An ad in the Syracuse Post-Standard announces a new invention -- a variation on the bow tie antenna design originally designed in the 1950s.

Last Thursday, Syracuse newspaper readers were treated to news of an impressive breakthrough that promises to deliver salvation from high cable and satellite TV bills forever.

Clear Cast, a “razor thin” indoor digital HDTV antenna lets you watch television… for free.

The product is shown being packaged up for shipping while an impatient-looking FedEx driver tries to coordinate the apparent extraordinary demand for a downright revolutionary development in television engineering.

Local residents called the newspaper and other local news outlets to try and learn more about the curious new device.

Stop the Cap! can now report the revolution can be postponed.

In fact, the published account  about the “new invention” was actually a paid advertisement-designed-to-look-like-a-news-story.  Clear Cast is effectively a variation on the traditional indoor UHF bow tie antenna your local Radio Shack used to sell for $1.49.  The major difference is that it is designed to be attached to a window with accompanying suction cups.  That is a valid approach to improving reception, but whether it is worth the asking price of $38 is another matter.

As consumers seek alternatives to higher cable and satellite TV bills, overhyped ad copy promising freedom from high bills cannot be far behind.  Repackaging basic antennas that were part of our lives from the 1950s-on can go too far when leaving some residents with the impression they are getting more than a basic television antenna.

In fact, over-the-air viewing can be easily accomplished in strong signal areas with the cheapest antenna, as long as it is designed for both VHF and UHF reception.  Many VHF stations with channel numbers from 2-13 quietly relocated to the UHF dial, but still advertise their original channel numbers.  If your television is not equipped with a UHF antenna, reception may be difficult.

For the benefit of those under the age of 40: most televisions used to come equipped with both antenna designs — two elongated antenna rods some used to call “rabbit ears” and an accompanying round loop antenna, or often a bow tie design that clipped to one of the two longer aerials.  The long straight antennas are designed for VHF signals, the bow tie or loop design accommodated improved UHF reception.

Over the last decade, marketing has attempted to revolutionize what remains basic, sober, antenna design — with an accompanying “revolutionary” price tag.  When satellite television was first introduced, some manufacturers redesigned set top aerials to look like a satellite dish and then pitched them as “saving you the high price of satellite TV because it is not satellite!”  In today’s HD-ready era, marketers have done it again.

Will Clear Cast work?  Undoubtedly, but probably not much better than any other traditional bow tie design that costs $35 less.

If you are cutting cable’s cord and want to rely on over-the-air television, our best advice is to start with something inexpensive and upgrade only when necessary.  In urban and suburban areas, an effective indoor antenna can cost less than $5.  Try repositioning it until you find the best spot to receive the most channels with the least signal reception errors.  Directional indoor antennas can offer mild signal improvement, especially in areas where adjacent signals from nearby cities create reception problems.  Because the American digital broadcast standard is frankly less robust than the European counterpart, those in more distant suburbs or rural areas will really need to invest in a rooftop antenna to enjoy consistent reception.  A potential compromise would be to mount an outdoor antenna in the attic.

Avoid “futuristic” designs and powered indoor antennas and read consumer reviews carefully.  We’ve found most indoor antennas priced above $35 to be more hype than performance-per-dollar.  If you need an outdoor antenna, check your local Yellow Pages for antenna specialists who understand local reception conditions and can recommend high quality, long lasting antennas that will work for the stations you want to receive.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Newspaper ad for free TV The Real Deal 12-15-11.mp4[/flv]

WSYR in Syracuse investigates the ‘revolutionary’ new indoor TV antenna that is so popular, only residents in certain zip codes can order it.  (2 minutes)

A Fox affiliate in Green Bay, Wisc. has some trouble drawing distinctions between informational programming and infomercials after it repackaged a four minute ad for AT&T U-verse into a feature story on “Living With Amy,” its morning show targeting women viewers.

As well as failing to disclose to viewers the four minute “segment” was actually a paid commercial, AT&T doesn’t appear anywhere on the show’s sponsor page, potentially confusing viewers into believing the positive U-verse feature was produced by WLUK-TV as an unbiased news story.

It’s just the latest example of a series of “news reports” we’ve found (here and here) that highlight the blurring of the line between journalism and paid advertising.  In most cases, cable companies like Comcast and phone companies like AT&T are “invited guests” of the show’s host, who proceeds to gush over the products and service on offer without informing viewers those companies paid to be there.

This time, the Fox affiliate didn’t even bother with a “sit down” and ran a short infomercial for AT&T’s U-verse instead.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLUK Green Bay ATT U-verse 12-14-11.mp4[/flv]

This “story” appeared on WLUK’s “Living With Amy” show earlier this week.  It’s little more than a four minute commercial for AT&T U-verse, but viewers couldn’t tell because the station never disclosed it was paid advertising. (4 minutes)

If they build it, will Verizon, Time Warner Cable, or Comcast come?

The Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI) has just received a major shipment of cable it will use to construct part of its 1,300-mile fiber optic network, designed to provide better-than-dialup service to over 120 communities in western and north central Massachusetts.  That is, if providers show any interest in selling access to it.

The news that the broadband blockade in the western half of the state may finally come to an end is being trumpeted by local newspapers and TV newscasts from Springfield.  WSHM used the occasion to celebrate with current AOL dial-up user Ryan Newhouser, of Worthington:

A high-speed informational highway will be set up with thousands of miles of high-speed fiber optic cables. Those fibers will now be installed on utility polls across Western Mass.

Now residents sitting at their computers in frustration can finally look forward to high-speed internet access.

Perhaps.

As Stop the Cap! first explored earlier this year, the new fiber network is good news for western Massachusetts.  But it alone will not deliver service to the masses who desperately want faster Internet access.

The incumbent phone and cable companies have certainly not shown much interest.  Verizon treats western Massachusetts much the same way it served its landline customers in the rest of northern New England (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.)  The company’s landline network was allowed to deteriorate along with Verizon’s interest in providing service in the largely rural states.  Eventually, it sold its operations north of Massachusetts to FairPoint Communications.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable are missing in action in many parts of the region as well.  As big phone and cable companies concentrate investments in more urban areas like Boston, many residents in places like Worthington can’t buy broadband service at any price.

MBI optimistically hopes the presence of its new fiber backbone and middle-mile network will change all that.  But outside of AT&T’s apparent interest it to provide service to its cell towers, there has been no publicly-expressed enthusiasm by Verizon or cable operators to begin serious investment in broadband expansion across the region.

The Last Mile Network Challenge

So what is holding western Massachusetts back?  The same thing that keeps broadband out of rural areas everywhere — the “last-mile” problem.  Traditionally, operators target urban and suburban areas for their investments because the construction costs — wiring up your street/home/business — can be recouped more easily when divided between a pool of potential customers.  Every provider has their own “return on investment” formula — how long it will take for a project to pay for itself and begin to return profit.  If your street has 100 homes on it, the chances of recouping costs are much higher than in places where your nearest neighbor needs binoculars to see your house.  Pass the ROI challenge and providers will invest capital to wire your street.  Fail it and you go without (or pay $10,000 or more to subsidize construction costs yourself.)

That is why eastern Massachusetts has plentiful broadband and the comparatively rural western half often does not.

MassBroadband 123 is the state’s solution to the pervasive lack of access across the western half of The Bay State.  It will consist of a fiber backbone and “middle mile” network, solving two parts of a three-part broadband problem.  The project’s commitment to deliver open access to institutions and commercial ISPs across the region is partly thanks to the availability of broadband grant money, particularly from the federal government.

Projects similar to MBI’s MassBroadband 123 typically include the hoped-for-outcome that private companies will step up and invest to ultimately make service available to end users.  Unfortunately, large incumbent providers often remain uncommitted to wiring the last-mile, and communities promised ubiquitous broadband end up with an expensive institutional network that only serves local government, public safety, schools, libraries, and health care facilities.

Thankfully, it does not appear MBI is depending on Verizon, which has shown no interest in spending significant capital on its legacy landline network or cable operators that are unlikely to break ground in new areas.

Communities are increasingly learning if they don’t have service today, the only real guarantee they will get it is by providing it themselves.  That is where WiredWest comes in.  It is a community-powered partnership — a co-op for broadband — pooling resources from 22 independent towns (with 18 more expected to join) to build out that challenging last mile, and deliver future-proof fiber to the home service.  No last generation DSL, slow and expensive fixed wireless, or limited capacity coaxial cable networks are involved.

WiredWest Members

Founding member towns span four counties, including Berkshire County towns of Egremont, Great Barrington, Monterey, New Marlborough, Otis, Peru, Sandisfield, Washington and West Stockbridge; Franklin County towns of Ashfield, Charlemont, Conway, Heath, New Salem, Rowe, Shutesbury, Warwick and Wendell; Hampshire County towns of Cummington, Heath, Middlefield and Plainfield; and the Hampden County town of Chester.

Most of the construction costs for the new network will likely come from municipal bonds, because government grants typically exclude last mile network funding.  Commercial providers often lobby against municipal-funded networks as “unfair competition,” a laughable concept in long-ignored western Massachusetts, where Verizon pitches slow speed DSL, if anything at all.

