New Apple iPad 3G owners launched a small controversy over the weekend about their discovery that certain video streaming services are showing lower resolution video (or no video at all) when using Apple’s new iPad 3G over AT&T’s wireless 3G network.

A range of sites pounced on the news.  It’s not easy to sort through who broke the story first, but by the end of the weekend, it developed a small life of its own.

iLounge was among the first to note serious video quality degradation when using the iPad over a cellular network, while it worked just fine over Wi-Fi:

…some video delivery applications act differently over the 3G network than they do on Wi-Fi. The iPad’s built-in YouTube application strips both standard and HD videos to a dramatically lower resolution over the cellular data connection, something that iTunes Store video previews notably do not do, instead staying at a higher quality and consuming a greater amount of data. Other third-party applications, such as the ABC Player, refuse to work at all over the cellular connection, producing a notification pop-up that states, “Please connect to a Wi-Fi network to use this application. Cellular networks are not supported at this time.”

YouTube streamed over AT&T's 3G Network on an iPad defaults to very low resolution. (Image: iLounge)

Electronista also jumped on the story, at first speculating AT&T may have had a hand on the speed throttling noting Sling Media ran into a similar blockade with AT&T before the wireless company relented and the software became available from the App Store.  PC Magazine quoted from the Electronista story (before Electronista’s editors modified their original piece) to build on the story.

By the end of the weekend, Electronista pulled back on some of their language in their original report and included a cryptic denial from AT&T, which claimed it was “a question for Apple.”

Stories of reported throttling and content walls will not take long to reach the public policy debate over Net Neutrality.  Is this an example of AT&T throttling Apple iPad customers and blocking them from accessing web content?

The answer, based on current evidence, is probably not.

There are technical issues behind the scenes which play a larger role here, but let’s begin with the average consumer and how a 3G network impacts on their “user experience.”

When designing a device like the iPad, engineers have to factor in usability and the overall impression customers will have using the product with a wireless network.  For many original iPad owners reliant on a Wi-Fi connection, pages render quickly, videos play properly, and applications that require higher bandwidth generally work fine.  Unfortunately, for those who lined up outside of Apple stores looking for the 3G wireless mobile broadband version of the iPad, the same may not always be true using AT&T’s 3G network.

AT&T promotes its 3G network as fast and capable of handling most any web application, including video.  But even the best 3G experience from AT&T is often much slower than a wired or Wi-Fi connection.  Despite the PR from AT&T, its 3G network frustrates many customers, especially in areas where cell sites are jammed with traffic or signals aren’t great.  Apple made sure larger-sized, streamed multimedia content seemed to work equally well on wireless by using adaptive video quality that can sense the speed of a connection, and reduce the quality of a video in order to make it play properly.  The theory is that a consumer using a handheld device probably wouldn’t notice the quality reduction on a small screen and would appreciate quick, uninterrupted playback.  Without such technology, a high quality video file can take longer to send over AT&T’s 3G network than it will take you to watch it.  That triggers the annoying “buffering content” pauses you see on slower networks.

AT&T officials told inquiring media “it’s a question for Apple,” which seems to confirm the reduced video quality is a function of the video player trying to adapt to AT&T’s speed.

Even with this in mind, some accused AT&T of employing social engineering to get customers to instinctively rely on Wi-Fi connections for higher bandwidth applications, reducing the demand on AT&T’s 3G network.

There is no need for a conspiracy theory like that when the simple, naked truth is far easier to grasp — AT&T has inadequate capacity and needs to upgrade their wireless networks to handle more traffic and sustain the speeds customers expect from a 3G-capable network.  AT&T is not purposely throttling the speeds of iPad 3G owners — their insufficient capacity results in a de facto speed throttle for all of their customers.  Unfortunately for those outside of the United States, the implications of AT&T’s slower 3G network can impact them as well.  Jesse Hollington in Toronto noted:

Unfortunately, these limitations don’t seem to be triggered by AT&T’s network, but rather in the iPhone OS or apps themselves, and the restrictions (at least on the iPhone) exist in every country where the iPhone is sold. There’s a general feeling outside of the U.S. that Apple’s kowtowing to AT&T’s “requirements” is actually ruining the experience for the rest of the world.

For instance, I can perhaps understand why YouTube videos need to be downsampled on AT&T’s slow 3G network, which even at peak performance is only 1.8mbps in most places.  As I noted above, however, Rogers up here provides 7.2mbps just about everywhere and provides better 3G performance than I get on some Wi-Fi networks. Yet we have to live with the same 3G restrictions as AT&T users do because they’re built into the iPhone OS.

