Phillip “Tollbooths are not innovation” Dampier

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski last week wrote a guest editorial on TechCrunch espousing the benefits of faster broadband networks, but the advances he celebrates often come with innovation-killing usage caps and overlimit fees he continues to ignore.

We feel the need – the need for speed. As Tom Friedman and others have written, in this flat global economy a strategic bandwidth advantage will help keep the U.S. as the home and most desired destination for the world’s greatest innovators and entrepreneurs.

[…] But progress isn’t victory, particularly in this fast-moving sector. Challenges to U.S. leadership are real. This is a time to press harder on the gas pedal, not let up. The first challenge is the need for faster and more accessible broadband networks. We need to keep pushing because our global competitors aren’t slowing down. I’ve met with senior government officials and business leaders from every continent, and every one of them is focused on the broadband opportunity. If we in the U.S. don’t foster major investments to extend and expand our broadband infrastructure, somebody else will take the lead.

We need to keep pushing because innovators need next-generation bandwidth for next-generation innovations – genetic sequencing for cancer patients, immersive and creative software to help children learn, ways for small businesses to take advantage of Big Data, and speed- and capacity-heavy innovations we can’t yet imagine.

We need to remove bandwidth as a constraint on our innovators and entrepreneurs. In addition to steadily increasing broadband speed and capacity for consumers and businesses throughout the country, we need – as we said in our National Broadband Plan – “innovation hubs” with super-fast broadband, with speed measured in gigabits, not megabits.

[…]Some argue the private sector will solve these challenges itself, and that all government has to do is get out of the way. I disagree. The private sector must take the lead, but the public sector has a vital though limited role to play.

Among the policy levers government needs to use is the removal of barriers to broadband buildout, lowering the costs of infrastructure deployment with new policies like “Dig Once” that says you should lay fiber when you dig up roads. The President recently issued an Executive Order implementing this idea, suggested in our Broadband Plan. Government must promote competition, which drives innovation and network upgrades.

We must ensure the Internet remains an open platform that continues to enable innovation without permission.

Genachowski

Genachowski’s vision for faster broadband has the noble goal of maintaining competitiveness with the rest of the world and putting the United States back on top in broadband rankings and innovation. But while hobnobbing with his industry friends at recent industry conventions, he may have gotten too close to one of the biggest impediments holding us back — big cable and phone companies merrily working their magic to create a comfortable duopoly with pricing and service plans to match.

Back in the late 1990s, most cable operators thought of broadband as an ancillary service easy enough to operate, but probably hard to monetize. Just like digital cable radio services like Music Choice and DMX, “broadband” would likely appeal only to a tiny subset of customers.

“Back in the 1990s, Time Warner was primarily a TV company in a TV industry.  Broadband then was an innovating and radical thing, and a lot of people thought it was stupid and wouldn’t work,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said in April, 2009.

The launch of “Road Runner” was not the most auspicious marketing effort undertaken by the cable operator. In fact, the service was rarely targeted for price adjustments, hovering at around $40 a month for a decade.

When the Great Recession hit the United States, something unexpected happened. Cable operators discovered people were willing to cancel their cable and phone services, but not their broadband. In fact, as high bandwidth online video became an increasing part of our lives, the cable industry realized they were in the catbird seat to deliver the best broadband experience, and be well-paid for it. With little competition, increasing prices brought little risk and, thanks to the insatiable drive to boost revenue and reduce costs, implementing usage caps to control “excess” usage and costs were within their grasp.

In 2008, when Stop the Cap! launched, only a handful of ISPs had usage caps. Now most providers, with the exception of Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cablevision, and a handful of others, all have usage allowances and overlimit fee Internet Overcharging schemes to further pad their bottom lines.

Innovation: Rationing Your Internet Experience — Stick to e-mail and web pages.

