I receive a considerable amount of e-mail asking me a variety of questions about myself, this site, who backs it, and why we do things the way we do, so it’s time to launch a mailbag column here on Stop the Cap! to answer the mail, especially for those who may have similar questions along the way!

For this first round, I’ve left out the names.  I’ll be changing our Contact form shortly to allow readers to submit future questions here and specify if they want their names used or not during the answers.

Phillip "Where Is My August Vacation?" Dampier

Q. What companies, industries, or groups finance Stop the Cap! and its online efforts?

A. Stop the Cap! receives absolutely zero dollars from any company, industry, group, lobbyist, special interest, foundation, or anything even resembling one.  This website is 100% financed by myself and through individual contributions received from consumers who use the Donate button on the right.  We’re as far away from astroturf one can get.  Plastic grass is not for us.  There are groups out there that share the same consumer protection interests, and those groups will get mentioned here, but I am personally suspicious of any group that receives industry financing.

This site would not exist if Internet Service Providers had not started to abuse their market positions with Internet Overcharging experiments and schemes designed to limit consumers from using what is already a highly profitable service.  Usage caps, overlimit fees and penalties, and Net Neutrality violations like speed throttling are all anti-consumer, designed to reduce industry costs and discourage you from using your broadband service, all while still charging you more.

Q. I have read a few of your articles on Free Press’ Save the Internet website.  What relationship do you have with Free Press?

A. We are allies in the sense that their positions on issues have uniformly agreed with our own.  Great minds think alike, and their consistent pro-consumer positions on telecommunications issues make them a natural ally, particularly considering the higher profile they have, especially in Washington.  Despite attacks from some conservatives and astroturfers, Free Press does not accept industry money either, and is supported with the individual contributions of those who believe in their cause.  Free Press’ scope is also much broader than ours, taking positions on a wider range of issues.  The reprinting of some of our content helps us bring our own issues to the much larger base of consumer activists Free Press has, which has been instrumental in our Calls to Action when we need to reach out to elected officials or other policymakers.

We also have supported the efforts of Consumers Union, Public Knowledge, the Communications Workers of America, and several other public policy groups, but only on the issues where we share agreement.

Q. What is your usual schedule for publishing articles?

A. It has evolved over time, and depends mostly on how much newsworthy material is out there.  During the month of April, when Time Warner Cable was engaged in their Internet Overcharging experiment, articles were published here on a fast and furious basis because of rapid-changing developments.  August is always the slowest month of the year, as people enjoy the vacation time I don’t get.  This month, for example, we’ve broadened coverage to include competition and astroturfing reports that are not directly about Internet Overcharging, but will help us lay a foundation to help fight anti-consumer activities.  States are still being pressured to adopt industry-friendly legislation like statewide franchising.  It helps to point elected officials to concrete reports of just how anti-consumer those kinds of policies have proven to be in other states.

Articles are often not published on Friday and weekends because Friday is traditionally an errand-running day for me, and during the slower summer months, very little happens on weekends.  But if coverage warrants, you may find new content here published late into the evening and all weekend long.

In the morning, story coverage is planned for that day.  Readers’ story tips always get first consideration.  Most days there is a longer article that takes several hours to research and prepare, and at least one or two shorter items.  The average long article takes three to four hours to research, write, review, and publish.  Articles with multimedia content can take much longer.  Shorter articles typically take no more than one hour.  Most articles are published between 12pm-4pm ET.

Articles from our contributing writers will often turn up in the evening hours.  We are always looking for additional writers here.

Q. Why does Stop the Cap! cover Canada and other countries?

A. Internet Overcharging is Internet Overcharging no matter where it takes place.  Our Canadian coverage is extremely important because it illustrates how abusive industry practices can impact broadband service close to home.  Canada is illustrative of what can happen when an industry gets its way with a regulatory authority, which nearly rubber stamps whatever the industry wants to do to their customers.  The fact most Canadians are quite aware of how bad the abusive practices are is also informative to our readers who will get an industry “snowjob” Re-education effort sooner or later to try and convince them these abusive practices are just fine, because they are commonplace (inference: accepted) in other countries around the world, so they should be acceptable here.

Not. A. Chance.

