence like this, the editors at the Post need to get out from behind those telecom talking points and visit today’s real broadband world.

Share/Save

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY)

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-New York) has begun to worry broadband consumers in his western and central New York district.

In April 2009, when Time Warner Cable’s announced Internet Overcharging experiment was upsetting customers in Rochester, Maffei claimed he was concerned about limiting broadband usage for customers in the area.  But when former Rep. Eric Massa introduced legislation to ban unjustified usage caps and consumption billing, Maffei told his constituents he wasn’t interested in Massa’s approach:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2902, the Broadband Internet Fairness Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act was introduced by Representative Eric Massa (NY-29) on June 16, 2009, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill would authorize the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review volume usage service plans of major broadband internet service providers to ensure that such plans are fairly based on cost.

When Time Warner Cable announced in April that Rochester would be used as a test market for charging Internet users based upon consumption usage, I, along with Representative Massa, opposed this policy. We helped persuade Time Warner to abandon the plan in the area. At that time, Representative Massa also introduced the Broadband Internet Fairness Act.

Other utilities, like water or electricity, charge customers based on usage, but Internet users have traditionally been charged a flat fee for unlimited access to the web. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act would require Internet Service Providers that want to implement usage-based pricing plans to go through several traditional regulatory hurdles. While I share many of the goals of Representative Massa’s legislation, I do not believe passing this stand-alone bill is the right approach at this time.

Of course broadband is nothing like water or electric utilities.  In fact, Maffei’s inclusion of that reference is a classic talking point of the telecom industry.  Notice they, and Maffei, didn’t mention telephone service — the one utility that provides flat rate calling for most Americans.  It also happens to be the utility most comparable to broadband service!

New York's 25th Congressional District

But Maffei made a bad situation worse when he joined 72 other House Democrats co-signing a letter from Rep. Gene Green (D-AT&T), urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to fight a court decision overturning the agency’s ability to conduct broadband oversight.

The letter represented one giant talking point — the false premise that enforcing a fair, free, and open Internet with Net Neutrality would somehow stifle investment in broadband expansion.  Yet AT&T was required to honor the very same principles when it merged with SBC, and managed to remain a multi-billion dollar powerhouse well positioned to expand broadband service to additional customers in its ever-growing service areas.

The fact the broadband industry is a duopoly for most Americans — one that can threaten to pull back on service if it doesn’t get its way in Washington — is just one more reason the industry requires more oversight, not less.

Yet Rep. Maffei stood alone as the only member of the western New York Congressional delegation to sign his name to the agenda of big cable and phone companies.

Perhaps the congressman has forgotten these facts which trouble broadband consumers across western and central New York:

• Rochester, NY was the only city in the northeast where Time Warner sought to conduct an Internet Overcharging experiment, made possible because of limited competition in the Rochester market;
• Rochester’s other broadband provider, Frontier Communications, insists on a monthly usage allowance of just 5GB per month in its Acceptable Use Policy;
• Verizon FiOS has suspended expansion indefinitely and the service will never be available in most of the 585 area code where Frontier operates, and it will take years for most of the rest of his Syracuse district to see the service reach those areas;
• Time Warner Cable increased its broadband rates in 2010, as did Verizon;

Green’s letter dances around the real issue — telecommunications companies are spending millions to oppose pro-consumer reforms and stop a return of oversight authority the FCC lost after a recent court decision.  Without this authority, the FCC cannot implement the National Broadband Plan’s insistence that American providers not block or impede network traffic.  These Net Neutral policies preserve net freedom.  The FCC cannot even require that providers tell the truth about broadband speeds and include the company’s terms of service in plain English.

Western New York is a hotbed of consumer activism on broadband issues, particularly because we are actual victims of provider abuse.  No one knows more than we how critical 21st century broadband is to the transformation of this region’s perennially challenged economy.

Rep. Maffei needs a reminder this is a hot button issue for consumers from Irondequoit to Manlius.  Perhaps he just doesn’t fully understand what’s at stake here.  You need to remind him.

We’ve included a suggested letter you can use to help write your own.  For maximum effectiveness, include some of your own personal stories, challenges, and frustrations with your local broadband provider.  Feel free to share yours in the Comments section.

Dear Rep. Maffei:

I was extremely disappointed to discover you signed your name on a letter written by Rep. Gene Green urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to restore oversight authority over broadband.  While Rep. Green’s letter illustrates he’s mostly concerned about the well being of AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Comcast, as a consumer I am more concerned about the broadband duopoly that exists in Rochester & Syracuse.

