FairPoint Communications will introduce DSL service across 33 New Hampshire communities that either have incomplete coverage or no broadband at all.

At least 4,000 homes and businesses will gain access with financial assistance from the FCC’s Connect America fund.

FairPoint says it has invested $189 million in network infrastructure since purchasing northern New England landlines from Verizon Communications. That investment has targeted broadband improvements through fiber middle mile networks and extended DSL service with Ethernet and DSLAM equipment. The last mile installation to individual homes and businesses requires a suitable return on investment. If a provider cannot recoup expenses within a few years, those failing the test will not receive service. The Connect America Fund covers some of the investment costs, bringing rural areas closer to the return expectations providers have.

FairPoint earlier promised to reach 95 percent of New Hampshire with broadband service, with similar goals in Maine and Vermont.

FairPoint customers in larger northern New England communities can also expect eventual speed upgrades as the company continues to work on deploying next generation DSL technology.

Cable competition in the region is spotty, with Comcast and Time Warner Cable providing the bulk of service, mostly in the largest communities.

The communities slated to see DSL service (or extended service into previously unserved areas) include:

Alexandria, Barrington, Bartlett, Canterbury, Concord, Conway, Cornish, Croydon, Dorchester, Dover, Durham, Effingham, Epping, Epsom, Franklin, Gilmanton, Goffstown, Grantham, Jackson, Lee, Litchfield, Manchester, Meredith, New Hampton, Nottingham, Orange, Ossipee, Pembroke, Richmond, Sanbornton, Strafford, Tuftonboro and Wolfeboro.

Bewkes

What cord-cutting?

The “other” Time Warner — the separate entertainment company no longer affiliated with Time Warner Cable, has a chief executive who regularly downplays the threat of cable customers dropping television service and switching to alternate forms of online viewing.

At a conference in New York, CEO Jeff Bewkes said cord cutters largely fell in two categories:

1. Low income households who could never afford cable and still can’t;
2. Wealthy kids who grew up without cable television, still don’t have it now that they are living on their own, but can easily afford “three Starbucks a day” and don’t mind paying just about any price for the cost of content they actually want.

Bewkes cannot understand what people are complaining about when they open their monthly cable bill. After all, he argued, the value of  cable television and broadband have gone up with larger channel packages and speed upgrades without major price hikes.

But Bewkes’ definition of “major” may differ from those in middle class households who cannot afford rate increases that far outpace inflation year after year.

For now, Time Warner signaled it intends to remain loyal to the “all-or-nothing” cable package. That makes the chance of finding their entertainment shows available a-la-carte or online on-demand without a paid subscription pretty poor.

Time Warner Cable would like to thank the city of Charlotte and the state of North Carolina for the generous handouts of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare that helped make their newly-christened $82 million data center possible.

In return, Charlotte residents pay the nation’s highest cable bills, according to a piece in the Charlotte Observer.

Time Warner Cable maintains a cozy relationship with state and local officials — friendly enough to help win the company a state Job Development Investment Grant worth up to $2.9 million in public tax dollars in return for hiring 225 workers in their eastern national data center. Critics contend Time Warner was going to need to hire workers with or without the grant.

According to WhiteFence, the average Charlottean paid $51.18 for standalone high-speed Internet services in October.

The group surveys pricing from utility providers nationwide and builds a national price index for different services, including broadband.

No city pays higher prices that Charlotte, N.C., according to the group. The WhiteFence Index also shows Internet pricing is rising steadily, up from less than $40 charged this past May.

The Libertarian Party of North Carolina is probably the biggest opponent of corporate welfare handouts in the state:

By taking money from the taxpayers and giving it to businesses in the form of “corporate incentives,” our state and local governments are playing a game of Reverse Robin Hood. They are robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. The Libertarian Party of North Carolina denounces all corporate welfare programs as fiscally irresponsible and calls for their immediate abolition.

Millions of dollars are taken every year from our taxpayers and stashed into various funds and programs at all levels of government. The purpose of these funds is supposedly to attract businesses to our area and help them expand, under the theory that this will create jobs and promote general prosperity.

This theory has two fundamental defects. First of all, the government has no place in deciding which jobs should be created and maintained. A free market is infinitely better equipped to respond to the economic needs of businesses and consumers. When the government starts funding already successful companies, it becomes harder to compete in the marketplace if you have a new company with an innovative idea or service.

More directly, we can not have general prosperity until we rid ourselves of our excessive tax burdens. The first cause of economic prosperity is when consumers have money to spend. But we have less and less spending money, as governments take more and more from our paychecks. And then they use that money taken from us as legal bribes to entice their corporate favorites to come to North Carolina.