Even in Australia and New Zealand, usage caps are discussed now as temporary necessities based on fiber backbone connectivity shortages, not as long term “solutions” to usage issues.

But most important of all, we have readers in all of these places, and this site’s universal opposition to Internet Overcharging schemes, and the fight to prevent/reverse them, should be a resource for any reader, no matter where they reside.

Q. Sometimes I am confused by some of the jargon on Stop the Cap! about things like “overbuilders” or “throttles,” etc.  What do these things mean?

A. I have covered the cable and satellite television industry since the late 1980s, so I have become comfortable using a lot of the common language other people in this industry use in everyday speech.  I try and avoid being a regular “jargon” offender, but sometimes these terms will slip through.  I am planning a small FAQ on some of the most commonly used industry phrases in the future.  Suffice to say, you can use Google most of the time to find the meaning of most of the industryspeak while waiting for me to write up a cheat sheet.

An “overbuilder” is a competing cable or telephone provider that invades another company’s turf and places their wiring next to the incumbent provider.  The term usually refers to a competitor using the same type of technology (ie. a second cable company or second phone company), but it doesn’t always get used that way.  It is rare to find an overbuilder in all but the largest cities.  Most communities obtain telecommunications services from one cable company, one phone company, and/or wireless phone/mobile phone providers.

A “throttle” refers, for our purposes, to an Internet provider that wants to reduce traffic on their broadband network.  The operator artificially slows down (or ‘throttles’) the speeds of certain online applications one can identify traveling across the network.  In most cases, this means “peer to peer” services like BitTorrent.  Since these applications can sometimes consume a lot of bandwidth in both directions, some providers want to slow them down so they don’t consume a lot of network resources.

Q. Do your write on any other issues?

A. My personal blog, linked on the right, often covers the cable television industry issues that are not specific to broadband, as well as technology, politics, and personal observations.  ConsumerTel focuses on phone company-specific issues.  Both sites are not updated as often as this one, currently because I am waiting for a major software update from the author of our “theme” (the look and feel and layout) which will test on those sites before launching here, and will require me to rethink some of the layout and format of all of these sites.

Q. What future plans do you have for this site?

A. I am working my way back through older content re-doing a lot of “tags” on our older articles so I can reintroduce a “Related Articles” feature that will highlight some of our earlier content that is related to a topic covered more recently.  For that to work well, tags must be more comprehensive.  I also see our multimedia content here is very popular, and I spend a lot of time locating and embedding that content for our readers.  Our embedded players do not always work well for every browser, so work finding better solutions is also underway.  E-Mail notification of new content is an often requested feature, and one currently being explored.  Adjustments to our theme have already been mentioned, and will also be forthcoming.

But overall, the future of Stop the Cap! depends on what the broadband industry does.  If they abandon Internet Overcharging schemes, stop opposing Net Neutrality, and quit abusing consumers, this site closes down and I get to do something else.  Somehow, I doubt we’ll manage to get all three of these goals.  Our future depends mostly on their behavior in the coming months.

The Communications Workers of America released their 2009 Report on Internet Speeds in All 50 States, and the results show the United States continuing to lag well behind other nations in providing citizens with advanced, fast, and affordable connections to the Internet.  Little improvement has been made in the past year, when CWA released its 2008 findings. (Stop the Cap! reader Dave passed along word the report was in.)

The average download speed for the nation was 5.1 megabits per second (mbps) and the average upload speed was 1.1 mbps. This was only a nine-tenths of a megabit per second increase (from 4.2 mbps to 5.1 mbps) since last year. At this rate, it will take the United States 15 years to catch up with current Internet speeds in South Korea. And when compared to the rest of the world, the United States ranks 28th in average Internet connection speeds.

The CWA does have an interest in this fight.  It’s a labor union whose members work for many of the nation’s telecommunications providers.  CWA seeks a national broadband strategy that just happens to fall in line with the interests of consumers — increased speeds, more rural broadband expansion, more affordable access, and Net Neutrality protections.  CWA doesn’t take a formal position on Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, at least not yet.

The report measured broadband speed based on more than 400,000 Americans who voluntarily participated in a speed test offered on the Speed Matters website.  The results were collected and covered a significant part of the country, illustrating real world results of ordinary consumers, not simply the speeds touted by broadband providers in marketing materials.