If the FCC does not regain its ability to oversee broadband by reclassifying it under Title II — as a telecommunications service (which it very clearly is), the FCC can effectively do nothing to stop broadband provider abuses, such as Comcast’s notorious speed throttle on customers using certain Internet websites and services. It took an FCC investigation to finally get the cable company to admit the truth — it was interfering with customers’ broadband speeds.  The oversight power the agency had was just what was needed to convince Comcast to stop.

Unfortunately, a DC Circuit Court recently disagreed it had that authority and effectively stripped it away.  Chairman Genachowski is simply seeking a return to the status quo before that court decision was handed down.  He’s not asking to regulate broadband anything like telephone service.  In fact, he’s insisted on a “light touch.”  That’s better than today’s court-imposed total-hands-off reality.

By signing Rep. Green’s letter, you effectively tell us you don’t support Net Neutrality protections that guarantee providers cannot censor or impede web traffic.  You also do nothing to protect consumers from other provider abuses.  Considering what residents of Rochester went through last year fighting a Time Warner Cable scheme that would have tripled broadband prices for the same level of service, I’m shocked you of all people would be a supporter of big telecom’s agenda.

Telecom companies are claiming that if regulations enforcing Net Neutrality are enacted, investment will suffer and broadband expansion will be slowed.  Yet AT&T was required, as part of its merger with SBC, to respect Net Neutrality for several years.  The company flourished, broadband was offered to more customers than ever, and investors liked what they saw.

The record in western New York is clear — Time Warner Cable was willing to limit its customers access to broadband service, Frontier already does in its terms and conditions, and Verizon FiOS deployment has been suspended indefinitely.  For too many of us, there are too few choices.  In fact, the only thing we can be assured of is higher pricing and a strengthened duopoly.

I strongly urge you to remove your signature from Rep. Green’s letter and get on board with consumers like myself in your district who believe deregulation and oversight failures have given us nothing but nightmares — from Wall Street to BP’s oil spill.  Let’s not make another mistake in handing cable and phone companies unfettered permission to abuse their customers.

Please get back in touch with me as soon as possible on this important matter.

Rep. Dan Maffei told constituents he was concerned about Time Warner Cable’s Internet Overcharging scheme proposed in April 2009.  At a town hall meeting in Irondequoit, New York, he admitted Time Warner Cable held near-monopoly power over consumers in Rochester.  What changed his tune when he signed on to Rep. Gene Green’s anti-consumer letter to the FCC? (April 9, 2009 — 2 minutes)

Rep. Dan Maffei’s Contact Information

Washington, D.C. Office
1630 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3701
Fax: (202) 225-4042

Syracuse Office
P.O. Box 7306,
1340 Federal Building
Syracuse, NY 13261
Phone: (315) 423-5657
Fax: (315) 423-5669

Irondequoit/Rochester Office
1280 Titus Avenue
Rochester, NY 14617
Phone: (585) 336-7291
Fax: (585) 336-7274

[Update: 11:30pm EDT: Free Press reports Rep. Maffei accepted $29,000 in contributions from telecom companies, including Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T.]

Share/Save

Free Press is raising money to buy advertising to remind residents in cities where Comcast has a lock on cable service that it now wants to acquire NBC-Universal.

Comcast won The Consumerist’s 2010 “Worst Company in America” award for its poor service, beating Ticketmaster, AIG and Countrywide Home Loans.  Now that’s a tough neighborhood.

Free Press wants to remind consumers if things are this bad now, imagine what they’ll be like when America’s largest cable company also owns a major U.S. television network and studio.

For its troubles, Comcast gets a small sculpture that Consumerist describes as “the Golden Poo” and the dubious honor of being mentioned in stories like this, notes The Washington Post.

Other contenders for the award included Bank of America and Cash4Gold.  They should have probably also included Chase Bank, which has been bloodsucking Americans since the days of the railroad robber barons.

Share/Save

Senator Hoyle's legislation lays the foundation for cable and phone companies to spend hundreds of thousands of subscriber dollars to mail smear campaign pieces like this one from Comcast.

(This piece is written by Jay Ovittore and Phillip Dampier.)

The good news is that all the pushback on an all-out-moratorium on municipal broadband was successful and Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston) withdrew the idea.  The bad news is he had an even worse idea to replace it.

Hoyle Wednesday unveiled a new draft bill that hopelessly ties up municipal broadband projects into knots of red tape that, if passed into law, will bury municipal broadband projects in North Carolina indefinitely.