That prompts the question what limits would have been “built-in” had AT&T’s own 3G network consistently delivered 7.2Mbps performance across its service areas.

As for ABC, and certain other content producers that restrict iPad owners to Wi-Fi viewing, that turns out not to be clear cut either.  ABC’s video streaming evidently exceeds a speed threshold that triggers the player to tell the user to use a Wi-Fi connection instead.  Licensing restrictions may also prevent the content from playing across a 3G network.

One of the most common arguments Net Neutrality opponents use to argue Net Neutality’s “unintended negative consequences” comes from bans on such adaptive speed controls.  Providers claim that by prioritizing or favoring certain traffic, they can maximize a consumer’s online experience so that they can use high bandwidth applications, as long as an intelligent network shaped the delivery of that traffic.

So one might ask, because adaptive video quality lets people watch their favorite online videos over AT&T’s 3G network, wouldn’t a ban on speed throttles make it difficult or impossible to provide a customer with access to that video?  Isn’t Net Neutrality a bludgeon that kills intelligent traffic management tools?

There is no shortage of techie-speaking, industry-funded Net Neutrality opponents that argue it regularly.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Net Neutrality does not ban software that can sense the speed of your connection and request an appropriate web stream that will assure uninterrupted playback.  Even ancient RealPlayer technology can adaptively adjust streaming quality based on what your connection will support, if the content producer supports it.  Such technology directly benefits the consumer (who can also often shut it off), whereas the kinds of traffic shaping providers advocate really only benefits them.

That’s an important distinction.  Too often, the kinds of “intelligent networks” providers speak of are designed to protect providers from “costly upgrades” and opens up new revenue streams by manipulating or limiting traffic and then charging users and producers to be exempted from them (for the right price).

AT&T Customers in southeastern Tennessee continue to get bill shock from company mistakes

AT&T continues to bill some of its customers across Tennessee for long distance calls that were supposed to be free under the unlimited long distance calling plans.  Stop the Cap! first reported this story back on April 12th, with company officials apologizing for what they called a “computer glitch.”  But the bills just keep on coming.

One Clarksville woman has been forced to call AT&T almost daily to address overcharges now exceeding $3,o00 for an AT&T Unlimited Nationwide Calling plan that is supposed to cost her $25 a month.

Although AT&T keeps crediting the overcharges on her account, Belinda Horton is exasperated having to first confront an inaccurate bill and then deal with AT&T customer service to credit back the charges.  That has been part of her routine for at least four months, with no resolution in sight.

“I’m not trying to get anything off of then and I don’t except charity, I just want them to fix my bill and fix it correctly,” she told WKRN News 2 in Nashville.  A reporter sat in on a typical call Horton makes to AT&T’s customer service to cope with the routine overcharging.  At the end of the call, the customer service agent tells Horton she’s sorry she can’t completely resolve the matter to her satisfaction.

Company officials continue to blame the billing error on computer problems.  Although Horton’s calling plan is supposed to let her make unlimited long distance calls for a flat monthly rate, the company keeps billing her calls by the minute at standard long distance rates.  The result has been staggering bills in the hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Belinda Horton from Clarksville, Tenn. is exasperated to learn she has been overbilled yet again while she speaks with AT&T customer service (Photo: WKRN News - Nashville)

WKRN News talked with Tom Jarkovitch at AT&T, who admitted the glitch has impacted 15,000 Tennessee residents.

“There were a few folks, those are the ones were working on manually and again, as a sub set of people that were not captured for whatever reason we think that’s going to be corrected in a matter of days,” he said.

Unfortunately for AT&T, there are indications the problem is impacting a larger number of customers than Jarkovitch admits.

Another customer in the Nashville area also being overbilled every month since last October said they had enough — they disconnected their AT&T service and went with a competitor:

“I have had the same problem since October of 2009. Every month, I have to call AT&T and ask why the problem has not been fixed. Again and again I am told that it should be fixed before the next billing cycle.  It is now nearly May and I still have to call them on a monthly basis. As a matter of fact, I just received my bill yesterday, and again, same thing. Well, that is my last bill because as of last month, I changed my home phone service carrier. I will no longer use AT&T services.”

With complaints like these still rolling in, the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA) Monday compelled AT&T to appear to discuss the ongoing billing problems and AT&T’s plans to resolve them once and for all.

AT&T’s legal counsel, Guy Hicks, apologized for AT&T.

“It has already gone on too long, and for that AT&T apologizes,” Hicks told the Authority.

Month after month, many AT&T Unlimited long distance customers in Tennessee are billed by the minute for every long distance call, leading to staggering bills like this.