The CWA report calls out the inadequacy of the deregulated free market approach to deliver broadband service consistently to all Americans.  In fact, the disparity of access and the tiny incremental upgrades in speed suggest it will take at least 15 years for the United States to match the speeds enjoyed today in South Korea, which can rightly be called a world leader in broadband even while this country cannot.

South Koreans enjoy an average connection speed of 20.4Mbps (four times faster than the United States).  Japan provides residents with 15.8Mbps, Sweden offers 12.8Mbps, the Netherlands 11Mbps, and 24 others who do a better job at delivering speedy broadband than their American counterparts.

Broadband remains too expensive for the slow service we enjoy today.  That promotes a digital divide between those affluent enough to afford broadband service and those who are struggling to make ends meet (88% of those earning more than $100,000 a year have service in their homes, while just 35% of those earning under $20,000 subscribe).

Another problem highlighted in the report is the ongoing problem of rural broadband access.  While 67% of urban and suburban residents subscribe to broadband, only 46% of rural households do, assuming they can even obtain service.

Rural areas are by far the most likely to encounter slow service, typically 1-3Mbps provided by DSL from the local phone company.

Until 2009, the United States was the only industrialized country in the world without a national broadband plan.  The Federal Communications Commission is expected to release one shortly, but only time will tell whether the plan will primarily benefit consumers or the special interests, including providers seeking to protect their monopoly or duopoly market position, and get taxpayer dollars to finance broadband projects that provide slow and expensive service to consumers.

The CWA has some recommendations:

Governmental action — in partnership with the private sector — is essential to stimulate broadband investment and adoption. Other countries are far ahead of us. It is time for the United States to take action.

• Universality.  Just as government policies helped bring affordable telephone service to everyone, our policies should ensure that every individual, family, business, and community has access to and can use high speed Internet at a price they can afford — regardless of their income or geographic location.
• High Speed.  Speed matters on the Internet. U.S. policies should promote higher Internet speeds and higher capacity networks. The United States should adopt policies to get us to 10 megabits per second upstream and 1 megabit per second downstream by 2010. New benchmarks in succeeding years should expand the number of households capable of sending and receiving multiple channel high-definition video and reach the global standard of 100 mbps.
• Open Internet.  We must protect free speech on the Internet so that people are able to go to the websites they want and download or upload what they want when they want on the Internet. There should be no degradation of service or censoring any lawful content on the Internet. At the same time, reasonable network management is necessary to preserve an effective and open Internet. Most important, building high-capacity networks will ensure that all Americans have fast, open access to all content on the Internet.
• Consumer Protections and Good Jobs.  Public policies should include consumer and worker protections, should support the growth of good, career jobs, and require the public reporting of deployment, actual speed, price, and service.

Below the jump, we’ve assembled a selection of maps and graphics showing where broadband is today in three of states with our largest reader base — New York, Texas, and North Carolina.

… Continue Reading

Shaw Communications has fired back against accusations by Novus Entertainment that it is engaged in predatory pricing by filing a defamation suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

Shaw president Peter Bissonnette said Novus is intentionally spreading misinformation about Shaw’s competitive promotion in the Vancouver area, which he said charged $29.85 a month for a comprehensive package including digital HD cable, high-speed broadband, and telephone service that includes free long distance calling across North America.

Novus fired the first legal shot in July, accusing Shaw Cable of engaging in predatory pricing by offering cable, broadband, and telephone service “below cost” only to residents in the high rise buildings where Novus currently offers service in the city of Vancouver.  Novus, a fiber optic-based competitor, offers service in 225 residential high rise buildings in downtown Vancouver, at prices that have traditionally been lower than those offered by Shaw, western Canada’s largest cable operator, based in Calgary, Alberta.  Novus announced it was filing a predatory pricing case with the Competition Bureau of Canada and the BC Supreme Court.

Shaw officials counter that many of those high rise buildings are owned by Concord Pacific, which also has a major ownership interest in Novus Entertainment.  Bissonnette dismisses Novus’ accusations of anti-competitive behavior, accusing Concord Pacific of blocking access to Shaw, preventing the company from wiring the buildings during their construction, which would have reduced costs significantly.