Hoyle sprung his telecom-industry-friendly legislation on the public after getting plenty of input and encouragement from the state’s cable and phone companies who already knew what was in it because they helped craft it.

For a retiring state senator who doesn’t have to worry about the next election, what better parting gift can you give to your friends in the cable and phone industry than a bill that preserves the comfortable duopoly they’ve  enjoyed for years.

Hoyle and those supporting the legislation will argue their bill doesn’t ban municipal broadband — it simply places conditions on such projects before they can go forward.  But what are those conditions?

Section One of the draft bill requires local governments to get funding for “external communications services” (ie. municipal broadband) by way of a General Obligation Bond (a GO Bond).  In North Carolina, that requires a taxpayer-funded referendum to be held for public input at the next election.

On the surface, getting public approval for municipal broadband isn’t a bad idea — no local government official expecting to win re-election would ever proceed on such projects without voter support.  But this requirement also gives plenty of advance notice to incumbent providers that a new player could be invading their turf.

We know what that means.  A well-funded opposition campaign to demagogue the project.  Local cable companies can insert an unlimited number of free ads during every advertising break to slam the proposal.  Phone companies can release a blizzard of opposition mailers to convince consumers it’s as scary as Halloween — all tricks and no treats.

How can a local city or county government respond to the misinformation barrage?  They can’t.  Public officials can’t spend taxpayer dollars to promote such projects or refute industry propaganda.  They can’t even financially assist a citizen-run campaign.

That’s a fight with ground rules only Don King could love.

In the end, that leaves ordinary citizens of North Carolina facing down a multi-billion dollar statewide consortium of telecommunications interests hellbent on preserving and protecting the status qu0.

The earlier-discussed moratorium was a brick wall against municipal broadband.  Hoyle’s bill is the Great Wall of China with the logos of AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and CenturyLink plastered all over it.

But wait, there’s more.  To deal with municipal broadband projects that got an initial green light to dare to interfere with the phone and cable industries’ grand business plans, another provision provides a near endless supply additional referendums to get rid of the projects.  Hoyle’s bill actually demands more votes should existing systems need:

• refinancing to reduce the interest rate or restructure existing debt;
• to make repairs to the system’s “fixtures;” and/or
• to upgrade the system to meet subscribers’ needs.

Ponder the insanity:

• The legislation could be interpreted to demand a public referendum if your service goes out.  Can you wait until the next election to get back your cable service?
• If a municipal broadband fiber cable falls in your backyard, does it make a sound?  It won’t, but you will when you learn that cable might not be reattached to the pole until the whole town holds a referendum about it;
• Would you be upset if your local municipal provider could refinance its debt at a much lower interest rate, letting them cut their prices, but they can’t before the next election?
• While cable and phone companies refuse to upgrade their service to levels that would have made such municipal alternatives unnecessary, they also want to make certain the one provider that did meet your needs can’t upgrade… without a public vote.

These systems are not constructed with public tax dollars, but Senator Hoyle wants every citizen in a community, subscriber or not, to ponder the future of a local municipal broadband provider.  It’s like giving AT&T veto power over Time Warner Cable’s channel lineup.  Guess who has to pay for these constant referendums?  Taxpayers.  So while Senator Hoyle complains municipal broadband costs the state tax revenue, his legislation guarantees increased government spending on pointless referendums.  That’s logic only a politician working for the interests of big cable can appreciate.

For the cable and phone companies, and their good friends in the North Carolina legislature, this is their idea of a level playing field.  In reality it’s about as level as a downhill ski run.

Let’s extend that “fairness” out to incumbent cable and phone companies and consider whether you got a vote on:

• Whether or not the cable and phone companies got to put their wires on phone poles plunked down in front of your house;
• Whether or not you wanted either company to dig up your yard to bury their wiring;
• Whether you wanted that giant metal refrigerator-sized metal box installed on your street, in your yard, or on the phone pole you see from your window every day;
• Whether or not you want the cable company to repair Mrs. Jenkins’ problems with HBO up the street whenever it rains or replace the cable the squirrels chewed up;
• What channels and services you want to pay for, which ones you do not, and at what price you need to pay your local phone or cable company.
• What cable or phone company gets to provide service in your community.

Apparently the fairness concept only applies to potential new competitors, not the existing providers.

