Tomorrow is election day in the United States. Stop the Cap! has reviewed both presidential candidates’ positions (or the lack thereof) as well as the past voting records and platforms of members of both major political parties. With this in mind, it is time for our election guide for broadband enthusiasts. Regardless of what candidate you support, please get out and vote!

Neither political party or candidate has been perfect on broadband advocacy or consumer protection.

We’ve been disappointed by the Obama Administration, whose FCC chairman has major problems standing up to large telecom companies and their friends in the Republican-led House of Representatives. Julius Genachowski promised a lot and delivered very little on broadband reform policies that protect both consumers and the open Internet. Both President Obama and Genachowski’s rhetoric simply have not matched the results.

Bitterly disappointing moments included Genachowski’s cave-in on Net Neutrality, leaving watered down net protections challenged in court by some of the same companies that praised Genachowski’s willingness to compromise. Genachowski’s thank you card arrived in the form of a lawsuit. His unwillingness to take the common sense approach of defining broadband as a “telecommunications service” has left Internet policies hanging by a tenuous thread, waiting to be snipped by the first D.C. federal judge with a pair of sharp scissors. But even worse, the FCC chairman’s blinders on usage caps and usage billing have left him unbelievably naive about this pricing scheme. No, Mr. Genachowski, usage pricing is not about innovation, it’s about monetizing broadband usage for even fatter profits at the expense of average consumers already overpaying for Internet access.

Obama

Unfortunately, the alternative choice may be worse. Let’s compare the two parties and their candidates:

The Obama Administration treats broadband comparably to alternative energy. Both deliver promise, but not if we wait for private companies to do all of the heavy lifting. The Obama Administration believes Internet expansion needs government assistance to overcome the current blockade of access for anyone failing to meet private Return On Investment requirements.

While this sober business analysis has kept private providers from upsetting investors with expensive capital investments, it has also allowed millions of Americans to go without service. The “incremental growth” argument advocated by private providers has allowed the United States’ leadership role on broadband to falter. In both Europe and Asia, even small nations now outpace the United States deploying advanced broadband networks which offer far higher capacity, usually at dramatically lower prices. Usually, other nations one-upping the United States is treated like a threat to national security. This time, the argument is that those other countries don’t actually need the broadband networks they have, nor do we.

The Obama Administration bows to the reality that private companies simply will not invest in unprofitable service areas unless the government helps pick up the tab. But those companies also want the government to spend the money with as little oversight over their networks as possible.

That sets up the classic conflict between the two political parties — Democrats who want to see broadband treated like a critically-important utility that deserves some government oversight in its current state and Republicans who want to leave matters entirely in the hands of private providers who they claim know best, and keep the government out of it.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s regular cave-ins for the benefit of Big Telecom brought heavy criticism from us for his “cowardly lion” act.

Just about the only thing the two parties agree on is reforming the Universal Service Fund, which had until recently been directing millions to keeping traditional phone service up and running even as Americans increasingly abandon landlines.

But differences quickly emerge from there.

The Obama Administration believes broadband is increasingly a service every American must be able to access if sought. The Romney-Ryan campaign hasn’t spoken to the issue much beyond the general Republican platform that market forces will resolve virtually any problem when sufficient demand arises.

Republicans almost uniformly vociferously oppose Net Neutrality, believing broadband networks are the sole property of the providers that offer the service. Many Republicans characterize Net Neutrality as a “government takeover” of the Internet and a government policy that would “micromanage broadband” like it was a railroad. Somehow, they seem to have forgotten railroad monopolies used to be a problem for the United States in the early 20th century. Robber barons, anyone?

President Obama pushed for strong Net Neutrality protections for Americans, but his FCC chairman Julius Genachowski caved to the demands of AT&T, Verizon, and the cable industry by managing Net Neutrality with a disappointing “light touch” for those providers. (We’d call it “fondling” ourselves.)

Democrats favor wireless auctions and spectrum expansion, but many favor limits that reserve certain spectrum for emerging competitors and for unlicensed wireless use. Republicans trend towards “winner take all” auctions which probably will favor deep-pocketed incumbents like AT&T and Verizon. The GOP also does not support holding back as much spectrum for unlicensed use.