“Those buildings up until recently have never had access to our services,” he said.

February 2009 Shaw Communications Promotional Pricing (click to enlarge)

Novus’ disdain for Shaw began this past February, when Concord Pacific employees noticed Shaw was promoting special discount offers targeting their buildings’ residents with special discounts for new Shaw customer signups.  The special offers expired at the end of February, and the two companies stopped specifically targeting each other in greater Vancouver until July.

Novus co-president Doug Holman told the CBC that was when things really began to heat up.

The cable provider resumed its efforts in July with a more aggressive deal, which it promoted by slipping flyers under doors and with “street teams” that would stand in front of buildings and ask people entering and exiting whether they were Novus customers. If they were, they would get the $9.95 offer, he said.

The $9.95 offer Holman mentions was an even more aggressive promotion than the one Shaw offered in February. The July promotion offered each component of Shaw’s package — television, broadband, and phone — for $9.95 a month each, with two free months thrown in, as the promotional flyer obtained by Stop the Cap! illustrates (shown on the left).

Shaw's flyer distributed to Novus customers (click to enlarge)

Who exactly could obtain this promotional pricing became a point of contention between the two companies.  Shaw president Peter Bissonnette claims the promotion is not just available to existing Novus customers, but to any resident of West Vancouver, which he called “highly competitive” for cable and broadband service.  Novus claims the promotion is targeted specifically at their customers, and is not widely known or available outside of its own customer base.

Vancouver residents sharing their experiences with Stop the Cap! report that Novus’ version is probably closer to the truth.  When the skirmish went public with Novus’ PR and Twitter outreach campaign, many Shaw customers in Vancouver had no idea such an aggressive promotion existed.  Neither did Telus customers (British Columbia’s telephone provider).  Some Shaw customers called Shaw to complain about the wide disparity between the rates they were paying and those Novus customers enjoyed.  Some Telus customers also called Shaw in late July to inquire whether they could sign up for the promotion.  Existing Shaw customers were disqualified from the promotion because they were existing customers, and the Telus customers who shared their experiences with Stop the Cap! were told the “offer was not available in your area” by Shaw customer service representatives.

Indeed, other online forums reported some similar experiences, noting the offer was limited to a tight geographical area, notably right in the heart of Novus’ primary service areas — those high rise residential buildings.

One reader of Digitalhome.ca, one of Canada’s largest home entertainment forums, said Shaw would offer this promotion to him if he “moved downtown.”  He also noted some friends who do live downtown are trying to shovel through a blizzard of promotional mailers from Shaw received day after day, as well as personal visits from Shaw sales employees knocking on the doors of residents known to live in buildings wired for Novus, despite posted signs “clearly marked ‘No Canvassing’.”

On the CBC website, one Vancouver resident has received dozens of promotional mailers and plans to return them to Shaw at some point: “It’s insane; some friends and I are saving them up to dump on Shaw’s doorstep at some future point.”

Over on Broadband Reports, one resident looking for service outside of Vancouver was told the promotion was not available:

“I phoned up Shaw asking them to give me this offer at my residential house that is not located in Vancouver. They would not.  The closest deal that the Shaw customer service representative would give me is $70/month for six months and then $110/month after that – Citing at first that they could only offer this promotion to buildings with Novus/Telus/Bell. When I asked why I could not get the promotion at my house because I have Telus available, the CSR backtracked and told me that it was only available in multi-dwelling buildings. Eventually the CSR backed down and told me that Shaw was only offering the promotion to buildings with Novus.”

Another reader who did live in the right neighborhood and ostensibly should have qualified was told he did not:

“I called 15 minutes ago and spoke to a CSR about setting it up in my Kits apartment (moving on Aug 15, do not have an account with Shaw currently) and he came right out and told me it’s only for Novus customers. I said I understood it to be an offer to multi-dwelling buildings and that Telus was offered in my apartment as well, but he said that I don’t qualify because I’m not in a Novus building.”

Sign outside of The Concordia in Vancouver promoting Shaw Communications' special offer (click to enlarge)

One possible clue about who this promotion was intended for could be found on a signboard placed just outside the entrance of one Vancouver building heavily promoting the Shaw offer (see photo on right).