Let’s also consider the cable television industry didn’t just magically bloom into a multi-billion dollar business without government help.  In the early days of cable television, investors were assured that they were financing a monopoly provider, guaranteed through a franchise agreement process that gave newly built cable companies exclusivity to help repay construction costs.  Franchise wars broke out between 1978 and 1984 as competing companies promised the moon with state-of-the-art two-way cable systems with the capacity to offer 70 or more channels.  The players then included Time’s American Television and Communications Corporation, Warner’s Amex, and Telecommunications, Inc. (TCI).  ATC and Amex would later evolve into Time Warner Cable and TCI became AT&T Cable before being sold to Comcast.  Communities seeking cable television for their residents would later learn a lot of these promises made were promises broken – reneged on by large cable companies with few, if any consequences.

During the Reagan Administration, then-FCC Chairman Mark Fowler bestowed additional deregulation benefits on the cable industry.  The Museum of Broadcast Communications explains:

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 addressed the two issues that still hindered cable television’s growth and profitability: rate regulation and the relative uncertainty surrounding franchise renewals. Largely the result of extensive negotiation and compromise between the cable industry’s national organization, the National Cable Television Association, and the League of Cities representing municipalities franchising cable systems, the act provided substantial comfort to the cable industry’s future.

Its major provisions created a standard procedure for renewing franchises that gave operators relatively certain renewal, and it deregulated rates so that operators could charge what they wanted for different service tiers as long as there was “effective competition” to the service. This was defined as the presence of three or more over-the-air signals, a very easy standard that over 90% of all cable markets could meet. The act also allowed cities to receive up to 5% of the operator’s revenues in an annual franchise fee and made some minor concessions in mandating “leased access” channels to be available to groups desiring to “speak” via cable television.

Additional reforms guaranteed pole attachment rights to the cable industry so they could wire and service their network unencumbered by utility company interference or high pole attachment fees.  Cable consolidation allowed formerly mom and pop cable systems to become part of a cable industry where just a handful of cable companies provide service to the majority of cable households.  Countless millions are spent each year by the industry to lobby state and federal governments to keep the party going without regulatory interference, suggesting competiti0n alone is the only regulation required.

Except when a new competitor enters the market, of course.  Fearing competition from municipal providers who will force cable and phone companies to charge reasonable rates and upgrade service, the best possible solution is to find a way to ban such projects.

Forcing regular referendums and the complexities and expenses associated with them guarantees no community in North Carolina would ever bother with the onerous requirements to launch municipal broadband projects.

That’s not just Jay and I saying that.  What Hoyle has proposed hardly breaks new ground.  It’s the same dog and pony show the industry has brought to other states to stop competition and keep prices high and service slow.

So let’s learn from the painful experiences of others:

First lobbying for legislation requiring referendums and then winning it, SBC (later AT&T) and Comcast used the opportunity to spend more than $300,000 of their subscribers’ money to launch a major misinformation campaign with misleading and inaccurate mailers that successfully fought off a proposition to deliver better and cheaper service through a municipal broadband project in Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles, Illinois.  Fiber for Our Future documented the whole sordid affair from start to finish as a lesson to others confronting industry-backed referendum requirements.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Want a preview of the distortion and misinformation-campaign cable and phone providers will bring to stop municipal broadband?  Watch this SBC (today AT&T) executive tell city officials in Illinois that fiber is “unproven,” that the phone company’s DSL speeds are comparable to Comcast Cable, and that consumers don’t need the 3Mbps speed the company was delivering back in 2004 when this video was taken.  “What are you going to do with 20 megabits.  I mean, it’s like having an Indy race car and you don’t have the race track to drive it on.”  (3 minutes)

Longmont, Colorado spent years suffering with bad broadband service from Comcast and Qwest and sought a better alternative with a municipally-run provider.  But then the cable and phone giants spent $200,000 to put a stop to that.  While local subscribers may have preferred that $200,000 be used to reduce their rates, for Comcast and Qwest it was an investment in maintaining future pricing only duopolies can achieve, all while delivering “good enough for you” broadband service to Longmont residents.  In 2006, the Baller Herbst Law Firm collected information on industry-backed barriers to municipal broadband, and the list went on for nine pages.  Many of them sound eerily familiar to what Hoyle proposes (after cable and phone companies whispered time tested, industry proven ideas into his ear).

The city of North St. Paul, Minnesota has advice for states like North Carolina after their own experience with a coordinated industry-backed smear campaign against municipal broadband enabled by legislation similar to what Hoyle proposes:

What should be of interest to all communities was the organized opposition.  It appears that the incumbent providers, industry associations and politically conservative think tanks teamed up to promote negative news stories, do polling and opposition phone calls, provide transportation for identified “no” voters and create web sites.

