Mr. Greedy has just landed in Nashville and wants another $10 from Comcast customers who blow through their allowance.

Comcast’s temporary withdrawal of its 250GB usage cap did not last long. Although the company rescinded its usage limit in May to consider new options on how to handle “heavy users,” it hinted caps might be back, sometimes accompanied by automatic overlimit fees for customers who exceed their allowance.

Broadband Reports has learned Comcast plans to introduce a new 300GB usage cap on its customers in Nashville with an overlimit fee of $10 for each 50GB a customer runs over their limit.

Comcast customers in Nashville were told in an e-mail message from the company the new usage cap and overlimit fee represented “an evolution” for Comcast’s broadband service.

From Comcast’s website in Nashville:

When you exceed 300 GB of data usage, you will receive an email, an in-browser notice and an additional 50 GB will be automatically allocated. In order for customers to get accustomed to the new data usage management plan, we will be implementing a courtesy period. That means you will not be billed for the first three times you exceed the monthly 300 GB allowance during a 12-month period. Should you exceed the monthly allowance after the courtesy period expires, you will automatically be charged $10 each time we need to provide you with an additional 50 GB of data for usage beyond your plan.

How generous of them.

Customers traveling southeast from the city down Interstate 24 can be in Chattanooga in several hours and experience EPB Fiber — a community broadband provider that provides speeds up to 1,000Mbps and does not have usage caps, nor a “need” to charge customers another $10 whether they exceed their usage cap by 1 or 49 gigabytes.

Comcast’s newest Internet Overcharging scheme takes effect Aug. 1, and currently applies only to Nashville customers. Those who want to give Comcast a piece of their mind about the subject of usage caps can share their feelings by calling Comcast Customer Security Assurance at 1-877-807-6581 to speak with a service representative. Let them know you want no part of Comcast’s unnecessary usage caps and overlimit fees. If EPB and Google Fiber can offer unlimited broadband without any problems, so can Comcast. Let them know how you feel.

Believe it or not, Google Fiber has not always been headline news in Kansas City. Outside of a few stories in early spring about zoning and installation matters, local media (particularly television) has mostly given back page treatment to Google’s new fiber network since the city was first chosen in March, 2011.

That all changed last Thursday when television, radio, and newspaper reporters flooded a converted yoga studio in midtown Kansas City to attend Google Fiber’s unveiling. Many stations aired live reports on-site and devoted time during their afternoon and evening newscasts to explain what the service is all about, starting with what it will cost — $70 a month for 1Gbps service (or paying a flat $300 for 5/1Mbps service for the next seven years). Adding television brings the final price to $120 a month. Google considers landline phone service a dead-end business, and won’t bundle a telephone option, but customers can use Google Voice to make and receive most calls for free.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KMBC Kansas City Google announces details of Google Fiber service 7-26-12.flv[/flv]

KMBC reports on the introduction of Google Fiber, what it will cost Kansas City residents, what it means for the city as whole, and when and how service will be installed.  (3 minutes)

Kansas City, Mo., Mayor Sly James said Google Fiber was more of an opportunity than a gift for Kansas City.

“We now have an opportunity to take a giant step and if we don’t it’s all on us,” James said.

KCUR Radio in Kansas City explores some of the public policy and institutional changes Google Fiber can bring the area with the advent of gigabit broadband. Mike Burke, Missouri co-chair, and Dr. Ray Daniels, Kansas co-chair of the Mayors’ Bistate Innovation Team talks about what changes Google Fiber could bring to health care, education, government, and more.  The Mayors’ Bistate Innovation Team recently released a report titled “Playing to Win in America’s Digital Crossroads,” a playbook for capitalizing on ultra-high-speed fiber in Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri. (Some of the specific details discussed in the program turned out to be outdated after last Thursday’s announcement introducing the service.)  (June 6, 2012) (52 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Some in the media seemed disappointed Google spent a considerable amount of time selling the entertainment-oriented element of its service — namely the television lineup and the equipment that comes with it, and less on the educational and transformational nature of gigabit broadband. But many in the audience didn’t need an explanation of what 1,000/1,000Mbps service will mean for them.