Meanwhile, both companies continue their war of words:

“They’ve publicly stated in the past that they’re going to become the bane of the life of Shaw,” Shaw’s Bissonnette said. “True to their word, they’ve embarked on this defamation campaign.”

Counters Novus’ Holman: “That number [$9.95] is way below our cost. We don’t know what Shaw’s cost is, but it’s hard to believe it could be that low and that their cost savings could be that much better than ours,” Holman said. “If we price matched on that, we’d be losing buckets of money.”

Vancouver residents have mixed reactions to the war of words (and pricing.)

Some are eager to take advantage of the competitive price war, and are dropping Novus for a year’s worth of service from Shaw at a fraction of the regular price, citing the savings during the current economic climate.

Others defend Shaw’s aggressive pricing as competition, brutal as it might appear, doing its job in reducing prices for consumers.  Some have suggested the aggressive rate cutting exposes the enormous profit margins enjoyed by the cable industry, particularly pointing to Shaw’s comments that they are not losing money, even at the low prices they are charging in certain areas of Vancouver, as clear evidence of the gouging that goes on elsewhere in cable pricing.

But some Vancouver residents are defending “the little guy,” upset that Shaw may be using its market power and presence across western Canada to put an upstart like Novus out of business.

One CBC reader summed up the views of Novus defenders:

I’m increasingly annoyed by how heavy-handed Shaw is being in this price war. I qualify for Shaw’s anti-competitive price, but have no intention of switching to get it. If I leave Novus now then I’d be playing right into Shaw’s dream of a city-wide monopoly.

And that’s before I even start to mention the aggression of Shaw’s sales tactics. Green-shirted employees on every street corner downtown, bugging me multiple times as I walk from point A to point B on a weekly basis. Two or three pieces of junk mail a week that get around the red dot I have in my mailbox that indicates I Do Not Want Junk Mail, because they’re addressed to Current Occupant.

I’m all for healthy competition, but this ain’t it.

A few Novus customers have found a happy middle ground while the war plays out in the courtroom.  They contacted Novus and asked them to match Shaw’s prices:

Novus customers who are tempted to switch should contact Novus, as they will match the deal. That is what I did, and I am now paying $10 bucks a month for 20Mbps (23.79 according to Speedtest.net) download speed. My total Internet bill over the next year will be $120 for a service that is equivalent to Shaw’s “High Speed Warp” package, a service that costs $94 a month! That’s the apples to apples comparison, and it works out to be a $1000 savings for Novus customers.

I felt really guilty asking Novus to match, since I am extremely happy with their service and was paying a very reasonable $30 a month. But it’s hard to pass up a deal like that, and I will do my best to spread the gospel about how much better value Novus is over Shaw, and especially Telus and Bell. Healthy competition is great, but I do hope the CRTC steps in to ensure Novus isn’t bullied out of the market.

Telus hasn’t gotten involved because they are more concerned with selling the worst service at the highest price, while Bell is busy pitching you on how fast their service is to your face, and then throttling your speed behind the scenes to the point where Google has come out against them. I haven’t had any bad experiences with Shaw myself, but Novus is a real gem.

So those of you who live in downtown Vancouver should do the logical thing, and stick with Novus. You have access to a service that most people across North America, let alone Canada, drool over.

In just the second quarter of 2009, Comcast doled out nearly $3.3 million dollars of their subscribers’ money lobbying elected officials on a myriad of issues, covering everything from executive compensation to sports channels to unionizing efforts.

Forbes reported last week the nation’s largest cable company has lobbied on:

• the Excessive Pay Capped Deduction Act of 2009, a bill that would stop tax deductions on excessive compensation given to any employee. Excessive pay is defined as any amount above 100 times the average employee’s compensation at the company;
• the Income Equity Act of 2009, which curbs executive pay by limiting tax deductions on pay greater than 25 times that of the lowest paid employee, or $500,000, whichever is greater;
• the Shareholder Bill of Rights Act of 2009, which gives shareholders the right to approve or reject executive compensation packages.  Shareholders have long been in contention with Comcast over the near $25 million annual salary paid to CEO Brian Roberts;
• the right to carry regional sports channels on terms favorable to the cable operator, both in terms of channel/package placement and pricing;
• the nation’s Broadband Stimulus program — how the funds would be allocated, on what terms, and for what types of projects;
• the issue of unionization activity at Comcast;
• limits on Comcast’s ability to increase ownership of additional cable-related assets and systems.

