Despite glowing media reports about Time Warner Cable’s announcement it is investing $25 million to expand its fiber optic network in parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan, in fact the fiber expansion is part of a previously-reached franchise agreement with New York City officials and will only be available to large business customers that can afford the asking price.

Time Warner Cable’s press release, which generated favorable media coverage in The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News, focused considerable attention on fiber upgrades for the Brooklyn Navy Yard, since reborn as a modern tech-friendly business park.

TWCBC also announced that the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, a 501(c)(3) organization, will receive a state-of-the-art Time Warner Cable Learning Lab in its Employment Center, located inside the massive complex and accessible to the public.

“We are very pleased to work with the City of New York to make significant investments to ensure that this city has the technology infrastructure to successfully compete in a worldwide marketplace,” said Ken Fitzpatrick, President of Time Warner Cable Business Class, East Region. “Our fiber optic network provides dedicated Internet access at incredible speeds and high-bandwidth capabilities to serve the communications needs of any business.”

Time Warner Cable was required to make its investment in the Brooklyn Navy Yard as part of its franchise agreement with NYC officials.

Time Warner Cable did not, however, provide this investment out of the goodness of their heart. They were required to under the terms of the current franchise agreement the company signed with city officials:

[Time Warner Cable] will install, at its own expense, the fiber optic and coaxial cables and related facilities and equipment needed to provide its service to the buildings and occupants throughout the Brooklyn Navy Yard facility.

Time Warner Cable is also extending its network to more commercial establishments throughout the city, in keeping with its previously-announced interest in expanding services to business customers. Nothing new to see here either.

That did not stop Bloomberg News from comparing Time Warner’s network expansion with Google’s gigabit network in Kansas City:

Time Warner Cable Inc. will expand fiber-optic lines to businesses in New York, a move that boosts Internet speeds as much as 20 times and provides an East Coast counterpoint to Google’s ultrafast network in Kansas City.

The company faces a threat from Google more than 1,000 miles away in Kansas City, where the Internet-search giant is building a fiber-optic network as a test project. Time Warner Cable is the main broadband provider for the area, which spans parts of Missouri and Kansas. While Google’s network will be available to both companies and households, Time Warner Cable’s New York fiber network is focused on businesses.

Google’s network initially will only be sold to residential customers, which are the primary targets for the service. Time Warner Cable’s fiber backbone network primarily works in tandem with its coaxial cable network and does not provide a fiber to the premises connection except for the company’s largest corporate customers.

Time Warner Cable Business Class sells different speeds and services to commercial clients. Most choose speeds considerably lower than 1,000Mbps because of the cost.

What was missing from the coverage is the fact ordinary residential Time Warner Cable customers in New York City will not benefit from these fiber upgrades — they are targeted only to commercial clients. Residential customers will continue to receive the same hybrid fiber-coax service they always have from the cable company.

If New York customers want fiber service, they will have to buy it from Verizon, assuming FiOS has made its way to your borough and neighborhood.

Phillip “The Company Paid by Suddenlink to Issue a Third Party Guarantee Makes All the Difference” Dampier

When Stop the Cap! and Broadband Reports reader Simon contacted us about Suddenlink’s fact-free usage measurement tool that managed to rack up nearly 23GB of usage for one West Virginia customer on the same day his service was out for most of the evening, he probably did not think one customer catching the cable company’s fingers in the usage cookie jar would make much difference.

But it did.

Suddenlink spokesman Pete Abel, initially responding to complaints about the usage tool’s accuracy, told Light Reading last week its meter was “consistently accurate, as was demonstrated in the tests we ran before we launched this program.”

Four days later, the company effectively disavowed that, put the meter’s built-in overlimit fee scheme on hold and plans to hire a third party company to “validate the accuracy of its system,” after finding it was faulty after all.

Suddenlink won’t say what is causing the inaccuracies, but blamed “unusual” circumstances for the problem. The company is now refunding customers billed overlimit fees of $10 per 50GB and waiving future charges until its system is reviewed and validated by “a trusted third party.”

Stop the Cap! believes that does not come close to satisfying the company’s responsibility to its customers for accurate billing.

Suddenlink has never demonstrated it actually needs an Internet Overcharging scheme with usage limits and overlimit fees. The company proves that when it claims only a “relatively small number of customers” were ever billed overlimit fees. With no demonstrable usage problem, the company’s need to implement its Project Imagine “Allowance Plan” is sorely lacking.

Easy as counting anyway we like.

Additionally, the accuracy of providers’ usage measurement tools has proven highly suspect, and not just with Suddenlink. All of the companies caught with inaccurate meters always strongly defend them, until overwhelming evidence suggests they should not. Even super-sized companies like Bell Canada (BCE) and AT&T have enforced usage limits with meters the companies later had to disavow. Suddenlink is only the latest.