Genachowski has completely ignored the growing pervasiveness of usage caps, and even excused them as an experiment in marketplace innovation. But limits on broadband usage will also limit the broadband innovation revolution he wants, especially when most Americans have just one or two realistic choices for broadband service:

1. Usage caps are the product of artificial scarcity. Rationing Internet usage, even with now-pervasive cost-effective upgrades like DOCSIS 3, simply does not make sense (but it will make dollars). Cable operators are switching off analog television service to free up bandwidth to provider faster Internet speed and fatten the pipeline that delivers it. They have plenty of capacity, but continue to proclaim they must limit usage for “fairness” reasons, without providing a single shred of evidence to prove the need for usage caps. Consumers will self-ration just to avoid the prospect of being cut off or handed a bill with overlimit fees.
2. Usage caps make faster speeds irrelevant. Selling customers premium-priced, super fast broadband speed is hardly compelling when accompanied by usage caps that constrain the benefits of buying. Why pay $20-50 more for faster speeds when customers cannot take practical advantage of them. Customers using their Internet service to browse web pages and read e-mail have no interest in upgrading to 30+Mbps. Customers streaming video or moving large files do.
3. Usage caps retard innovation. Google’s new 1Gbps fiber optic network was built on the premise that usage caps were unnecessary on a fiber-based network and would retard innovation. Developing the next generation of innovative apps that Genachowski celebrates will never happen if developers are discouraged by Internet usage toll booths and stop signs. The cost to provide the service is not largely dependent on customer usage. It is the initial price of last mile infrastructure that really matters. Both cable and phone companies have reduced their investments to upgrade their networks, and AT&T and Verizon both contemplate getting rid of their rural landlines. Most cable operators paid off their networks years ago.
4. Usage caps create a whole new digital divide.  Time Warner Cable’s discounted Internet Essentials program delivers only a $5 discount with a harsh 5GB usage cap. For an income-challenged home compelled to switch to a provider’s budget plan, the result is a different Internet experience than the rest of us enjoy. Imagine if your home broadband account was limited to 5GB a month. What online services would you have to avoid to stay under the provider’s limit? Traditionally, operators sell the lowest speed tiers with the lowest usage allowances. Slower speeds already offer a disincentive to use high bandwidth services, but many providers typically drive that disincentive home even harder with a paltry allowance that will cost plenty to exceed.
5. Usage caps harm our broadband standing. While Genachowski celebrates increasing broadband speeds, he ignores the fact the rest of the world is moving away from usage caps even as the United States moves towards them. Both Australia and New Zealand elected to construct their own national fiber networks in large part because the heavily usage-capped experience was holding both countries back. Usage caps are a product of a barely competitive market.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bandwidth Caps 7-2011.flv[/flv]

Tech News Today debunks providers’ claims that usage caps are fair and control those who “overuse” their networks, noting the same phone companies (AT&T) pushing for usage caps are also moving voice calling to unlimited service plans. (August, 2011) (4 minutes)

A New Jersey man is facing down Verizon Communications after the company sent him a $2,345 bill for the company’s equipment lost in a devastating fire.

Jarrett Seltzer has been a Verizon FiOS customer for six years. A February fire destroyed virtually all of his property, including four Verizon cable boxes and a router installed six years ago. After notifying Verizon about the fire, Seltzer says Verizon continued to charge him for two additional weeks of service and then sent him a final bill for $2,345 to cover the lost equipment.

Seltzer called Verizon to complain about the bill and says he was transferred not less than 14 times during the call, which lasted about an hour and a half. At the end of the call, nothing was resolved.

“[Verizon] should be ashamed,” Seltzer said in a YouTube video describing his debacle.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon FiOS billed me 2,345 for my burned cable boxes 9-21-12.flv[/flv]

Jarrett Seltzer says a February fire left him with nothing… except a $2,345 bill from Verizon Communications for equipment that was destroyed in the fire.  (2 minutes)

Seltzer says he has spent more than $18,000 as a Verizon FiOS customer over the last six years, and is astounded the company is aggressively trying to recoup damages for six year-old equipment. He is now at the point where he would not accept a credit from Verizon even if offered.

“I’d rather pay $2,345 for [equipment] I lost in a fire, along with everything else I’ve ever owned, than not make people aware of this,” Seltzer said.

