Rep. Avila with Marc Trathen, Time Warner Cable's top lobbyist (right) Photo by: Bob Sepe of Action Audits

Over the course of an hour this afternoon, North Carolina’s Senate Finance Committee discussed the implications of H.129, legislation proposed, written, and lobbied by Time Warner Cable and some of their phone friends across the state.

On hand was Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable), who tried to turn her competition-busting bill into an emotional epiphany about jobs and the benefits private providers bring to a state now ranked dead last in broadband.

Pass me a tissue.

Nobody doubts Ms. Avila is looking out for the interests of the state’s big cable and phone companies.  Unfortunately for her district, she isn’t looking out for the broadband interests of her constituents, forced to pay some of America’s highest prices for low end service.

As Avila pals around with lobbyists from Time Warner Cable and the state’s cable trade group (more lobbyists), consumers in places like Orange County in north-central North Carolina see themselves on broadband maps but find they cannot actually get service from any providers.

As the hearing progressed into two-minute statements from parties interested in the outcome, the disconnect between well-paid lobbyists and corporate front groups like Americans for Prosperity with elected officials and consumers on the ground surveying a bleak broadband landscape said a lot.

Cable companies and their lobbyist friends sought to portray community broadband projects as fiscal failures — one suggested that was a global reality, despite the fact many countries have embarked on nationwide broadband plans that directly involve government to help build infrastructure.  The global leader in broadband, South Korea, is a perfect example.  With collaboration between the government and the private sector, Korea will have 1 gigabit broadband service across much of the country within a few years.  That’s because South Korea does not believe broadband is simply a convenience, they see it as a social and economic necessity.

The other side sees it as a private moneymaker that can charge rapacious prices because it’s not an essential service.

Shining a bright light on this reality was Americans for Prosperity, who delivered their own speaker at today’s hearing.  As the group complained about government ‘overreach’ providing incentives in the 1930s for rural power and phone service, it quickly became apparent there are some in this debate willing to let rural Americans sit in darkness, without a phone line (much less broadband), to make a free market point: if private companies can’t or won’t deliver the service, you don’t deserve it and shouldn’t have it.

One wonders where this thinking will ultimately take us.  Will community gardens be opposed for taking vegetable profits away from private corporate farms?  Flea markets on public fairgrounds should be banned because they unfairly compete with eBay, Dollar Tree or a supermarket?  The irony is these “small government conservatives” are all for big government legislation to keep potential competitors at bay.  For them, broadband cannot be a locally-determined community project — just something you buy from a company that may or may not have an interest in serving you.

Just ask the gentleman from Orange County, who appeared as the final speaker.  He spent his two minutes complaining about faulty cable and phone company-provided broadband coverage maps that claim service where none exists.  After spending money on equipment, he learned CenturyLink had no interest in actually providing him with DSL.  In fact, when he asked both the phone and cable company when that might change, the impression he was left with was “never.”

Whether members of the state legislature understand the irony of CenturyLink spending a fortune making sure Orange County never delivers the broadband service the company won’t provide itself is something voters across the state will need to impress on them.

They should be told, in no uncertain terms, to oppose H.129 and leave community broadband alone in North Carolina.

Signal boosters use an outdoor antenna to reach distant cell tower sites, while using an indoor antenna your mobile device can lock onto for improved reception.

If the Federal Communications Commission has its way, Americans annoyed with lousy cell phone reception will soon be able to purchase a new generation of signal boosters capable of delivering service to fringe reception areas ignored or bypassed by providers.  And unlike home cell-phone extenders, they won’t use your home broadband connection while also eating up your voice and data allowance.

A signal booster, not to be confused with a “femtocell” some wireless carriers sell or give to customers, acts like an amplified super-antenna — giving a boost to phones and mobile broadband signals in difficult reception areas.

This devices have been around and legal to use for a several years in North America, much to the consternation of cell phone companies and some public safety officials who deal with occasional interference problems created by misused or malfunctioning equipment.  The FCC is trying to find ways to mitigate interference problems while still allowing customers to benefit from signal boosters.  There are documented cases of rescuers relying on the equipment in remote disaster areas, and rural residents have managed 911 calls that would have been impossible without signal boosting technology.