WiredWest compares rural broadband with rural electrification.  Community-owned co-ops provide service where few private companies bothered to show interest:

Think back to the rural electrification of America. Then, as now, it wasn’t profitable enough for private companies to build out electrical service to rural communities. Imagine where those communities would be today if the government hadn’t stepped in to help fund this essential service – which over time has sustained itself and become a profitable enterprise.

Rural fiber-to-the-home is affordable when you use an appropriate financing and business model that isn’t subject to the same short-term measures of profitability as a private company. A municipal model for example, allows capital investment that can be written off over a longer period of time.

This type of business model isn’t limited to community-owned broadband.  Other countries that treat broadband as an essential utility have, in some cases, boosted broadband beyond a simple cost/benefit “ROI” analysis.

Constructing a broadband network for western Massachusetts still presents some formidable challenges, however:

1. There is a serious imbalance in government grant programs.  A largesse of government funding for institutional broadband has delivered scandalously underused Cadillac-priced networks communities, libraries and schools cannot afford to operate themselves once the grant money ends.  Meanwhile, funding to cushion the cost of wiring individual homes and businesses is extremely scarce.  Isn’t it time to divert some of that money towards the most difficult problem to overcome — wiring the last mile?
2. Government impediments to community broadband must be eliminated.  Repeal laws that restrict public broadband development.  Early experiments in municipal telecom networks have taught valuable lessons on how to operate networks efficiently and effectively.  But the broadband industry engages in scare tactics that highlight failures of older public projects like community Wi-Fi in an effort to keep superior publicly-owned fiber-to-the-home networks out of their markets.
3. The public is not always engaged on the broadband issue and accepts media reports that misunderstand institutional broadband as a solution for those stuck using dial-up.  No matter how good a network is, if the “last mile” problem remains unsolved, the closest consumers like Mr. Newhouser will get to fiber service is looking at the wiring on a nearby telephone pole.  In many communities, fiber broadband paid for by public tax dollars is only accessible at the local public library.  Taxpayers must demand more access to networks they ultimately paid for out of their own pockets, and should support existing public broadband initiatives wherever practical.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSHM Springfield Broadband internet coming to western Mass 12-8-11.mp4[/flv]

WSHM in Springfield says if you don’t have broadband in western Massachusetts now, it should be coming to your area soon.  But will it?  (3 minutes)

Time Warner Cable’s ruminations about charging usage-based pricing in 2012 has Wall Street all excited about the fatter profits made possible by nickle-and-diming broadband customers for their Internet use.  Forbes magazine tells investors the easy money earned from Internet Overcharging could boost the company’s profits and stock price:

We estimate that Time Warner Cable’s broadband business is single-most important business for the company, constituting about 42% to its value. The company’s management’s words essentially echo our estimates.

The company sees itself primarily as a broadband provider, bundling some extra services such as pay-TV for customer convenience. That said, any change to the pricing is likely to have notable impact on the company’s value, and therefore to its stock. Assuming that a tiered pricing is implemented and brings in more revenue per broadband subscriber, the company’s results could improve.

We believe that our fee per broadband subscriber forecast incorporate increasing penetration of high speed packages, but it could change if the company was to charge higher or implement a tiered pricing for high usage.

These kinds of earning estimates are what makes raising prices for Internet service so popular among the Wall Street crowd.  It fattens their portfolios, even if it increases cable bills which already routinely rise well beyond the national inflation rate.  The only caveat?  Customers could leave for other providers or eventually find the service too expensive to make it worthwhile.  Trefis, a business analysis firm, created an analysis tool (seen above) that allows readers to raise and lower the current estimates for Time Warner’s broadband pricing, add and remove competitors, and check out the impact on the company’s predicted stock price.  The results couldn’t be clearer.  The more you gouge consumers for expensive broadband, the bigger the Money Party, particularly if you live in an area with anemic DSL competition.

"Hey, we're #19!"

The United States may be a leader in many things, but broadband isn’t one of them. The country has now fallen two more positions — to 19th place, behind South Korea, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and even Iceland, since the Berkman Center for Internet and Society released its last rankings in 2009.

In 2004, President George W. Bush complained about the U.S. falling to 10th place, which he declared was “ten spots too low.”

Now eastern Europe and former Soviet Republics in the Baltics threaten to overtake the United States, and countries in southeast Asia already have.  Innovation in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand means deploying fiber to the home service to the vast majority of the population.  Innovation in North America means conjuring up new pricing schemes to raise prices on broadband service and engage in competition-busting mergers and acquisitions.

But a USA Today editorial this week also places much of the blame on corporate influence inside Washington, which has promulgated legislative policies that favor telecommunications companies and throw customers under the bus.

“The simple answer is that other countries have policies that promote competition and innovation,” the editors write. “In contrast, policies here have allowed a few dominant players that control the least interesting parts of the broadband landscape (the cables and the wireless spectrum) to dominate.”