Stop the Cap! regularly covers stories about customers facing enormous bills for lost or damaged provider equipment. While most companies will forego billing customers fees in high profile cases, and Comcast claims it will not charge customers for lost equipment if they don’t have insurance, many other companies are less understanding. One cable company asked a customer to search their tornado-devastated neighborhood to unearth lost equipment. Others demand advance payment while the insurance companies sort out claims in progress.

Renters are traditionally the most likely to face lost equipment charges because many mistakenly believe a landlord’s own insurance policy will cover their losses. That  impression can leave customers with nothing after a fire. But even with a personal renter’s insurance policy, some insurance companies still refuse to cover lost cable equipment or only offer to pay the depreciated, actual value of equipment, not the full retail price most companies demand. That may be the case with Geico — Seltzer’s next target.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KDKA Pittsburgh Arson Victim Billed For Cable Equipment Lost In Fire 5-18-12.mp4[/flv]

KDKA in Pittsburgh got Comcast on the record — it will not bill people for lost or damaged equipment if they lack renter’s insurance — after this victim of an arson fire reported the company billed her more than $600 for lost cable equipment.  (2 minutes)

Despite perennial protests from pay television providers that programming costs are getting out of hand, this fall viewers will find an even greater number of costly sports channels that will fuel rate increases in 2013.

The biggest boost in sports programming comes from Time Warner Cable, which has finally signed a deal with the National Football League and will also launch a series of regional and sports specialty channels for subscribers already able to watch more than a dozen sports-related networks. When it comes to betting on televised sports, a site like 4D Result 8 can definitely be trusted. The deal also affects Bright House Networks subscribers. Time Warner Cable handles programming negotiations for Bright House.

This past weekend’s addition of the NFL Network to the company’s digital standard service lineup and the niche NFL RedZone channel, which is part of the company’s $5.95 Sports Pass specialty tier comes nine years after the NFL Network launched. Time Warner Cable was the last major holdout that refused to carry the network, which costs an estimated $0.95 per cable subscriber, per month. But as League officials began gradually increasing the number of season games on the network, enraged sports fans feeling left out increasingly pelted the cable operator with complaints.

The NFL has also consistently refused to allow its primary NFL Network to appear on a mini-pay tier, available only to those willing to pay extra, instead demanding it be a part of standard service.

Another holdout, Cablevision, relented and agreed to carry the two NFL networks in August, leading to speculation the cable operator will break its promise not to increase rates in 2012 and will raise prices while blaming the addition of the costly sports networks.

At nearly a dollar per month per customer, it is a virtual certainty much, if not all, of that cost will also be passed on to Time Warner Cable customers during the next round of rate increases.

But that is just the beginning, especially if you are a Time Warner Cable customer in southern California.

In mid-August, most Time Warner customers began receiving at least one Pac-12 network on the company’s Sports Pass tier. But in Los Angeles, customers are getting two channels, one devoted to the entire conference and an extra channel dedicated to USC and UCLA coverage that every local subscriber will receive.

Your cable bill is going up again.

Both channels do not come cheap. Sports Business Journal has reported that the Pac-12 is seeking more than 80 cents per subscriber to carry its channels, about the same price charged by the Disney Channel.

Cox, Comcast, and Bright House Networks subscribers don’t get a free pass either. They will also find Pac-12 Networks on their local lineups (and bills) soon enough.

Also for southern California, Time Warner Cable is creating two new sports channels, SportsNet and Deportes (Spanish), that will exclusively carry games featuring the Los Angeles Lakers, Galaxy, Sparks, and perhaps one day the Dodgers.

The networks’ broadcast territory includes all regions that previously broadcast Lakers, Galaxy and Sparks games. That area stretches from Fresno County to the north to San Diego and Imperial County to the south. It also includes Hawaii (Time Warner Cable Deportes not available in Hawaii) and Clark County, Nev. A full list of California counties that can receive the networks: Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura.

The Lakers signed a $4 billion, 20-year deal with Time Warner Cable for broadcast rights, taking them away from KCAL-TV, a free over-the-air station. Time Warner will want their money back, so they will get it from you, the subscriber. Ironically, while Time Warner complains about other sports programmers insisting their networks be carried on the standard service tier, it has no problem wanting the same for its own sports channels. Subscribers throughout the region may end up covering the nearly $4 monthly cost per subscriber for the two regional sports channels, whether they want them or not.