Despite the agency’s efforts, several cell phone companies — particularly AT&T, object to the Commission’s plans to allow the independent use of signal-boosting equipment on “their” frequencies and networks.  Because cell phone boosters agnostically enhance every company’s signal within its frequency range and does not require users to pre-register phones to get access, AT&T stands to lose revenue if they are not the exclusive authority on selling, approving, and registering the use of miniature relay stations that boost their network’s coverage area.

AT&T currently sells customers femtocells which reduce dependence on the carrier’s overburdened 3G network — offloading traffic onto home and workplace wired broadband connections, which includes both voice calls and data.  But only a small percentage of customers get the equipment for free, often extending their contracts in the process.

Some providers and emergency responders have documented instances where these devices have created interference problems for cell tower sites and for emergency radio traffic that co-exists on the same frequency bands signal boosters occupy.  In some cases, inappropriate use of signal boosters has blocked emergency traffic, shut down cell sites, or reduced their coverage.  That is why the FCC wants the next generation of signal boosters to be able to intelligently interact with cell sites and other traffic users and reduce their power or discontinue service if they begin to create interference problems.

AT&T’s suggested safeguards go well beyond what most other carriers want from the FCC:

First, AT&T proposes that wireless licensees have “ultimate control” over any signal boosters operating on their networks under a presumptive authorization.  Specifically, signal booster operators must activate their devices with the licensee prior to initial use. In addition, the booster must possess technology to permit the licensee’s network to identify the device as a booster and identify its location at all times. Further, the licensee must have “dynamic control over the boosters’ transmit power” and have the authority and ability to turn off the booster for any reason at any time. Alternatively, AT&T proposes that the booster have “automatic gain control functionality that adjusts the power provided to the booster based on distance to the relevant base station.”

Second, AT&T proposes that signal boosters may only be operated on a channelized basis on the frequencies authorized for use by the wireless licensee whose signal is being boosted. AT&T suggests that manufacturers could meet this requirement by selling carrier-specific narrowband boosters or by designing “intelligent” boosters that limit transmissions to the spectrum licensed to the carrier whose signal is being boosted.

Third, AT&T proposes that signal boosters be designed with oscillation detection and will terminate transmission when oscillation occurs.

Fourth, AT&T proposes an expanded certification process for signal boosters that are to be used pursuant to a presumptive authorization. Specifically, the booster would be subject to (1) the Commission’s equipment certification process; (2) an industry-driven certification process;105 and (3) individual licensee approval to ensure compliance with the licensee’s proprietary confidential network protocols.

Fifth, AT&T proposes that any presumptive authorization standards be applied prospectively and that the Commission bring enforcement action against parties that sell, market, or use devices that do not meet the presumptive standard.

Wilson Electronics is a major manufacturer of cell signal boosters.

Equipment manufacturers are not impressed with AT&T’s ideas.  One tells Stop the Cap! if adopted, signal boosting equipment would cost more than double today’s average price of $200-400.

“AT&T has built so many requirements into their proposal, they know the result will be a product too expensive to sell to consumers,” the source tells us.  “And the part where AT&T wants the right to authorize and register the equipment gives them the option of charging a fee for doing so, turning the product into yet another way for AT&T to make money.”

Equipment manufacturers agree that there have been instances of interference problems, and they are willing to work with the Commission to find solutions, but not at the risk of adopting proposals some suspect are designed to destroy the signal booster business.

“AT&T is a control freak, plain and simple,” the source says.  “If they don’t own it or control it, it’s offensive to them.  It must be eliminated.”

More than one equipment manufacturer has noted, not for attribution, they find AT&T’s complaints a bit ironic.

“This is the same company that is already notorious for dropping calls,” said the source.  “You would think they would look favorably on anything that could deliver ‘more bars in more places,’ because AT&T sure isn’t doing it these days.  Just ask their customers.”

Should any family have to fight over the monthly Internet bill?

One of the side effects of Internet Overcharging is the one-two punch of the usage cap combined with a steep overlimit penalty.  While usage capping providers pay pennies for your Internet traffic, they can charge you up to $10/GB if you dare exceed your plan allowance.

Making sure you don’t… too much… is the job of the provider who will helpfully educate you on how to use your service less, how to establish an in-home Ministry for State Security — tracking down those malfeasant family members who want to deny running the bill up, and providing inaccurate monitoring tools designed to make you think twice about everything you do online.

Far-fetched?