Republicans have been strongly supporting the deregulation of “special access” service, critical to competitors who need backhaul access to the Internet sold by large phone companies like AT&T. Critics contend the pricing deregulation has allowed a handful of phone companies to lock out competitors, particularly on the wireless side, with extremely high prices for access without any pricing oversight. The FCC under the Obama Administration suspended that deregulation last summer, a clear sign it thinks current pricing is suspect.

Romney

Opponents of usage-based pricing of Internet access have gotten shabby treatment from both parties. Republicans have shown no interest in involving themselves in a debate about the fairness of usage pricing, but neither have many Democrats.

As for publicly-owned broadband networks, sometimes called municipal broadband, the Republican record on the state and federal level is pretty clear — they actively oppose community broadband networks and many have worked with corporate front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to ban them on the state level. Democrats tend to be more favorable, but not always.

The biggest problem broadband advocates face on the federal and state level is the ongoing pervasive influence of Big Telecom campaign contributions. While politicians uniformly deny that corporate money holds any influence over their voting, the record clearly indicates otherwise. Nothing else explains the signatures from Democrats that received healthy injections of campaign cash from companies like AT&T, and then used the company’s own talking points to oppose Net Neutrality.

But in a story of the lesser of two-evils, we cannot forget AT&T spends even more to promote Republican interests, because often those interests are shared by AT&T:

• AT&T has spent nearly $900,000 on self-identified “tea party” candidates pledged to AT&T’s deregulation policies;
• AT&T gave nearly $2 million to the Republican Governors Association — a key part of their ALEC agenda;
• AT&T gave $100,000 to everyone’s favorite dollar-a-holler Astroturf group — The Heartland Institute, which opposes Net Neutrality and community broadband.

Some residents afflicted by last week’s Hurricane Sandy are cringing over a newspaper ad run over the weekend in the Staten Island Advance from Time Warner Cable depicting a shipwrecked boat laying sideways on shore, asking area businesses, “Is your phone company leaving your business high and dry?”

“How fu** distasteful can you be,” tweeted one offended resident of the hard hit area. “So glad I have FiOS.”

Verizon joined the ensuing Twitter discussion thanking the customer for the shout-out, and letting him know the company was there if he needed them.

Time Warner Cable, apparently caught unaware of the tasteless ad, frantically sought out additional information about where it ran, claiming it ordered its ad agency to cancel it before Hurricane Sandy arrived. The company said it was looking into the matter, admitting the ad is “upsetting” under the circumstances.

Your electric company is Frontier Communications?

That scenario could come true for customers in New York, Ohio and Indiana. Frontier last week unveiled FTR Energy Services, an energy reseller planning to supply 100% green electricity in selected markets in New York and Ohio and natural gas in Indiana.

FTR Energy Services is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crius Energy, launching service Nov. 19 with a business plan that claims there is convergence in the broadband and energy sector.

Frontier is likely to combine its marketing efforts with Crius Energy’s products — selling electric and telecommunications services together. Some expect Frontier will even extend bundling discounts to customers who sign up for both.

Third party energy suppliers were supposed to spur lower prices for consumers and businesses by encouraging innovation in the power generation industry. But significant savings, especially for residential customers, have proved elusive. Complicated pricing and contract terms have led to confusion and high customer turnover. Many customers eventually gave up shopping around and returned to the original utilities that have supplied power for generations. For today’s energy competitors, finding a marketing edge can be the key to growth when customers are skeptical and resistant to change.

Crius is hoping its green energy angle will attract environmentally-sensitive customers and Frontier hopes the bundled marketing offers it can blanket across its service area might deliver higher average revenue from customers — a key demand from Wall Street.

Most third party resellers enjoy modest wholesale pricing discounts, so any profits earned from reselling energy to customers are expected to be modest as well. But Frontier hopes the more services it can bundle for customers, the more “sticky” their products become. With bundled discounts and term contracts, it can become an expensive and complicated process to sign up with another provider. So many customers simply don’t.