They may not have the fastest broadband experience around, but Frontier Communications is trying to find an edge in the market delivering innovative services that will keep you satisfied with your service. The phone company today unveiled Frontier Games, an all-you-can-play PC gaming service.

In partnership with Exent, the new service will offer unlimited access to more than 2,300 PC games, including Family Feud, Slingo Supreme, and King’s Bounty for $14.99 a month. You can enjoy casino games similar to those available on UFA บาคาร่าออนไลน์.

To be fair, most of the available games are not titles one would clamor for on their home game console, and many of the titles seem to skew towards the very young and those in their 40’s on up. The website of silver oak has enticing games for people aged 21 and above. However, with categories for arcade games, card and casino titles, and role-playing, there is plenty to experience, including options for exploring a diverse range of interests, from gaming enthusiasts to fans of แพลตฟอร์มสปอร์ตบุ๊คอย่าง UFABET.

Why is Frontier getting into the online gaming business?

‘We’re excited to expand our partnership with Exent to launch an enhanced Frontier Games and provide customers with access to the best casual games from around the world,” said Melinda White, executive vice president of revenue development at Frontier — her title says it all.

To maintain a competitive edge, Frontier is seeking to differentiate itself from being just another Internet Service Provider. If the company can offer additional products and services not available from the cable competition, customers may think twice about switching providers.

All of the games are designed to work well regardless of connection speed — an important factor for a rural landline company that routinely sells 1-3Mbps DSL service in smaller communities.

A 14-day free trial is available from the company’s sign-up page. We found many of the games offered rudimentary graphics and certainly could not compete with some of today’s most advanced console games, but the joker123 casino and card games we sampled worked fine for the casual player. With the prevalence of “free online games” scattered across the web packed with adware (or worse), https://leveluppcasino.com offers a safe alternative for anyone looking for a spyware free experience.

Parental controls are also available, and the library of games is regularly refreshed. If you’re diving into the minecraft world and want to explore additional features, including riding animals, here’s how to make saddle on minecraft. This can add a new layer of excitement to your gameplay while ensuring a safe and enjoyable experience for players of all ages.

CenturyLink, also an Exent partner, developed their gaming service slightly differently, throwing in several free Exent games as a promotional tool. Verizon also offers the gaming service for the same price Frontier charges.

Comcast has agreed to provide cable service to 540 homes on Chappaquiddick Island, but only if residents agree to cover part of the cost, which Comcast estimates will be $1,526 per home, assuming everyone offered the service signs up.

Martha’s Vineyard, with Chappaquiddick Island to the east

The cable company has been at odds with town officials in Edgartown, which is responsible for negotiating franchise agreements for six Massachusetts island communities and Edgartown itself. Comcast said it would cost $1.58 million to wire up the small island, and it wants residents to pay $824,000 of that.

The cable company also wants residents to pay extra for connections if their homes lie more than 250 feet from the primary cable Comcast intends to wire across the island. Beyond that, customers will pay Comcast’s usual rates for cable TV, phone, and broadband service.

Edgartown wants Comcast to cover the island towns that surround it, and the company in turn has routinely claimed there were insufficient customers available to recoup the costs of the investment.  But attitudes have softened now that Comcast’s franchise is up for renewal.

Local officials issued a request for proposals in February, 2011 to a variety of cable operators that might be interested in serving Martha’s Vineyard, of which Chappaquiddick is a part. As anticipated, Comcast — the incumbent, was the only company that responded.

But after an extended back and forth, Comcast seemed willing to relent, if someone split the tab.

Local residents have had mixed reactions to the proposal. Some wonder why they should have to foot the bill for a company that will earn $8 million annually from customers on the various nearby islands. Others are willing to pay, but in installments.

Edgartown town administrator Pam Dolby wants a more detailed breakdown of the cost estimate of $1.58 million to wire just over six square miles of the island.