While we heard some advocates lamenting this high priced anti-municipal fiber effort, this response is something that community leaders must expect and be prepared for.  A strong community education and mobilization effort must be a part of any municipal telecommunications initiative.  A coalition of business owners and residents must be created and maintained that can counter the expected efforts of the incumbent providers.  The benefits of the community-owned network should be documented and promoted so that an overwhelming majority of voters will choose to vote yes.  We hope that, one way or the other, North St. Paul gets the “More, Better Broadband” that the MN Broadband Coalition supports.

Of course, when local communities are banned from spending a nickel on advocacy for their projects, it effectively hands a restraining order to broadband advocates who can’t even get on the playing field, level or otherwise.

Outraged yet?

It will only get worse if Hoyle’s bill ever becomes law.  Residents in communities like Salisbury endured a sampling of the kind of negative campaign this industry will launch wherever municipal broadband competition threatens to appear.  In 2009, residents were hassled with push-polling phone calls from industry-backed astroturf groups claiming to represent ordinary citizens, but were actually little more than sock puppets for big telecom.  Your mailbox will be filled with blizzards of misleading mailers that current cable and phone customers pay for.  If they need more money, they can always raise your rates to cover the difference.  In the end, with the help of elected officials who don’t care about North Carolina consumers, existing municipal projects can bleed themselves dry (later to be used by the industry as “failed examples” to claim such projects are too risky to try) and proposed ones will never see a spade plunged into the soil to bury the first strand of fiber optic cable.

But it’s not all bad news.  It doesn’t have to happen this way.  You can tell your state representative you are watching them like a hawk on this issue.  Any “yes” vote for legislation like that proposed by Senator Hoyle is a no vote for them at the next election.  Let them know you are well aware of the game plan here — it has been tried in other states with similar legislation that is little more than protectionism for big telecom. Tell your elected officials you already have the power to choose whether or not you want these projects simply by voting for or against the elected officials that propose them.  While the concept of a referendum sounds fair on the surface, it’s not when you consider the past experiences of other communities who faced well-funded opposition campaigns, helpless to correct the record or fairly argue their position on the matter.  Providers know that, which is why they advocate this type of legislation in the first place.  It effectively stops competition, stops better service, and stops North Carolina residents from enjoying lower priced cable, phone, and broadband service.

There are a few stand-up representatives of the people of North Carolina who do deserve our gratitude and thanks today.

Rep. Paul Luebke, (D-Durham County) (who co-chairs the Revenue Law Study Committee) Paul.Luebke@ncleg.net 919-733-7663 College Teacher

Rep. Jennifer Weiss, (D-Wake County) Jennifer.Weiss@ncleg.net 919-715-3010 Lawyer-Mom

They both will likely face fierce opposition from the incumbent providers and their fellow legislators. Please take the time to thank them for standing with consumers today and for trying to protect the future of North Carolina and its economy.

Stop the Cap! will have video of today’s remarks by both legislators soon.  We hope to follow with a complete video record of today’s events surrounding the anti-competition legislation proposed by Senator Hoyle.  It will serve as a testament to just how much work we have to do to remove legislators who have stopped representing the public interest, and renew our support for those who stand with consumers.

Meanwhile, check out these two delightful pieces paid for by the cable and phone industry, sent to homes where municipal broadband projects faced a referendum in 2003 and 2004.  More than a dozen different mailers were sent to every home in the communities of Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles, Illinois from phone and cable companies.  Now imagine the repercussions when not one of those communities could respond with their own mailers correcting the record and giving their side of the argument.  There is a reason why special interests spend enormous sums of money to protect their turf, and the battle is over before it even begins when those interests demand the other side not have the opportunity to respond in kind.

What smears do providers in North Carolina have in store for you?

To read industry propaganda like this, they'd have you believe there has never been a community-run or cooperative telecommunications company success story. In fact, there are well over 500 of them operating right now, and those are just the dues-paying members of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association.

When the three cities tried a second time for a municipal project in 2004, the deep pockets of incumbent cable and phone companies allowed them to buy plenty of newspaper advertising space to smear the effort all over again.

Share/Save

Why would bloggers imply a relationship between Rightnetwork and Comcast?

Simon, a frequent reader of Stop the Cap! dropped us a note to let us know reports that Comcast was backing a new right wing cable network might be premature.

