Wayne King: Living high off Time Warner Cable's Hog

The vice-chairman of North Carolina’s Republican Party, Wayne King, Tuesday penned a guest editorial in the Fayetteville Observer telling readers recent legislation passed in the state legislature provides a level playing field for telecommunications companies and protects “scarce public dollars” from being spent to compete against private providers like Time Warner Cable.

This legislation will also greatly benefit North Carolina taxpayers. At a time when local governments are cutting education and law-enforcement funding, taxpayers simply do not need to be spending scarce public dollars on communications systems that directly compete with the private sector. It makes no fiscal sense to build public infrastructure right alongside lines that have already been built by private firms.

Let’s imagine the government wanted to get into some other generally private industry. Would taxpayers be willing to foot the bill for a publicly subsidized cafeteria right next to a favorite local restaurant? Keeping in mind that you’d have to pay for services at both facilities (public communications networks still charge subscribers), I think the answer would be no.

Too bad Mr. King prefers to dine at Time Warner Cable Café.  He’s evidently having trouble seeing over the cable company’s talking points-menu to recognize that while he rails against public broadband expansion and community-owned competition to providers like AT&T, CenturyLink, and Time Warner Cable, he completely forgot the state of North Carolina and the city of Charlotte are handing Time Warner $5 million in combined, “scare public dollars” to create just over 200 new jobs and promise not to lay anyone off in the city of Charlotte.  That’s $5 million this year, and doesn’t count the sums the cable company has won from taxpayers over the past several years.

Mr. King has absolutely nothing to say about that kind of corporate welfare — the kind that takes $5 million away from education and law enforcement and hands it to a provider that will be raising its prices on North Carolina consumers once again by the end of this year.  And why not?  Where will those consumers go for a better deal?  FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn called out the legislation for what it is: “a broadband barrier.”

While Mr. King remains firmly seated at Time Warner Cable’s table as it funnels money to his party’s legislators, it’s easy to stare out of their window and complain about a new café being built across the street.  If that happens, diners just might end up paying a lot less for their meal, and get a much better dining experience to boot.

The only folks with indigestion will be executives at the cable and phone companies, and people like Mr. King, who will probably have less campaign money to show for it.

Andre Vrignaud of Seattle has been benched for a year by Comcast for using too much of its Internet service.

From time to time, we get reports from Comcast customers victimized by the company’s 250GB usage cap.  The nation’s largest cable broadband provider implemented that arbitrary limit back in 2008 after the Federal Communications Commission told the company they could not throttle the speeds of customers using applications like peer-to-peer file sharing software — then pegged as the usual suspect for turning “ordinary” broadband users into “data hogs.”

For at least 18 months, Comcast’s usage cap came with no measurement tools or real explanation most customers could find about what a “gigabyte” was, much less how many of them they “used” that month.  Only last year, Comcast finally rolled out usage measurement tools for customers who bother to find them on their website.  New customers signing up for service never even realize there is a usage cap until a thick brochure of legalize comes with the installer outlining the company’s Acceptable Use Policy.

Still, compared to some of the usage cap battles Stop the Cap! was fighting three years ago, Comcast was the least of our problems.  Frontier’s infamous 5GB usage allowance was the worst we’d ever seen, Cable One’s IRS-like usage policies required an academic to explain them, and Time Warner Cable’s ‘lil experiment in broadband rationing with a 40GB usage cap experiment crashed and burned soon after being announced in the lucky test cities scheduled to endure it.  That doesn’t make Comcast’s cap fair or right, but protecting consumers from these schemes requires triage.

But we remember well Comcast’s promise that it would regularly revisit and adjust its usage cap to reflect the dynamic usage of its customers.  That’s just one more broken promise from a broadband provider with an Internet Overcharging scheme.  In fact, Comcast has not moved its cap one inch since the day it was announced, although they have increased their rates.  The only thing going for the cable giant is that it doesn’t treat “250GB” as a guillotine.  In fact, the cable company only sends the usage police after the top few percent of users that exceed it, issuing a warning not to exceed the cap again during the next six months, or face a year without having the service.