Some of Comcast’s customer service representatives and their supervisors could care less more than a million east-coast residents remain without power and thousands may no longer have a home.

Priority #1: Where is our equipment? If you can’t find it, you are going to pay for it.

Yes, once again the company that redefines lousy customer service is back to illustrate why their reputation as the 4th Most Hated Company in America is well-earned. The Don’t Care Comcast Customer Service Bears in Kabletown call centers are only too happy to give the desperate in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania a hard time.

Blogger Seth Clifford (via the Consumerist) doesn’t need Comcast’s attitude problem. His parents have already lost one home and are on the verge of losing another.

Comcast’s Shocking Realization: the Clifford family has bigger things to worry about than a set top box:

[My mother] was trying to explain to them that they stood to lose the entire house in an explosion and that the authorities were having trouble even reaching the area to cut the gas to prevent this. She mentioned that she wouldn’t be able to return the cable box and equipment because the storm had basically destroyed the area, and the house was perilously close to being destroyed completely as well.

Comcast’s reply to her?

We’re very sorry, but the price of the equipment will be charged to your account if you’re unable to return it.

That’s right: in the middle of a natural disaster, the worst our area has seen in decades, at a time when my parents have already lost one house and stand to lose the other, as well as everything in it (remember, it’s not a rental so it’s fully furnished and they live there for part of the year – there are family keepsakes, antiques, and the like) – at a time like this, Comcast has essentially told my mom “tough s***”.

She spoke to a supervisor who echoed the same thing. Comcast was very ‘sympathetic to the situation’, but according to policy, the company must assess fees against unreturned equipment, no matter the situation.

Devastation on the coast of New Jersey

This is hardly the first time we’ve seen Big Telecom Companies Behaving Badly when Mother Nature strikes.

After tornadoes devastated parts of Alabama in 2011, one of Charter Cable’s customer service minions told a victim they will wait on the phone while the customer searches the yard for missing cable equipment. Can’t find it? Pay us.

The worst companies just don’t care until someone in the media embarrasses them sufficiently to realize the cost of a cable box isn’t as great as the drubbing they are about to get on the 6 o’clock news.

Once exposed, damage control kicks in. The flower arrangement is on the way and the “we’re sorry” card is in the mail.

Too bad the flowers are not for everyone. For those whose stories never go viral, the response often remains “pay up or we’ll ruin your credit for years.”

Comcast is a long way from its “Comcast Cares” motto:

“It’s a wonderful thing to have people work together for the benefit of others.”

Clifford is disgusted with the realization Comcast only cares about itself:

• Comcast does care. It cares about reclaiming equipment in the face of unspeakable disaster. And about charging fees for equipment that does not get returned, even if there is no physical way within the realm of possibility in which to do it.
• Comcast, does not, in fact, care at all about you. Not even a little. House burned down? F*** you, pay me. House about to explode at any minute? F*** you, pay me.

After the Consumerist shined their flashlight on Comcast’s house of corporate evil, the inevitable apology was on the way:

We have already reached out to apologize for adding to his parents’ difficulties and to ask for his parents’ contact information so we can call to personally apologize and assure them that we are handling the equipment without the need for them to do anything further. Please know we are working with our teams to ensure we handle all customer calls on a case-by-case basis with sensitivity to the devastating effects Hurricane Sandy had on so many of our local communities and residents. Again, we are of course notating his parents account to ensure they are not charged for equipment they can’t return.

Hey Comcast: how about “notating” every customer account in the northeast pummeled by Hurricane Sandy to ensure the flying monkeys customer service reps in the call center don’t abuse anyone else? Comcast’s “case by case basis” is loophole language that could leave customers shelling out hundreds in lost or damaged equipment penalties.

We’ve received FreedomPop’s “Freedom Sleeve Rocket for iPod Touch” here at Stop the Cap! HQ and are giving it a run.