The scale in your grocery store is checked and certified. So is the corner gas pump, your electric meter, water meter, and gas meter. Why should broadband usage be any different?

Consumers are right to suspect Suddenlink’s usage meter. No official regulatory body verifies the accuracy of usage measurement tools and whatever company Suddenlink chooses to “verify” its meter has a built in conflict of interest — it works for a company that depends on a certain result in its favor. Suddenlink clearly has no business in the usage measurement business when it insists on the accuracy of a meter it disavows just a few days later.

With only murky details available to consumers about what caused the problem and why Suddenlink did not see it until a customer managed to catch them in the act, there is little confidence the company will actually solve a problem it never realized it had. There is also nothing to assure us — “third party guarantee” or not — it cannot happen all over again.

Suddenlink customers need to reach out and tell Suddenlink its “Allowance Plan” is completely unacceptable. Tell the cable company you don’t want to worry about their unverifiable and proven-inaccurate metering program. Ask them why you should remain a customer when they spend time and money on a scheme that the company itself admits is not really needed — targeting just a small number of “heavy users.”

Suddenlink’s customer service team does not think much of customers who use their broadband service a lot, as this recent “Who’s On First” exchange illustrates:

Lisa (Suddenlink): “Well, you show heavy OVERUSAGE of the Internet, you drew 14GB of data yesterday.”

Customer: “Okay, let’s back up, explain to me how I drew 12GB of data when my power was off and I wasn’t home on June 30.”

Lisa: “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “If you have sooo much faith in your meter, explain to me how I drew 12GBs of data on June 30, while I didn’t have power, and wasn’t home.”

Lisa:  “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “I’m asking, how did I draw 12GB of data without power to my house?”

If Suddenlink has a problem with a handful of users creating problems for other subscribers on its broadband network, it has always reserved the right to contact those customers directly and work out the problem one on one. That is a far better solution than inconveniencing all of their customers with endless rounds of “usage roulette,” where the big winner could find themselves with Bill Shock from overlimit fees, whether they actually deserve them or not.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Internet v. Cable 8-20-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC interviewed Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent in August 2010 on how his company intends to deal with “invasive online video,” threatening to erode cable-TV profits. Kent proved Suddenlink doesn’t really need any extra money from overlimit fees — the days of big spending on capacity are over, but the money is nice to have anyway.  (8 minutes)

The newspaper industry’s version of an infomercial.

Does your local newspaper sell its journalistic credibility down the river with an annual “best of” contest asking readers to vote for their favorite companies the newspaper later uses to shamelessly pursue advertising deals for a “special supplement” announcing the results?

The Topeka Capital-Journal sure does, and they’ve transformed the seedy affair into an art form, complete with softball interviews for some of the winning companies.

Take AT&T, which somehow got voted Topeka’s best cell phone company. (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and TracFone also made their “list” — showing either the tiny number of cell phone competitors in Topeka or a desire not to leave anyone out.)

In a “special” to the Capital-Journal, ad sales guy “reporter” Phil Wilke managed to interview an AT&T spokesman… by e-mail. It was not a tough interview:

Pulitzer Prize material it is not.

Consumer Reports readers do not think as highly of AT&T, but then that magazine does not accept advertising from AT&T — Topeka’s newspaper does. (J.D. Power and Associates also put AT&T at the bottom in its own survey.)

I first got suspicious when Olive Garden, the Chef Boyardee of Italian restaurants, made the list for “best restaurant service,” “best Italian restaurant,” and [shudder] “most romantic restaurant.” There is either something very wrong in Topeka, or these results don’t mean a thing.

But they do mean a lot of advertising revenue for the Capital Journal, which can call every winner and implore them to take out a special ad “thanking readers” for placing trust in their establishment. Puff pieces like the AT&T interview found above do little  for the newspaper’s credibility and trust with readers, however.

Surprisingly there was no category for Topeka’s best news source, but we did finally locate one where a nomination for the Topeka newspaper was appropriate: “BEST PLACE TO PLAY SOFTBALL.”

Free Wi-Fi is always popular and Fort Wayne, Ind. is welcoming news that Frontier Communications intends to install and operate a downtown network of hotspots offering what local newspapers characterize as “free access.”

The area being outfitted with wireless Internet is bordered by Clay Street to the east, Broadway to the west, Headwaters Park to the north and Lewis Street to the south, according to city officials.

Frontier says it plans to offer 512kbps access on most hotspots, 1Mbps service on others, with a limited number operating at still higher speeds where fiber optics are available.

But Frontier’s Wi-Fi networks in other cities have some important considerations for those expecting wide open, free access.

Free has its limits.