Reviewing the coverage shows a predictable response:

• Those under 30 want it today and won’t think twice about paying $70 to get it;
• Those running businesses that depend on the web also want it, and are slightly perturbed Google will only sell to residential customers at first;
• Families with young children want the service because they feel it will be a game-changer for their children’s education and future career;
• Income-challenged residents are concerned about the cost, but are happy to discover Google has an affordable option for them to participate in the wired world;
• Older residents seem preoccupied with the price and consider the television lineup even more important than broadband speed;
• Schools, libraries, health care, and non-profit groups are thrilled with the prospect of getting free or deeply discounted service;
• Incumbent providers are putting on a brave face, relying on what they feel is excellent customer service, local ties to the communities they service, and a current customer base that may be reluctant to switch.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Introducing Google Fiber 7-26-12.mp4[/flv]

Google Fiber has arrived in Kansas City, and neighborhoods will compete to see who gets the gigabit broadband service first. KCTV in Kansas City reports. (3 minutes)

Google Fiber’s free 5/1Mbps service is another embarrassment to big cable companies like Comcast which offer less service for more money.

The Kansas City Star needlessly fretted about the remaining digital divide of Internet “have’s” and “have-not’s,” as Google launched a competition between neighborhoods to determine where to install the service first.

So far, many poorer urban core neighborhoods are expressing interest in Google fiber at a slower rate than middle- and higher-income neighborhoods.

It’s important now for efforts to reach out to help the lower-income neighborhoods rally so the access doesn’t become a new dividing line.

The newspaper is concerned by Google’s fiber map showing many minority, inner-city neighborhoods have yet to receive a single commitment from a resident willing to pre-register for the service. But Google is not running a competition to exclude anyone. It is surveying interest to ensure it has a working business model to sustain its fiber broadband operation. Overshadowed by the gigabit broadband announcement is the fact Google is also including a real solution for the income-challenged — an entry-level 5/1Mbps broadband option that will cost just $300 (payable in $25 installments) that guarantees service with no additional payment for seven years.

That is a broadband solution far superior to the afterthought programs on offer from Comcast and a handful of phone companies that only deliver a fraction of the speed, at a higher price, to those who meet a byzantine set of requirements. It is yet another embarrassment for Kabletown, which would not have even offered the service had the government not made it a condition for approving the mega-merger of NBC-Universal and Comcast.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Neighborhoods Compete for Fiber 7-26-12.flv[/flv]

KCTV visits some of the neighborhoods competing to be the first to get Google Fiber. Reaction from residents varies from those willing to canvas neighborhoods to get people to pre-register to others who will consider switching providers only if the price is right.  (4 minutes)

One Star columnist likened Google Fiber to a public works project that threatened to go bad pitting neighborhoods against one-another, rich against poor:

The more educated, middle- to upper-income neighborhoods in southwest KC and in midtown were signing up for first crack at the service.

Meanwhile, the neighborhoods without as many computers and without the income to afford the $70 or $120 proposed monthly charges for Google Fiber were signing up at far slower rates.

None of that means Google Fiber won’t be a big success.

But let’s not pretend there won’t be winners and losers with this advance in technology.

If Google Fiber narrows that digital gap – and makes more information available more quickly to more people to help boost the economy of KC – that’s all for the good.

However, being able to hook up eight computers in a house so people can be more entertained doesn’t set my world on fire.

Let’s remember Google Fiber is intended to be a for-profit business run by a for-profit corporation. Star columnist Yael T. Abouhalkah might have been more comfortable had he advocated for a community-owned broadband solution committed to serving every neighborhood, everywhere. Google Fiber is not that, at least not now. The alternatives from AT&T and Time Warner Cable have not solved the digital divide either. Giving away effectively-free 5/1Mbps broadband for seven years might.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Fiberhoods 7-26-12.mp4[/flv]

Google’s Fiberhoods are likely to win fiber service for the more high-tech areas of Kansas City, among the first to pre-register. Google’s Kevin Lo explains those areas most committed to getting the service will also win free fiber connections for their neighborhood’s schools, health care facilities, and public safety buildings.  KCTV reports. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Benefits of Google Fiber 7-26-12.mp4[/flv]

KCTV explores what Google Fiber could mean for local schools who can utilize the faster connections for distance and remote learning.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDAF Kansas City Customers Put Google Fiber to the Test 7-28-12.flv[/flv]

WDAF in Kansas City covers Google Fiber’s weekend “Open House,” inviting residents to experience what gigabit broadband is really like, and letting them see and sample the company’s broadband and television service.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSHB Kansas City Northland business owners react to Google Fiber limitations 7-26-12.mp4[/flv]

KSHB in Kansas City covers the reaction of local business owners elated and frustrated by the arrival of Google Fiber, which will open the door to new online innovation once Google begins selling to commercial customers (and if you are lucky enough to work in a Google Fiberhood.)  (2 minutes)

Still not listening

Around the beginning of July, Time Warner Cable invited customers facing the imminent arrival of their 5GB-usage capped “Internet Essentials” plan the opportunity to participate in “conversations” with the cable operator on a special website.