Talk about passing the buck.  Comcast this morning issued a statement on their company blog denying any involvement in the Rightnetwork project Stop the Cap! and other blogs reported over the weekend:

Over the weekend there were some stories on a number of blogs about a new network called Right Network, and some of these rumored that Comcast might be involved as an investor, partner or distributor. Here is a statement from Comcast to clear up any confusion:

“The blog reports that Comcast is an investor in, or partner of the Right Network are inaccurate. We have no partnership with this venture and have no plans to launch or distribute the network. As we have done with hundreds of other content providers, we have met with the network’s representatives. We do carry a number of independent networks on Comcast representing a wide variety of interests and diverse viewpoints.”

"Through partners including Comcast..." prominently appears in Rightnetwork's own promotional literature (click to enlarge)

How could we have been so wrong? 

1. The network’s founder is Ed Snider, chairman of Comcast-Spectacor, whose parent company is guess-who?
2. Rightnetwork’s own promotional “lookbook” (which they took down this morning, but which you can still get from us right here) says, “On television, through partners including Comcast….”

Somehow, Comcast forgot to call out Rightnetwork for making claims they absolutely don’t want to have associated with their company at such a politically-sensitive time, what with the Comcast-NBC merger on the table and all.  It was much easier to blame the bloggers.

It’s not as if the idea of Comcast launching a right wing network comes straight out of fantasy land.  In fact, Politico got David L. Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president to toy with launching its own right-wing network to compete with Fox News:

A major Democratic donor and fundraiser, Cohen — who oversees the company’s Washington operation spent last week pitching the deal to regulators, editorial boards and reporters —described himself as “a news junkie” who watches MSNBC, CNN and Fox News. He didn’t dismiss out of hand the possibility of launching a right-leaning network to compete with Fox News, and he said Comcast wouldn’t tamper with NBC or MSNBC’s operations (Olbermann told POLITICO, “I’m confident they know exactly what they’re doing and exactly how valuable a commodity MSNBC has become”).

Cohen explained that Comcast’s job is not “to shape the content that people receive. It is our job to facilitate the delivery of a diverse set of voices and opinions to consumers, and we believe it’s up to the consumer to decide which of that content he or she would like to listen to or watch and which of that content he or she would like to avoid.”

Rightnetwork has remained silent on the matter, so we’ll apologize on their behalf for misleading you.

Share/Save

Rightnetwork's logo, which is actually kind of creepy, would be more true to itself if that "R" was replaced with a "C" for Comcast -- its true progenitor.

When your corporate message has to pass through a media filter, your talking points can get lost along the way.  Comcast has decided to cut out the middleman by launching a new right-wing, pro-corporate cable network that seeks to co-opt the tea party movement for its own agenda.

Rightnetwork, launching this summer, seeks to reach “Americans who are looking for content that reflects and reinforces their perspective and worldview,” according to its promotional material.  Featured prominently in the network’s promotional materials are tea party events and those that promote a pro-corporate agenda.  The network’s on-air talent is embedded in the national tea party tour that has been making its way across the country, which gives you a sense of where the network’s early emphasis will lie.

Comcast sheds any pretense of staying above the political fray and jumps in with both feet to deliver its business agenda to viewers.

“The lineup focuses on entertainment with Pro-America, Pro-Business, Pro-Military sensibilities — compelling content that inspires action, invites a response, and influences the national conversation,” says the network’s promotional “lookbook.”

“We’re creating a welcome place for millions and millions of Americans who’ve been looking for an entertainment network and media channel that reflects their point-of-view. Rightnetwork will be the perfect platform to entertain, inform and connect with the American majority about what’s right in the world,” says Ed Snider, chairman of Comcast-Spectacor.

Reviewing promotional clips for the network’s planned shows, something else is readily apparent — wedding a corporate agenda with a political movement in hopes of currying favor with those that might return the favor one day.

One of the network’s most prominent planned shows is “Running,” which is little more than a political infomercial for Republican/tea party candidates.  One of the first targets Comcast-Spectacor has in mind is Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California).  Waxman is characterized as “infesting” his Congressional seat in the program.

Waxman, coincidentally, is also a big political foe of Comcast, favoring Net Neutrality and deeply concerned about media concentration issues, something the proposed Comcast-NBC merger would exacerbate.  Rightnetwork has effectively provided millions of dollars in free publicity to Ari David, Waxman’s opponent.  Should David win the seat, he will have Comcast to thank for helping make it possible.