Indeed, a series of telecommunications laws enacted by Congress, combined with short-sighted policies at the Federal Communications Commission, have allowed a handful of super-sized players to own and control broadband service in America, resulting in providers establishing non-competing fiefdoms that avoid head-on competition.

The worst policy of all allowed broadband providers to keep competitors from reaching customers over existing broadband networks.  During the days of dial-up, you could purchase Internet access from the phone company, a large provider like MSN or AOL, or thousands of smaller regional and local service providers.  Simply dial a local access number and you were connected to the provider of your choice.  Now, U.S. law gives broadband network operators the right to restrict these independents from selling service over their networks.  Comcast need not sell anything other than Comcast Internet.  Frontier Communications can make a killing selling its own DSL service, while protecting that revenue from other Internet Service Providers who might sell the service over Frontier’s network for half the price.  Time Warner Cable voluntarily allows Earthlink and a handful of other companies to sell cable broadband service over its infrastructure, but at prices equal to or higher than what Time Warner charges itself.

Broadband providers argue that allowing competitors to sell service on their network would discourage future investment and rob shareholders a return on investments already made.  Today, major cable operators and phone companies are falling all over themselves denying they are in anything but the broadband business.  It has become an enormously lucrative enterprise, more profitable than television or telephone service.

USA Today compares the broadband landscape back home with that in South Korea — perennially the world’s fastest, and considerably less expensive than what North Americans pay for service:

South Korea has made broadband a national priority, mandating deployment and in some cases giving private companies incentives to build out. It has also prevented major players from monopolizing their businesses, encouraging competition and innovation. In South Korea, consumers can get broadband service from a cable or telecom company. But they may also choose among myriad independent providers that are given access to the physical infrastructure. This competition keeps prices down and the quality of service high.

[…] But over time, cable and telecom companies worked the courts and Congress to make sure that this competitive world would never come to be [in the United States]. […] Wireless is a bit better. But the market has remained a near duopoly, with none of the smaller players emerging as a strong competitor to AT&T and Verizon.

The same open network concept has fought its way forward in Canada (where Bell has worked furiously to sabotage the business plans of independent providers) and in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand where all three governments have decided the best solution would be to scrap the ancient landline network and start fresh with an open-to-all-comers fiber to the home service.

Back home in the States it is business as usual with increasing broadband prices and the looming prospect of usage-limiting schemes designed to cut capital costs, monetize broadband usage, and stop cord-cutting.

The opposing point of view comes courtesy of dollar-a-holler, corporate-backed think tank The Heartland Institute, who is stuck quoting notorious industry-funded studies and think tanks like the Discovery Institute and the Technology Policy Institute:

The idea that European and Asian countries are lapping America in the race for broadband speed and penetration is a fallacy created with statistics comparing “persons” instead of “households.” Once you make that correction, the USA is firmly planted among the top of industrialized nations, as economist Scott Wallsten pointed out when he was a staffer at the Federal Communications Commission in 2009.

And as tech researcher Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics points out, if you measure Internet usage by gigabytes used per month — a better measure of the speed and utility of networks — the USA has nearly lapped Western Europe once and Asia twice.

Heartland Institute: "By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."

If you measure how many mouse clicks customers in New York make on a Thursday afternoon, we could be number one as well!  Gigabytes used per month does not measure the speed or price of service on broadband networks, considerations that actually do impact broadband rankings.

Mr. Wallsten is a familiar favorite go-to-guy for The Heartland Institute.  He’s also the choice of Time Warner Cable, who paid him $20,000 for a 2010 essay: “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.”

There is big money to be made writing corporate-funded research reports.  Bret Swanson knows that very well, having been involved with the Discovery Institute, a “research group” that delivers paid, “credentialed” reports to telecommunications company clients who waive them before Congress to support their positions.  Swanson is also a “Visiting Fellow” at Arts+Labs/Digital Society, which counted as its “partners” AT&T and Verizon.

The gentleman from Heartland also quotes from the misnamed “Progressive Policy Institute,” which counts among its funding partners, AT&T.

It would have been probably easier (but ineffectively transparent) to simply quote from AT&T and Comcast directly.

The Heartland Institute, unsurprisingly, believes letting existing broadband providers deliver service exactly the way they want is the best option:

The digital economy — one of the only vibrant economic sectors left — doesn’t need more government “investment” or regulation. It needs only for government to butt out and let the market work the magic that continues to bring us the marvels of the modern age.

That magic will cost you $50 a month and rising.  If some providers have their way, while the rest of the world abandons usage caps, American providers can’t wait to slap them on, reducing the value of your service even further.