This punitive policy is what Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt loves to rail against.  For him, broadband usage should never be penalized — it should be exploited for all the money the provider can possibly get from customers.  That’s why Britt favors a consumption billing system that starts off with a high monthly price for everyone, than goes much higher the more you use.  Would the neighborhood crack dealer cut you off for using too much?  Of course not.  Feeding your broadband usage habits can mean fat profits, and investors love it.

Andre Vrignaud, a 39-year-old gaming consultant in Seattle, wrote us (and many others) about his own experience with Comcast’s usage ban.  He’s a victim of it, having been warned once about usage and then ultimately told his cable modem was disabled for a year.  For Vrignaud, it was a case of using a cloud storage file backup provider, moving very high resolution images around, and having roommates.  Since Comcast counts upload and download traffic towards its usage limit, it’s not hard to see what can happen to anyone trying to back up today’s supersized hard drives.  What’s especially ironic is that Comcast itself sells online file backup services — which also counts towards your cap.

Comcast’s attitude about its decision to ban Vrignaud from its broadband service for a year was simple enough: it’s a clear cut case of violating their usage caps.  In their view, heavy users slow down broadband service for everyone else in the neighborhood.  So they set a policy that cuts them off when they use too much.

To add insult to injury, broadband-disabled Comcast customers have to call Comcast’s Retentions & Cancellations Department to get the billing stopped on his disabled service.  Vrignaud had to negotiate with a representative whose instinct is to keep you a Comcast customer at all costs, even when the company won’t allow you to be one!

But is Comcast really facing a congestion issue?  Not if you happen to be a business customer at the same address, using the exact same infrastructure that residential customers in the neighborhood use.  Business Class service has no usage limits at all — “congested neighborhood” or not.  And that is where Comcast’s argument simply starts to fall apart.

We’ve been in touch with Vrignaud privately in an effort to help him find a way back to his broadband service.  The alternative is DSL from Qwest/CenturyLink, and unless you live in an area where the phone company has upgraded their networks to support ADSL 2+ or other advanced flavors of DSL, that represents quite a speed downgrade.

Our readers have told us Comcast representatives have several unofficial ways of dealing with heavy users who have gotten their first warning from the company.  Some have told customers to sign up for a second residential account under the name of someone else in the home to allot themselves an additional 250GB of usage.  Others recommend signing up for a business account, which means no usage cap at all.  For those who have been cut off, signing up as a new customer under the name of someone else in the household usually gets you back in the door, albeit facing the same usage cap issue all over again.

The problem Vrignaud encountered is Comcast’s clumsy way of dealing with customers, like himself, who have been sentenced to a year without broadband service (from them).

Vrignaud explored the route we recommended — Business Class service — and found he couldn’t sign up.  Evidently Comcast’s ban is tied to his personal Social Security number, and when he tried to enroll in Business Class service using it, he was stopped dead in his tracks.

Turns out that once Comcast has cut your broadband account for violating their data cap policy you are verboten from being a Comcast customer for 1 year. That’s right:

After being cut off from Comcast’s consumer internet plan due to using too much data, I’m told I’m ineligible to use Comcast’s recommended solution, their business internet plan that allows the unlimited use of data — solely because I made the mistake of actually using “too much” data in the first place.

As the sales rep said in my Google Voicemail message, “what’s interesting is that if you would have started off on the business side of the house, since we don’t have a cap limitations [sic] you would’ve been fine.”

Vrignaud also mentioned he was unsure if Comcast required a business Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) in order to sign up for Business Class service.  In fact, for our readers who have gone this route, it turned out not to be necessary.  They just put their Social Security number in the space reserved for a TIN and had no problems.  Vrignaud would have a problem, however, because his Social Security number is effectively “poisoned” for the year.  He would need to obtain a specific kind of TIN — an Employer Identification Number (EIN) to proceed.  Luckily, it takes less than five minutes to apply for one online and is free.  The number displayed at the end of the process would be the one to use with Comcast.  An alternative suggestion would be to sign up for service under the name of someone else in the household.

For those on Comcast’s bad side, there is more hoop-jumping to get your service back than at the Ringling Bros. circus.

Should all this even be necessary?

Broadband service carries up to a 90% profit margin.