Meanwhile, Brian Dickerson, a columnist at the Detroit Free Press has also been noticing that AT&T, promising to bring competition to Comcast in cities like Detroit, came at the price of a trojan horse called “statewide franchising,” an issue we’ve covered at length on Stop the Cap!

Deregulating the cable TV business in Michigan was supposed to be good news for metro Detroit cable subscribers and bad news for Comcast, long the dominant cable provider in our region.

At least, that’s how area legislators justified a 2006 law that streamlined the franchising process for rival cable operators such as AT&T and stripped pesky local governments of their authority to stand up for aggrieved cable customers.

Dickerson recites a familiar tune to our readers about how AT&T came to the Michigan state legislature in 2006 promising to bring hardcore competition to Comcast, the state’s most prominent cable provider, if only they would permit AT&T to obtain one statewide franchise agreement, allowing them the flexibility to launch U-verse in cities throughout the state without negotiating with each local government first.

The astroturfers turned up right behind AT&T’s open checkbook (the company spent at least $672,000 in 2006 in Michigan on lobbying and political contributions), touting the benefits of AT&T’s “creative solution” to cable competition.  FreedomWorks even invaded one meeting of the Michigan Municipal League and Michigan Townships Association in the spring of that year “to set the record straight.”  That really meant representing AT&T’s position, and offering plenty of empty promises to Michigan communities seeking competition and lower prices for their residents.

FreedomWorks rapidly also devolved the debate into a partisan “conservative” vs. “liberal” sideshow, hoping to pick up conservatives that would reflexively adopt a pro-AT&T position if it meant doing battle with “liberals.”  And in a two-for-one win for AT&T, the conservative action group also helped jettison Net Neutrality protections.

FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe was quoted in a December 2006 press release: “To the very end, liberal special interests held out for additional regulatory mandates misleadingly labeled “neutral.” On behalf of more than 12,000 citizen activists in Michigan, I applaud the franchise reforms adopted this week while warning against new efforts in the 94th Legislature to deny basic property rights under the banner of “net neutrality.” We are prepared to defend consumer interests and property rights through relentless grassroots education and advocacy.”

FreedomWorks Michigan Director Randall Thompson concluded, “The issue of franchise reform is evidence that the Freedom Movement is deeply rooted in Michigan. Regular citizens made their voices heard, leading free market think tanks and scholars weighed in on the issue and as a result, public officials adopted good policy.”

Freedom Isn’t Free: Prices escalate across Michigan despite “competition.”

Now, three years after AT&T’s champions in the Legislature crowed that Comcast’s reign as the 800-pound. guerrilla of Michigan cable service was over, Comcast remains the state’s dominant provider, maintains a de facto wire-line monopoly in most its franchise areas, charges higher rates for basic cable service, and has far fewer legal obligations to the subscribers and communities it serves.

Indeed, the story is even worse for Michigan consumers, who in effect paid, as part of their monthly cable bills, for the lobbying and astroturf campaign battle launched against their own best interests and wallets.

The promised competition has arrived in some parts of Michigan, but often at pricing even higher than that charged by the dominant cable company in the area.  Many customers enjoy temporary savings as part of promotional new customer offers, that once expired, leave the customer stuck with everyday high pricing.  As seen in Tennessee, AT&T U-verse packages compete more on numbers of channels offered, not on the pricing of monthly basic service.  A-la-carte channel choice remains unavailable.

In fact, the second biggest winner of the Lobbying Money Party from AT&T ironically turned out to be Comcast.  After all, if AT&T was to be granted special provisions for statewide franchising and other deregulatory benefits, why can’t Comcast receive those benefits as well?

It seemed only fair that if legislators were prepared to relieve AT&T of any obligation to negotiate with local governments, Comcast and other cable providers should enjoy the same privilege. But what about the franchise agreements Comcast had already struck in places where AT&T had no immediate plans to compete?