As we near the end of the month, despite readers sending a number of comments to Time Warner about the plan, the company has chosen to publish just one, which has nothing to do with the issue:

Ann McGarity
I am very upset at the loss of channel 9. We were without it before when we had Dish for a while and one of the reasons we returned to TWC was to get it back. Now we have to put up with Maine news and will have no idea about important NH issues. This is very disturbing, particularly in this political season. Can anything be done?

Apparently Time Warner isn’t too interested in what customers have to say, even on a website that was supposed to be all about dialogue.

The wireless industry is in transition. Increasing capacity also means decreasing the number of customers trying to share a traditional cell tower. The future will bring a combination of shorter-range cellular and Wi-Fi antennas that can sustain traffic loads much easier than overburdened traditional cell towers.

The President’s Council of Advisors on Policy and Technology’s recommendation that the growing demand for wireless spectrum be met by sharing frequencies with the federal government is getting a cold reception from the wireless industry.

AT&T, other wireless operators, and their lobbying trade association have been embarked on a fierce campaign in Washington to free up additional spectrum they can use to meet growing demands for wireless data. Unfortunately, clearing spectrum that can be re-purposed for wireless phone companies requires complicated, and often expensive frequency reassignments as existing users relocate elsewhere. With the federal government holding a large swath of spectrum for the use of a range of public safety, research, and military applications, the best source for new frequencies comes from Washington.

PCAST’s final 200-page report urges the Commerce Department prioritize locating 1000MHz of frequencies that could be re-purposed for private wireless communications. But the council also recommended that frequencies could be more quickly made available by asking wireless telecom companies to share them with existing users.

Today’s “exclusive use” licenses all too often are being underutilized and, in fact, are sometimes used as a valuable investment tool to buy, trade, or sell. Issuing exclusive licenses guarantees that no other players can use those frequencies. That is a valuable tool for wireless companies protecting their market share from potential competitors.

PCAST declared the concept of a “spectrum shortage” to be largely a myth:

Although there is a general perception of spectrum scarcity, most spectrum capacity is not used. An assigned primary user may occupy a band, preventing any other user from gaining access, yet consume only a fraction of the potential spectrum capacity. Unique among natural resources owned by the public, spectrum capacity is infinitely renewable from second to second—that is, any spectrum vacated by one user is immediately available for any other user.

Measurements of actual spectrum use show that less than 20 percent of the capacity of the prime spec­trum bands (below 3.7 GHz) is in use even in the most congested urban areas.

This spectrum inefficiency is not just a problem for the wireless industry, it also afflicts government use as well. But it is a problem that can be solved by modernizing spectrum allocation policy in the United States.

“Exclusive frequency assign­ments should not be interpreted as a reason to preclude other productive uses of spectrum capacity in areas or at times where the primary use is dormant or where underutilized capacity can be shared,” the report concludes.

If implemented, the wireless industry could begin accessing hundreds of megahertz of new spectrum, with the understanding there may be other users sharing certain frequencies in different areas at different times. For example, AT&T could use spectrum assigned to forest rangers in federal parks for wireless data in Manhattan or other urban areas, where neither user will create interference for the other. Verizon could use spectrum allocated for naval communications at seaside ports in land-locked Nebraska, Utah, Kansas, or West Virginia.

The proposal identifies these frequency bands as ideal for shared use between private and government users.

As technology progresses, shared spectrum users will easily afford equipment that dynamically locates open frequencies for communications with little or no interference even if two users are located right next door to each other.

The benefits to taxpayers, governmental users, and private industry are notable:

1. The cost to relocate existing government users to other bands is prohibitively time-consuming, complicated, and expensive. Taxpayers often foot the bill for the frequency changes;
2. Government use of spectrum is not particularly efficient either. Identifying under-utilized spectrum for shared-use can bring pressure to government users to consolidate operations and increase operating efficiency;
3. Private industry gets much faster access to new spectrum, which suddenly becomes plentiful and potentially affordable for new entrants in the wireless marketplace.