Running‘s featured candidates:

• Ari David, Republican running against Henry Waxman who writes: “Capitalism is under attack from the progressive left.”
• Chris Simcox, Republican who ran against John McCain in the primary, who he called: “a sinister element, a progressive socialist masquerading as the leader and conscience of the Reagan Republican Party.”  Wants to promote free enterprise in a “post-McCain era.”
• Clint Didier, a Republican running against Sen. Patty Murray in Washington.  He uses his Rightnetwork coverage as a campaign ad on his website.
• Donna Campbell, a Republican running for a Texas congressional seat on the platform of deregulating business.
• Republican Jim Gibbons, a vice president of Wells-Fargo Bank who is running for Congress in Iowa on a platform of deregulating business, even after the already-deregulated banking industry caused the Great Recession.
• Republican John Dennis, running against Nancy Pelosi in California, who showcased an anti-Net Neutrality ruling on his Facebook page with a fan base whose views were best summed up by one writer: “If a private internet service provider wants to restrict certain types of content or opinions moving across their wires, then that should be their prerogative.”  That shrugging off of censorship is ironic coming from a supporter of the “pro-Liberty Republican” candidate.

Anyone think there is a “yes” vote for Net Neutrality or oversight of the cable industry and big media mergers among this crowd?

This isn’t Comcast’s first effort to curry favor with conservatives, who seem most likely to support the cable company’s political agenda.  Last September, Comcast and AT&T sponsored a U.S. Chamber of Commerce forum keynoted by Fox News personality Glenn Beck.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, itself implicated in notorious astroturfing efforts, is a strong opponent of Net Neutrality and broadband oversight.

The worst part is saved for last.  Who pays for this pro-corporate hackery?  You do, as part of your monthly cable bill, whether you want the corporate point of view on your basic cable lineup or not.

That’s just one more reason why the Comcast-NBC merger is such a bad idea.  It places enormous resources at the disposal of a company that has no qualms about using them to advance its own political agenda at your expense.

Share/Save

Click here to view the embedded video.

At the Senate Commerce hearing on April 14, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV) told FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that the agencies authority to protect an open Internet and connect more people to broadband is at risk because of the Comcast case.  Rockefeller pledged to support the chairman in reestablishing the agency’s authority to stop the Internet from falling under the control of companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.  (3 minutes)

Share/Save

Phillip "Don't over-complicate this" Dampier

Promises made during election campaigns that are later dropped for political expediency are broken promises.

Those are wise words for both the Obama Administration and the FCC as they ponder what to do about broadband regulation.  President Obama campaigned on developing an effective National Broadband Plan and preserving the integrity of the Internet with Net Neutrality policies.  Both will now be tested in how they respond to a recent court decision which has thrown a wrench into broadband policy initiatives.  At issue:

• How Americans access the Internet;
• What kind of Internet they find once they access it;
• How much money is it going to cost at the end of the month for what kind of service.

These are all laid on the table of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski with a big bow attached, courtesy of Comcast.  The nation’s largest cable company threw a hissyfit when the FCC rebuked them for throttling the speeds of their Internet customers.  They sued and won more than they bargained for when the DC District Court ruled the Commission lacked the authority to regulate broadband as an “information service,” a dubious premise cooked up by former FCC chairman Michael Powell.  The concept was akin to a police officer placing you under arrest on the authority of a bottle of green tea.  Of course you could get away with that too as long as nobody challenged it in court.

Chairman Genachowski could choose to kick the ball down the field to be played another day by appealing the court decision or trying to get Congress to pass new legislation.  Or he can strike decisively and effectively by declaring broadband to be what it actually is — a “telecommunications service.”  Under that declaration, the FCC can implement its National Broadband Plan, which will dramatically improve access for rural America and promote better broadband service for those who already have it.  The Commission can also move forward on common sense Net Neutrality policies that tell providers not to interfere with online traffic for monetary reasons.  It can even give the Commission the authority to keep a watchful eye for the next clever scheme that benefits providers at the customer’s expense.

But that depends on Chairman Genachowski standing up to the broadband industry, their friends in Congress, and the inevitable industry-funded BS Festival from astroturfers designed to sucker people into supporting industry positions.