Cadillac prices for some sports networks you pay for whether you watch or not. (Early Summer 2012 – Prices have since risen for some networks)

About 50 percent of your monthly cable television bill covers the cost of live sporting events and the networks that cover them, and the price is not going down anytime soon.

At least $21 of that bill is split between more than 50 national and regional channels covering every imaginable sport.

What customers may not know is that a handful of self-interested giant corporations and major sporting leagues have successfully bid up the price to carry those events using your money.

The Philadelphia Inquirer took a hard look at spiraling sports programming costs last weekend, discovering a lot of cable subscribers are paying for sports programming they will never watch.

“Here is a little old lady who wants to watch CNN,” Ralph Morrow, owner of Catalina Cable TV Co. in Avalon, Calif., a 1,200-subscriber system, told the newspaper. “But I can’t give it to her without $21 a month in sports.”

In the last 20 months, some of the biggest names in sports programming including Comcast/NBC, Fox, ESPN, CBS, and Turner have agreed to collectively pay $72 billion in TV rights to air pro, college, and Olympic events over the next decade. Costs are anticipated to soar to $100 billion or more once those contracts come up for renewal.

To cover the growing expense, the pay television industry’s business model insists that every subscriber must pay for sports networks as part of the “basic package” whether they watch or not. Nothing fuels annual rate increases faster than sports programming, and there is no end in sight.

Many contracts specifically prohibit operators from selling their networks “a-la-carte” or in special “sports tiers” that carry extra monthly fees.  Any additional costs are quickly passed onto subscribers in the form of regular rate hikes.

Charlie Ergen from Dish Networks suggests at the current pace of sports programming rate increases, it won’t be long before subscribers will face cable bills up to $2,000 a year, just to watch television.

If you don’t believe him, consider estimates from NPD Group, which predicts the national average for cable TV bills could reach $200 a month as soon as 2020. That is up from the already-high $86 a month customers pay today, after all costs and surcharges are added up.

It was not always this way. As late as the 1980s, the overwhelming majority of marquee sporting events were televised on “free TV” networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC. For decades, major broadcast networks largely had only themselves and the economics of advertiser supported television to consider when submitting bids to win carriage rights.

With the advent of cable sports networks, supported by dual revenue streams from both advertising and subscriber fees, ESPN eventually amassed a back account large enough to outbid traditional broadband networks. If another network moves in on ESPN’s action, the cable network simply raises the subscription fee charged to every cable subscriber to up the ante.

Broadcasters have enviously watched this dual revenue stream in action for several years now, and have recently insisted they be treated equally. Today, cable operators face demands for similar monthly payments from television stations and their network owners. In effect, customers are paying both sides to outbid one another for sports programming.

Consider ESPN as a case study in sports programming inflation. From 1989-2012, ESPN rates increased 440 percent. Today, every cable subscriber pays at least $5.13 for ESPN alone. In fact, the actual amount is considerably higher, because ESPN has successfully compelled most cable and satellite programmers to also carry (and pay for) several additional ESPN-branded networks also found on your lineup.

But why do cable companies agree to pay astronomical fees for sports networks, only to later alienate customers with annual rate hikes?

First, because customers watch sports. If a cable company does not carry the network showing a game or team a customer wants to see, that company will likely hear about it, either in a complaint call or cancellation.

Second, watching live sporting events is not easy for a cord-cutter. With fewer games appearing consistently on broadcast television, a cord cutting sports fan risks missing the action only available from a pay television provider.

In a defensive move, many cable and satellite companies assume the more live sports a  provider offers, the lower the chance a sports enthusiast will consider canceling service.

Cross-ownership also muddies the water for consumers. Comcast, the largest cable operator in the country, has an obvious self-interest loading its systems up with its own sports programming and compelling customers to pay for it.

Comcast owns about a dozen regional sports networks, NBC, NBC Sports Network and Golf.

Other large cable operators are concluding if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. Time Warner Cable found one lucrative reason to own its own sports networks: its ability to charge competing cable and satellite providers sky high prices to carry that programming.

Time Warner is asking fellow cable, telco, and satellite providers to pay $3.95 a month for its SportsNet English and Spanish language networks, which feature the Los Angeles Lakers. For good measure, the same cable company that routinely complains about being forced to pass on mandatory sports programming costs from others insists companies place both of their sports channels on basic lineups, which guarantees every subscriber will also pay the price for two more sports channels, one in Spanish, they may have no interest in watching.