Stop the Cap! thinks not.  While Comcast may have endured last-mile congestion on its shared cable broadband network in days past, the company’s aggressive upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology makes congestion-based usage limits more of an excuse than a reality.  Comcast is pitching faster broadband speeds than ever, all hampered by the same 250GB usage limit.  While residential and business class customers share the same physical cable lines strung across neighborhoods, one faces a usage cap and the other does not.  It’s simply not credible.  Comcast’s punitive usage cap scheme throws away their own customers and the revenue they bring.

Vrignaud wants the option of getting his service back, perhaps by buying additional usage.  That’s Time Warner Cable’s dream-come-true, and one we are concerned about.  Once broadband usage is limited and monetized, it becomes a commodity that can be priced to earn enormous additional revenue for cable operators, regardless of the actual cost of providing the service.  That’s a dangerous precedent in today’s duopolistic broadband marketplace, because the cost per gigabyte will likely be on the order of a thousand times or more the actual cost, with no competitive pressure to keep that cost down.  That’s how Canada ended up in its Internet Overcharging pickle, where providers call $1.50-$5 per gigabyte “reasonable,” even though it costs them only pennies (and dropping) to deliver.  Some providers are even raising those prices, even as their costs plummet.  That’s not a road we want the cable or telephone industry walking down, or else we’ll find today’s enormous cable TV bills pale in comparison to the outrageous broadband service bills of the future.  Time Warner Cable provided a helpful preview in 2009 when they proposed unlimited 15/1Mbps residential service at the low, low price of $150 a month.

Vrignaud is just one more example of why Internet Overcharging risks America’s broadband future.  It’s an end run around Net Neutrality, its arbitrary, and unjustified.  The rest of the world is racing to discard what they called congestion pricing almost as fast as America’s providers (and their Wall Street cheerleaders) are racing towards Internet Overcharging.  The United States should be following Canada’s lead and hold providers to account for this kind of Internet pricing and force them to prove its warranted, or be rid of it.  With virtually every provider earning enormous profits off Internet service at today’s speed-based pricing, there remains no justification to overcharge customers for their broadband usage.

Phillip Dampier: "Where is the actual innovation in The Spectrum Innovation Act?"

Republican members of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on spectrum issues have circulated a draft bill — The Spectrum Innovation Act — which is breathtaking when you finish reading it.  For the first time I can recall, the United States Congress is proposing a way for business to bypass telecommunications laws by buying their way out.  The proposed bill would allow big spectrum holders like wireless phone companies, broadcasters, and others warehousing unused spectrum to win a “get out of regulation free”-card just by buying and selling the public airwaves.

A hearing on spectrum issues is scheduled for this Friday, and it promises to be fascinating if only to hear the reasoning behind Congress proposing to throw their own authority to the wind.

The bill’s contents are appalling for a variety of reasons:

• Public airwaves remain a private commodity that companies can buy, sell, or trade, with the not-so-fringe benefit of winning deregulation or being granted a legal free pass to ignore laws still in effect for others;
• The purchase of spectrum under this bill could allow wireless carriers to avoid even the pretense of today’s watered-down Net Neutrality policies;
• Unlicensed white space/spectrum which could be used for innovative new wireless applications could instead become warehoused by private companies for their own use (or more likely to keep others from using it.)

Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge, says the impact of the House measure should not be underestimated.

Feld

“Until now, communications law has never been publicly put up for sale,” Feld said.  “This draft bill would do that by allowing broadcasters to choose which rules they will follow and which rules they won’t if they sell their broadcast spectrum at auction.”

That is distressing enough, but the implications for wireless innovation are in peril if this bill ever becomes law, according to Feld.

“The innovation and experimentation we have seen through the use of unlicensed spectrum would screech to a grinding halt,” Feld believes. “Rather than have the FCC decide how much spectrum would be used for unlicensed uses, the draft bill would require a collective bid for unlicensed spectrum higher than bids for licensed uses.  Given that unlicensed uses like Wi-Fi come from small and new companies, the future of new uses would be very bleak.”

Feld points to several provisions in the bill to prove his points:

• Pages 18-19, line 19 (regulatory relief). If you are broadcast licensee, instead of taking money from an incentive auction for repacking or moving to a different spectrum band, you can ask FCC for a waiver of any commission rule or any provision of law.