Originally slated for release in the late summer, the $99 sleeve finally arrived yesterday afternoon. FreedomPop’s attraction is 500MB a month of free Clearwire WiMAX usage indefinitely. After the upfront cost of the sleeve ($99), customers can snap the case-like sleeve on the back of their 4th Generation iPod and be on their way streaming content, making Skype calls, checking web pages/email, or sharing the connection with up to eight devices (or friends).

It could be a fine alternative for usage-capped wireless customers who want an extra 500MB edge every month, and if you’ve ever lost a cell phone while exercising (I have), this is a little less risky (and you will definitely notice because the iPod you are listening to will go missing with it).

Still, FreedomPop is a start-up and “free” wireless data sounds a little too good to be true (or at least long-lasting should the business model go awry).

Customers can earn additional usage allotments “connecting” with “Freedom Friends” or signing up for third party offers. If you like the service and want more, FreedomPop’s real business model kicks in — selling you additional data allowances that range from $7.25-$20/GB above and beyond your initial 500MB each month.

Clearwire’s hit or miss coverage in upstate New York.

So how does the device work? We’re testing it out this week and will report our results in greater detail sometime next week. But up front, some interesting observations:

1. The device seems durable enough. It can recharge from a USB port or from the included power adapter. Charging time initially took several hours, but we’re unsure how long it will run just yet;
2. A web-based control panel offers easy customization of the device, which appears as a Wi-Fi hotspot when the 4G service is enabled. You can reset your password and even manage the power level. The “low” setting proved more than adequate for anyone within 10 feet to connect, and since this was designed to attach to the back of your iPod, signal strength of its Wi-Fi service is no problem;
3. You better have a 4th generation iPod or else it simply won’t fit. I actually discovered I had a third generation unit, which means no luck snapping the iPod to the back of the sleeve. Apple’s newest iPod Touch won’t fit either. But then I discovered it really didn’t matter. I can slip the sleeve all by itself in a pocket and it will still work fine with my iPod, attached or not. FreedomPop also sells a small portable hotspot device that could work equally well if you don’t need a “snap-on” solution;
4. Clearwire, which has a dreadful reputation for reception and speed issues here in western New York, actually worked impressively well in early tests. Indoors we managed a medium strength signal from a cell tower located about two miles away. Clearwire’s very high frequency means outdoor reception free of obstacles like walls and doors will perform even better, and it did. We managed at least 1-3Mbps service at all times, which is better than a lot of cell carrier 3G networks locally;
5. Making and receiving VoIP calls using an earlier generation iPod Touch is a nuisance. We noticed audio dropouts and call dropping, and you need to supply a headset with a microphone to be able to speak to a caller. But who calls anyone anymore? Text messages and Google Talk’s instant message system worked much easier;
6. You can eat usage just browsing web pages. I was astonished to discover I consumed more than 42MB after less than 30 minutes of reading e-mail and web browsing a half-dozen news site web pages. At that rate, I’d be close to my limit after just 10 days. This surprised me because my Verizon Wireless data plan shows my spouse and I manage around 700MB of combined usage every month, and that includes streaming radio every morning on the ride to work. FreedomPop’s usage meter will need some closer inspection because there are indications it counts 1MB of usage for each hour the device is powered on, regardless of whether you are actively using it or not;
7. The second thing we did after unboxing was visit FreedomPop’s website and turn off “automatic top up” under Billing Settings. Otherwise after you reach 400MB (not a typo) of usage, FreedomPop will “conveniently” automatically add 1GB of additional usage for $20, billed to your credit card. Set in the off position, your account will simply stop working for the rest of the month once you hit 500MB.

I had low expectations from FreedomPop’s alliance with Clearwire, the WiMAX network Sprint customers love to hate (and then turn off on their phones to conserve battery life). But so far I am cautiously optimistic.

Readers should be careful before jumping in and check FreedomPop’s coverage map first because Clearwire’s network is notoriously limited. For example, here in upstate New York Rochester, Syracuse, Geneva, and Cortland are covered. Buffalo, Albany, and Binghamton are not. In the Big Apple, New York City has coverage, Long Island east of Valley Stream is out of luck.

We’ll post a more detailed review next week.