In Rochester, N.Y., free access hotspots are extremely limited in number and offer very slow speeds (often close to dial-up) to entice users to upgrade to a premium Wi-Fi speed plan starting at $9.99 per month for current Frontier customers, $30 a month for non-customers. The vast majority of hotspots only offer five minutes a week of free access.

In Terre Haute, free access is available to only the first 100 users connected to the network. All others are required to pay. Those who do choose to subscribe can only use one device at a time.

The scheduled rollout of Frontier Wi-Fi in Fort Wayne has yet to be announced.

Phillip “At Least They Are Transparent About Robbing You” Dampier

The unassailable truth is that if there is a right way for a company to treat its customers and a wrong way, AT&T will always choose the wrong way. It’s the primary reason I refuse to do business with them.

The company’s recent decision to block Apple FaceTime for customers who refuse to be herded to one of AT&T’s new Mobile Share plans is another shot across the bow of Net Neutrality, which declares customers should be able to use the applications and services of their choosing — particularly on networks where they pay for those choices.

Principal #1 of Net Neutrality: Companies should not be playing favorites with applications or services by blocking or restricting those a provider does not favor.

AT&T’s response: ‘Whatever.’

The predictable outrage of customers should have come as no surprise to AT&T, but somehow it did.

The company picked testy senior vice president for regulatory affairs Bob Quinn to mount a rapid defense against the pitchfork-and-torch-yielding throngs on AT&T’s Public Policy Blog. That was their second mistake.

Quinn, who spent last December valiantly defending AT&T against its too-precious CupcakeGate mini-scandal, conjured up this pretzel-twisted logic tap dance to explain away its latest boorish behavior:

Providers of mobile broadband Internet access service are subject to two net neutrality requirements: (1) a transparency requirement pursuant to which they must disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of their broadband Internet access services; and (2) a no-blocking requirement under which they are prohibited, subject to reasonable network management, from blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services.

AT&T’s plans for FaceTime will not violate either requirement.  Our policies regarding FaceTime will be fully transparent to all consumers, and no one has argued to the contrary.  There is no transparency issue here.

Nor is there a blocking issue.  The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones.  Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps.  Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services.   AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps.  But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”)  Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.

A company lecturing its customers for daring to question its decisions is always a good way to enhance those warm and fuzzy feelings people have about America’s least-liked wireless phone company. Quinn first scolds customers and consumer groups about their “knee jerk reaction,” for being upset about the issue. Then he declares they have “rushed to judgment,” using a turn of phrase not heard since O.J. Simpson’s defense team pounded it to death, and look where that ultimately got us.

The crux of AT&T’s argument is they get a free pass to “block and herd” because Apple FaceTime was pre-installed on customer phones. Therefore, since AT&T didn’t block you from downloading an app you already had, it cannot possibly be a Net Neutrality violation. Because as we all know, Net Neutrality is only about download blocking.

At least AT&T is keeping their promise to be transparent. They have, indeed, fully informed you they are mugging you while in the process of mugging you. Full disclosure… matters.

Somehow, I missed the “preinstalled does not count” section in the Federal Communications Commission’s December 2010 order to providers telling them to preserve the free and open Internet. So I spent last night with this legalese page-turner (194 pages to be exact) to refresh my memory.

Nope, it isn’t in there. You can read it for yourself from the link above.

So it isn’t me. It is them, making up the rules as they go, again.

Quinn graciously offers customers one concession: AT&T will allow you to use Apple FaceTime over your own home Wi-Fi network. Gosh thanks!

For customers addicted to FaceTime, AT&T’s solution is an expensive plan change. An average customer currently paying $70 for 450-barely used voice minutes and 3GB of data will find FaceTime off-limits on AT&T’s network unless they “upgrade” to AT&T’s $95 Mobile Share plan, which gets you only 1GB of data, but endless voice minutes you don’t want and unlimited texting you don’t need.

Result: Pay $25 more a month and get your data allowance slashed by 2/3rds. That’s a deal — AT&T-style.

But it is one some customers are through taking. Nalin Kuachusri:

The new FaceTime restrictions will usher in the end of my 12+ year relationship with AT&T. I’m tired of the consistent manipulation of plans and features to extract more and more money for services I don’t need. For example: there used to be several text-message options (200, 1000, 1500, unlimited) so I could choose and pay for the one that fit my usage best. Then there was the option to move from unlimited data to 2GB/month to save $5. That was great for me and fit my usage. Then I was forced to move back to $30/month if I wanted to add tethering where I’ll get an extra GB that I’ll never use. Finally, after 12 years as a customer with an account in good standing, I was not allowed to unlock my phone for my 10-day trip to Europe so I could get a local SIM. I couldn’t be happier to give you one final $200 payment as an early-termination fee so I can move to Verizon.

Unfortunately for Kuachusri, the bosses at Verizon Wireless are likely slapping themselves silly because they did not come up with the idea first.