• Pages 28-29, line 8 (administration of auctions).  If someone buys a license at auction, the spectrum is exempt from even the weak Net Neutrality rules that have been approved to guard against basic anticompetitive activity in wireless service such as barring competitive services.

• Page 29, line 3.  Prohibits spectrum cap, and also eliminates the ability of  the Commission to favor small business and minority, women-owned businesses in auctions.

• Page 26, line 10. Unlicensed spectrum is subject to auction.  A block of spectrum would be put up for auction, with bidders specifying whether use would be for licensed or unlicensed use.  Unlicensed has to be higher for bid to be accepted.

• Page 30 (section begins).  Gives public safety spectrum to the states, without an auction, with a nebulous plan and some unspecified grant money to coordinate the public safety network.

He’s more than proved the point.

While such legislation would no doubt be celebrated by incumbent providers to reinforce the status quo — their status quo — it is a nightmare for everyone else — another piece of irony from some Republican lawmakers who name their bills the diametric opposite of their end effect.  We can’t think of a better way to crush innovation and destroy the potential of competition by granting today’s players deregulation and easy access to unlicensed spectrum.  It’s as oxymoronic as a level playing field in the Rocky Mountains.  That’s why we need some actual innovation in The Spectrum Innovation Act.

Time Warner Cable just fought a battle in the state of North Carolina to keep public tax dollars from being spent on community-owned broadband networks, but the company has no objection to accepting corporate welfare for itself.

Charlotte’s News & Observer this week reports the nation’s second largest cable company will win $3 million in state incentives if it meets hiring and investment goals. The city of Charlotte is also providing $2 million of its own incentives.  That’s $5 million dollars from the pockets of North Carolina taxpayers.

Corporate welfare

For that, Time Warner Cable is promising to add 225 jobs and build a data center to deal with anticipated broadband growth in the area.  That’s $22,222 per job.

N&O notes this is the third handout the cable company has gotten from the state government since 2004 — all in return for committed expansion in Charlotte.  The newest grant requires Time Warner to retain at least 1,113 jobs in the Charlotte area.  The state government is apparently willing to help pay for the cable company to not lay off its workers, but is all for smothering much-needed competition from community providers, which it stepped on in a big way earlier this year.

Ironically, the corporate-backed groups that loudly oppose taxpayer funding for broadband and critics of community networks are mysteriously silent over $5 million in public funds being directly transferred to a multi-billion dollar cable corporation.

Pentefountas

Stop the Cap! is following this week’s extensive hearings into Internet Overcharging in Canada by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).  The debate into Bell’s attempt to mandate usage-based billing for -every- provider in Canada, regardless of whether they are owned or operated by Bell, reached a new level of absurdity this morning when a Conservative appointee to the CRTC, Tom Pentefountas — the vice-chairman of the commission — asked this question to an astonished panel headed by Openmedia.ca, a consumer group fighting usage-based billing:

“What is so undemocratic about allowing a few companies to control the Internet?”

Pentefountas was openly hostile at times against Openmedia, questioning their membership, their funding, and whether they had a “self-interest” in the fight.  They do — consumers, a concept that evidently escapes the very Big Telecom-friendly new commissioner, appointed by the government of Stephen Harper.

Yesterday, much of the hearing was focused on Bell’s defense of UBB, and we noted Mirko Bibic’s increasing discomfort as the Bell lobbyist came under increasing scrutiny and hard questioning that he never experienced during earlier hearings (those that led to the CRTC’s approval of UBB).  Now that the public (and higher government officials) are watching and listening, what used to be a non-confrontational experience is today sounding increasingly skeptical of the arguments for UBB by many commissioners.

We’ll have audio archives of the hearings available here when they are published online.  They help build the record of carrier arguments for UBB, independent findings which call out those arguments, and the opposition to UBB and why flat rate broadband is important to the knowledge-based economy of North America.

There will be hurdles to overcome, starting with confronting the attitudes of commissioners like Mr. Pentefountas, who evidently does not understand the implications of a few corporate entities controlling Canada’s Internet.

Follow live coverage of the CRTC hearings here.