Despite the benefits, the wireless industry had a frosty reception to the new report:

Joan Marsh, AT&T Vice President of Federal Regulatory:

“While we are still reviewing the PCAST report, we are encouraged by the sustained interest in exploring ways to free up underutilized government spectrum for mobile Internet use.  However, we are concerned with the report’s primary conclusion that ‘the norm for spectrum use should be sharing, not exclusivity.’  The report fails to recognize the benefits of exclusive use licenses, which are well known.  Those licenses enabled the creation of the mobile Internet and all of the ensuing innovation, investment and job creation that followed.

“While we should be considering all options to meet the country’s spectrum goals, including the sharing of federal spectrum with government users, it is imperative that we clear and reallocate government spectrum where practical.  We fully support the NTIA effort of determining which government bands can be cleared for commercial use, and we look forward to continuing to work with NTIA and other stakeholders to make more spectrum available for American consumers and businesses.”

CTIA – The Wireless Association:

The CTIA is the wireless industry’s lobbying group

“We thank the Administration and PCAST for focusing on the need to make more efficient use of spectrum currently assigned to federal government users. As the PCAST report notes, it is sensible to investigate creative approaches for making federal government spectrum commercially available, including the development of certain sharing capabilities. At the same time, and as Congress recognized in the recently-passed spectrum legislation, the gold standard for deployment of ubiquitous mobile broadband networks remains cleared spectrum.

“Cleared spectrum and an exclusive-use approach has enabled the U.S. wireless industry to invest hundreds of billions of dollars, deploying world-leading mobile broadband networks and resulting in tremendous economic benefits for U.S. consumers and businesses. Not surprisingly, that is the very same approach that has been used by the countries that we compete with in the global marketplace, who have brought hundreds of megahertz of cleared spectrum to market in recent years.

“Policymakers on a bipartisan basis have grasped the importance of making more spectrum available to meet the growing demand for mobile Internet services, and this report highlights a range of forward-looking options, some of which are not yet commercially available, that may be considered to meet this important national goal. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, the FCC, NTIA, Congress and other interested parties to increase access to federal government spectrum and to continue to assist our nation in its economic recovery.”

Wireless carriers will continue to lobby Washington lawmakers to leave the current “exclusive use” spectrum policies in place, even if it delays opening up “badly-needed” spectrum for years.

In short, the major players in the wireless industry are hostile to the idea of losing exclusive-use spectrum. That comes as little surprise because shared spectrum cannot be controlled by the wireless industry. Spectrum squatting, where large phone companies or investment groups hang on to unused spectrum either to keep competitors out or as an investment tool until it eventually can be resold at a major profit, is a significant problem in the industry. Wall Street analysts routinely assign value to the spectrum holdings of wireless carriers, whether they are used or not. Since most spectrum is now sold to the industry at “highest bidder wins” auctions, only the largest players are frequently serious contenders. Auctioning off shared spectrum, if practical, will bring lower bids — but could potentially bring new bidders like start-up ventures that have some new ideas on how to use wireless frequencies to compete.

Therefore, it has been in the wireless industry’s best interests to keep the idea of sharing frequencies with other players out of the minds of Washington regulators and legislators. Their technical objections and claims that shared spectrum would somehow destroy innovation and investment ring hollow, and are weak deflections from the more obvious agenda: to maintain their status quo control of wireless frequencies, well-utilized or not.

AT&T and other wireless players will no doubt lobby their case to Washington politicians, many who will rush to the industry’s defense. The shadow argument most likely to be used to defend the current “exclusive use” auction system is the auction proceeds collected by the federal government. Billions have been raised from past auctions, and shared use frequencies would never net that level of return. But PCAST’s report exposes the rest of the story. The cost to reallocate existing users to other frequencies, hand out new radios, raise new antennas and purchase new transmitters is often so costly, the government’s net gain, post-auction, is likely to be minimal.

Abroad, many governments have already adopted shared use, discarding the focus on spectrum earnings and refocusing spectrum allocation on delivering the best bang for the buck — whether that dollar belongs to the consumer, the wireless industry, or the government.

Attempts by AT&T and others to kill PCAST’s recommendations should also be considered proof the industry’s dire claim of a spectrum shortage emergency is vastly overblown. In a true crisis, everyone makes compromises.  That does not appear to be the case here. Congress and regulators should receive that message loud and clear.

Nearly 100 Frontier employees may be visiting Idaho’s unemployment offices by September.