Some legislators suggested that Comcast be required to live up to existing franchise agreements until competitors were offering service to at least 5% of the community’s residents. But when Sen. Nancy Cassis, R-Novi, proposed such a rule, she was defeated by a voice vote — the anonymous roar of Comcast’s many beneficiaries on both sides of the aisle.

As is the case in Tennessee, should a local franchise agreement not be renewed on favorable terms, there is always the possibility of securing that statewide franchise, bypassing local officials, reneging on hard fought agreements on things like:

• Guarantees that cable service would be made available to all residents, from the poorest to richest neighborhoods;
• Cable operators would agree to customer service benchmarks from call answer time to repair call timeframes;
• Provision and funding of local Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) access channels on the basic tier.

And so, three years after the blizzard of cash was long since pocketed, and astroturfers like FreedomWorks moved on to other industry-sponsored causes célèbre, where are the consumers after the “good public policy” applauded by FreedomWorks was adopted?

Absolutely in the exact same place they were before, only worse.

The Michigan Chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors says Comcast celebrated the first anniversary of cable deregulation by raising the price of its cheapest cable package by 25% in many communities; rates for other service tiers jumped between 9%-25%.

Brian Brown, spokesman for a consortium of Michigan cable providers led by Comcast, says the price increases reflect the cost of enhanced services subscribers are demanding. “That’s what the market wants,” he says.

Meanwhile, Comcast has shuttered many of the local service locations it was obligated to maintain under franchise agreements, and is waging a federal court fight to move public access programming off the basic cable line-up.

That’s right.  The market wants higher prices, no local service locations, and a parade of formerly analog cable channels being moved into digital tiers, necessitating additional consumer expense to rent digital converter equipment for every cable-connected television in the home.

Those are the same consumers whose interests have routinely been ignored by the politicians and the providers, and distorted by their bought and paid for political astroturf groups that hoodwink consumers into believing this is a “right-left issue.”

As the battle for Net Neutrality protections begins again this summer, and as we vigilantly maintain watch and prepare for opposition to any reintroduction of Internet Overcharging schemes, just remember the tale of Michigan and Tennessee and the real agenda of the astroturf groups sure to raise their well-financed opposition to pro-consumer legislation and activism yet again.

Open Media Boston's creative reinterpretation of Comcast's logo

In August 2008, Comcast formally announced a 250GB monthly usage limit on their residential broadband customers, promising them that despite the fact only “the top 1% of customers would be considered excessive users,” a usage monitoring tool would be made available to customers to make sure they were under the limit imposed by Comcast.

One year later, Open Media Boston notes the usage measurement tool is still not available to customers.

Comcast’s “Excessive Use FAQ” points concerned customers to the McAfee security suite, which includes a bandwidth meter utility, and which Comcast provides for free for subscribers. Unfortunately, the software is only compatible with Windows machines, leaving Linux and Mac users out in the cold. To remedy this, Comcast suggests subscribers do “a search for ‘bandwidth meter,'” and find a meter on their own. This is true, but is akin to asking mobile phone customers to monitor their minutes with a stop watch.

Open Media Boston worries about the accuracy of some of the third party measurement software tools, claiming they are likely to also measure traffic moving between computers within a user’s home (such as backing up files on a network, streaming music on the home network, etc.) making consumers think they’ve already come close to exceeding their monthly limit when such traffic would not be counted by Comcast’s own measurement tool.

The cable company washes its hands of responsibility for third party tools, saying it cannot vouch for any of them.  But they have told Open Media Boston one thing for certain: “Comcast’s determination of each customer account’s data usage is final.”

So where is Comcast’s official tool?  “We have talked about launching a tool. We are committed to launching one. It is in employee testing,” Comcast spokesperson Charlie Douglas told Open Media Boston.

Comcast contacts the most egregious offenders of their 250GB monthly cap by telephone to give them a warning they are way over the limit.  Company officials claim most customers work to reduce their usage after getting such calls.  But should a customer find themselves on Comcast’s bad side a second time within a six month period, their service will be canceled and the company will prevent them from signing up again for service for a one year period.