The threats and concern trolling are already parading across the Beltway:

• “The industry would declare war on the FCC“: That war has been underway ever since the litigious broadband industry first started running to friendly courts whenever it encountered a regulatory nuisance just waiting to be overturned on “free speech for corporations”-grounds.  Chairman Genachowski needs to borrow from President George W. Bush and declare, “bring ‘em on!” He can fight industry propaganda about “lost jobs” and “investment” with facts found in every provider’s quarterly financial reports showing bountiful harvests of profits, while spending and costs decline.  It’s not the FCC’s fault Verizon fired more than 13,000 employees in the past few years.  The FCC didn’t tell Verizon to stop upgrading its copper wire network to fiber optics to remake traditional landline phone service into something far better and eventually even more profitable.
• “Congress would be upset by an overreaching Obama Administration”: That would mostly be the same Republican members who reflexively oppose every aspect of the Obama Administration’s legislative agenda.  Considering warmed-over health care reform is still being called “socialist” and an “apocalypse” by these people, there isn’t a Pick-Me-Up Bouquet in the world that could get them to support this administration.  Ordering a ham sandwich and leaving the Swiss cheese off would probably result in some members of Congress reciting Glenn Beck’s declaration the omission is proof Obama is working with lactose-intolerant high officials of the Chinese Communist regime.
• “Verizon, AT&T, and others will step up spending on Astroturf Campaigns”: If a consumer like myself can sniff out an industry-funded campaign to convince consumers to support policies directly challenging their own wallets, why can’t Washington policymakers?  The industry talking points rarely change anyway, and those shouting the loudest usually try to obscure who paid for the megaphone.  When in doubt, simply ask “is there any industry money funding your organization?”  If they won’t say, you have your answer.
• “But they’ll sue”: When are they not suing?  Of course the industry will challenge the legality of any policy that puts their quest for unlimited profits at a disadvantage.  We live in a system of checks and balances between private enterprise and public oversight and regulation.  The struggle for the perfect balance between the two will persist forever, but after an era of reckless deregulation and abdicated oversight responsibility, the resulting Great Recession should provide strong evidence the pendulum needs to swing in the opposite direction.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski

USA Today today published a piece on Genachowski’s coming decision which hit all the aforementioned bases.

Astroturf Campaigns and Legal Threats: “If the FCC changes the way it treats high-speed Internet, then “everybody in the industry would sue,” says Scott Cleland, chairman of NetCompetition.org, an Internet forum supported by cable and phone companies. “It would be like an 8.0 earthquake under the sector,” he adds. “Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested (in broadband) in the belief that there’d be a market rate of return, not a regulated rate.”

Cleland is a notorious industry mouthpiece, but at least he openly acknowledges his strings are pulled by the industry that generously funds his anti-consumer, pro-provider rhetoric.

Republicans: The FCC’s two Republican commissioners have said they’d fight a move to reclassify broadband.

No surprises there, and you can expect most Republicans in Congress to also take the industry’s position on these matters.  Guess what?  They still won’t vote for you even if you compromise with the broadband industry.

USA Today, itself headquartered in suburban Washington, delivers up the beltway solution always pressed on pliable Democrats – compromise away your principles and split the difference:

If Genachowski wants to defuse the issue, he could try to engineer a compromise. For example, he could agree to take broadband reclassification off the table as long as providers make legally binding promises to offer consumer protections called for in the National Broadband Plan and to agree to treat all Web services equally. But it will be hard to please everybody as advocates gear up for a fight.

That’s the understatement of the year.   It’s also a classic case of reinventing the wheel.  What USA Today‘s reporter suggests is exactly what the FCC used prior to the Comcast case to regulate broadband — an “understanding” with the industry without clear-cut regulatory authority.  That lasted until the three judge panel laughed it out of court.  The FCC has no authority in its current form to make legally binding promises with an industry that contemptuously dismisses the notion it should have any in the first place.  Without reclassification, the judge certain to hear the next court case challenging the “understanding” will almost certainly throw that out as well.

Declaring regulatory authority does not, as the industry likes to pretend, mean that your Internet Service Provider will be saddled with 1930s telephone rules.  It merely gives the FCC the authority to move forward on its agenda to improve broadband, protect its integrity, and help coordinate a plan for the future that first takes your interests to heart, not simply those on Wall Street.

For a change of pace, let’s choose the clearly marked road of reclassification and avoid the deregulatory dead end of broken promises offered by the broadband industry or the equally awful decision to build a new road in a futile effort to win bipartisan brownie points.

[Article Correction 4/15/2010: The original piece laid blame for the classification of broadband as an "information service" on former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.  In fact, the classification was made by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who served during the first term of the Bush Administration.  We regret the error.]

Share/Save