Not really.  Just ask Mathew Ingram, a Rogers Cable customer in Ontario who tells Techdirt he spends much of his free time trying to figure out who is doing what with the family broadband account:

I have three teenage daughters who also download music, TV shows and so on. I figured someone had just gone a little overboard, and since it was close to the end of the month, I thought it wasn’t anything to be worried about. The next day, however, I went online and checked my usage (Rogers has an online tool that shows daily usage), and it said that I had used 121 GB more than my allotted amount for the month. In other words, I had used more than 100 GB in less than two days.

I just about spit my coffee all over the computer screen. How could I possibly have used that much? According to Rogers, I owed $181 in overage charges. Luckily there is a maximum extra levy of $50 a month (just think what it would cost if I was subject to usage-based billing).

With the help of Rogers (who also helped themselves to $50 of Ingram’s money for overlimit fees), an employee identified security holes in his wireless router which could have let all the neighbors join the broadband usage party at his expense.  But in reality, after considerable family tension and drama, one of Ingram’s daughters confessed to downloading some TV shows and forgot to close the file sharing software used to grab them.

Ingram learned a $50 (this month) lesson — he is not free to sit back and enjoy his broadband account that costs him much more than American providers charge for the same thing (without a usage cap).  He serves at the pleasure of Rogers Cable, who wins if Ingram succeeds in keeping his family’s usage under the limit — costing Rogers less money, or by pocketing the overlimit fees charged when he fails.

What scares many Canadians are plans by some providers to eliminate the monthly maximum overlimit fee.  That would have left Ingram paying a $181 penalty instead of $50.  As far as cable companies like Rogers are concerned, it’s his own fault for not keeping his family under control, and now he will pay the price.

In what one website is calling a data witch hunt, AT&T is reaching out and touching some unlimited data plan customers the company suspects of “tethering” — the practice of sharing your smartphone data plan with other devices such as a laptop, iPad, or even home computer.

Just a short time ago, Stop the Cap! reported AT&T was tracking down “heavy users” that were using over 10GB of wireless usage per month.  But now it appears AT&T is starting to contact customers using less — as little as 5GB, warning them they must sign up for a tethering plan if they intend on tethering their phones.  Only many getting the warnings are not tethering at all.  Modmyi, which has an active forum discussing the subject, reports their latest findings:

The first round appeared to be users on AT&T unlimited data plans that used more than 10GB of data in March. The latest round appears to be similar users using more than 5GB in March. It appears AT&T is on a data witch hunt. We’ve seen the message sent to users who simply use a lot of bandwidth (and never even tether/jailbreak) as well as users that use unauthorized tethering.

What’s most shocking is that many users have reported calling AT&T and were asked if they were using Netflix, Pandora, etc. Some have been told that using those services is the definition of tethering. We’re not sure if this is coming down from the AT&T top, or if this is simply non-technical AT&T customer service reps that are confused about what tethering is. However, based on the number of user reports, and the chances that users are very likely reaching different reps, this seems like deliberate AT&T rep training. Seemingly unethically, many customers are being convinced to pay for a tethering plan when they’re in fact not tethering at all.

AT&T has sought to monetize data usage across all of their networks, first imposing a 2GB usage cap on their wireless customers and now plans a 150-250GB cap on their wired broadband services.

Time Warner Cable’s business services division today unveiled a new scalable online storage service for business class customers that automatically backs up computer and server files to a remote data center over its cable broadband network.

“Businesses are increasingly reliant on vital computer data, and their need to protect and maintain this critical information also continues to grow,” said Craig Collins, Senior Vice President, Business Services Sales & Marketing, Time Warner Cable Business Class. “Our new Business Class Online Backup provides our customers with a reliable and secure data storage service that will enable their business operations to proceed unimpeded should data loss occur.”

The service can support backups running well into the terabytes of data, uploaded over the cable company’s increasingly DOCSIS 3-compliant broadband network, which can help maximize upload speed.

Business class customers already enjoy “prioritized” service for business broadband traffic, which travels over the same cable lines used by residential cable customers.

With the introduction of online file backup, one of the most data-intensive services around, Time Warner Cable is demonstrating it believes its network can sustain the increased traffic online cloud storage will bring, all without usage limitations.

Some broadband providers, including Time Warner Cable, have historically claimed broadband traffic growth has necessitated experiments to control and manage usage.  But with necessary infrastructure upgrades, the cable operator has proven it can deliver a more robust broadband service to customers, and earn additional revenue selling products that take advantage of increased capacity.