On the second anniversary of Frontier Communications assuming control of landline operations in Idaho formerly owned by Verizon Communications, Frontier has announced plans to close its Coeur d’Alene call center this summer, putting nearly half of Frontier’s workers in Idaho out of work.

“There’s nothing wrong with the employees or the work they’re doing. It’s more about efficiencies,” Frontier’s senior vice president Steve Crosby told CDA Press. “What we’re trying to do is work through efficiencies, consolidations, really moving people around, having work groups working closer together.”

Those hoping to remain with Frontier will need to move to another state and accept a large pay cut if they want to keep their jobs. Other Frontier call centers around the country will assume the responsibilities of the 100 Idaho-based employees who face termination by Sept. 18, including one opening near Myrtle Beach, S.C., that will pay substantially lower salaries.

The closure will reduce Frontier’s workforce in Idaho almost in half. Crosby said Frontier had roughly 260 employees in the state as of last week.

Two years ago, Frontier was telling Idaho a very different story about its takeover of Verizon landlines.

“I think we’ll have better service for customers,” David Haggerty, then a Verizon manager staying with Frontier, told the Bonner County Daily Bee. “Frontier brings with it a small-town mentality. It used to be you were able to pay bills in town and make human contact. That was taken away by Verizon.”

In 2010, Haggerty promised the transition would have no impact on former Verizon workers now heading to work at Frontier.

“We focus on putting the customer first,” said Frontier’s regional manager Vickie Bullard said. “That’s one of the 11 value statements we have at Frontier.”

Some of Frontier’s customers in Idaho wonder if Frontier’s “value statements” are also being downsized.

“I just switched from Frontier to Time Warner Cable for my Internet,” says Scott Mead. “Frontier started out great in the beginning, but shortly after went downhill as issue after issue started.”

Mead reports his calls to Frontier’s national 800 customer support number, which promises 100 percent of the company’s workers are American-based, often left him flummoxed dealing with foreign-accented employees with poor English language skills.

The last one out can turn off the lights.

Another Coeur d’Alene customer endured bad service from Frontier before finally leaving, with the phone company’s collection agency chasing him not far behind:

“As far as I’m concerned Frontier can take a long walk off a short pier. When they first took over from Verizon, from whom we had good service, they sent out a service guy to get us back online. He installed the wrong equipment so another serviceman came out and replaced the wrong one with a bigger, better, and faster wrong one. Over the next 6 weeks we were down all but 12 days and we heard one excuse after another with nothing getting resolved.

So a month later, after switching companies, not only did we get a bill from Frontier for the entire 6 weeks but they charged us for several wrong pieces of equipment. When we tried to resolve the issues they simply sent us to collection and refused to talk. Se we ended up paying for over 4 weeks of service they did not provide and for 4 Internet boxes that the servicemen could not get to work.

I can only hope that Frontier has an office at the bottom of a honey bucket at a chili feed. Flippin crooks.”

One former Verizon/Frontier employee suggests the “efficiencies” Crosby is concerned with is paying call center workers less, and offering fewer benefits:

“Frontier closed a center in Elk Grove, Calif. back in June leaving 50+ people unemployed there,” he writes. “When Verizon sold their landlines and DSL to Frontier back in 2009 they only guaranteed the acquired employees jobs for two years. July 1, 2012 was the second anniversary of that acquisition. This does not surprise me at all. The leadership of both Verizon and Frontier is like any other large corporation. Bottom line is the new call center in South Carolina is cheaper to operate. Why pay people over 50K (this is including 401k, stock & medical benefits) when you can pay half that in a center that has no union.”

Another Idaho employee is bitter about the extra work Frontier employees managed for the company during its great billing and systems transition away from Verizon.

“We will be out of a job, after working massive amounts of overtime to transition this company to get them through the largest conversion in telecommunications history,” the worker shared. “They needed us to get them through it and now they don’t.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WMBF Myrtle Beach New Frontier Call Center 5-11-12.mp4[/flv]

Race to the bottom. Frontier Communications closes an “unneeded” 100-worker call center in Idaho that reportedly paid workers over $50,000 a year in salary and benefits while announcing a new, “much-needed” call center with 110 workers near Myrtle Beach, S.C. that will pay workers only $30,000 a year. WMBF in Myrtle Beach calls the new South Carolina call center a “success” for Horry County’s efforts to recruit new business to the area. Frontier applauded South Carolina’s “excellent business environment.” But that success comes at a cost to other workers in other states.  (2 minutes)