But Hicks also claimed the problem only impacted customers from periods ranging from August 18 to September 8 and October 31 to December 2, a claim that doesn’t ring true in light of Belinda Horton’s ongoing billing issues.

When asked specifically whether every dime unjustly charged to Tennessee customers had been refunded, Hicks did not say yes, instead claiming that “the vast majority of credits or refunds have been made and are continuing to be made.”

“As late as Friday, we were called and charges were still on their bill,” said TRA’s Tevin Thompson. “She didn’t have a paper bill yet, but she was quoted a total, and there were still errors on the bill.”

Our Take

It was disappointing to see the TRA praising AT&T at the end of Monday’s meeting.  This is an ongoing nightmare for some customers, and TRA officials seemed all too ready to applaud the company for its promises to fix the problem while Tennessee residents continue to be overbilled.  The time for praise comes after the company resolves the issue and every customer has been credited for every error.  AT&T has promised it would resolve these billing problems for nearly a month, with complaints still arriving even as the Authority met.

The Leaf Chronicle, the daily newspaper serving Clarksville, notes TRA officials seemed satisfied with AT&T’s Apologypoloza:

State regulatory directors appear to be satisfied AT&T has made an effort to correct a billing glitch that could have affected as many as 15,000 customers.

AT&T officials were called before the Tennessee Regulatory Agency on Monday to explain why some customers have been incorrectly billed for services since the fall.

“From what I gathered, the response they received (from AT&T) was satisfactory,” said Shirley Frierson, senior policy adviser to the TRA chairman. “That is as long as in a month or so, we don’t get more complaints about the same problem.”

At this point, appropriate compensation for impacted customers that have coped with overcharges for months on end should be more than simply crediting back their mistakes.  For folks like Belinda Horton, a year of free long distance calling would go a lot farther to demonstrate AT&T’s goodwill.  After all, she had to spend countless hours trying to fix a problem that wasn’t her fault.  Take it out of AT&T’s massive lobbying budget and do the right thing by your customers.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WKRN Nashville ATT Overbilling in Tennessee 4-27-10.flv[/flv]

WKRN-TV in Nashville spoke at length with Clarksville resident Belinda Horton who faced months of staggering phone bills.  The reporter even sat in on a call Horton made to AT&T customer service.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSMV Nashville ATT Answers To Long-Distance Billing Errors 4-26-10.flv[/flv]

WSMV-TV in Nashville also spoke with Horton and covered Monday’s meeting with the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, a public utility commission, over ongoing AT&T billing problems.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”368″ height=”228″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTVF Nashville ATT Meets With Regulators Regarding Overcharging 4-27-10.flv[/flv]

Finally, WTVF-TV in Nashville also ran a report showcasing Horton’s billing problems and interviewed an AT&T representative about what will be done about it.  (2 minutes)

I had the pleasure of attending the SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (SEATOA) conference this past weekend in beautiful Asheville, North Carolina.  I was surrounded by some of the leading visionaries in the fields of next-generation broadband deployment, broadband policy and important Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) access networks.

Among those in attendance:

• Kyle Hollifield, representing Bristol Virginia Utilities/BVU OptiNet, a municipally-owned fiber optic broadband provider in Bristol, Virginia;
• Colman Keane, from municipal utility EPB Telecom in Chattanooga, Tennessee;
• Tommy Jacobson from MCNC;
• Ken Fellman from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA);
• Hunter Goosman from ERC Broadband, which operates a regional fiber optic network in the western Carolinas;
• Brian Bowman, Public Affairs & Marketing Manager of Wilson, North Carolina, home of municipal fiber network Greenlight, and
• Michael Crowell, Broadband Services Director of Salisbury, North Carolina’s forthcoming fiber to the home network Fibrant.

The conference included several informational sessions for those working on broadband projects.

Tom Power, chief of staff for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and Jessica Zufolo from the Rural Utilities Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture discussed rounds one and two of the broadband stimulus grant program and lessons learned along the way.

Thomas Koutsky, representing the FCC Broadband Opportunities Initiative, the legendary Jim Baller and FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn also spoke about the importance of developing better broadband networks across the country.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn delivered the keynote address at the SEATOA conference held in Asheville, N.C.

Thomas Koutsky, speaking about the National Broadband Plan said, “The National Broadband Plan is just a plan.  It doesn’t do anything by itself, it requires action.”  I couldn’t agree more.  The National Broadband Plan could culminate in a giant missed opportunity if we do not reach out and demand that our representatives in Washington get on board with a definitive plan to deliver better broadband across the country.  Washington is full of studies and recommendations that are little more than words on paper, sitting on a shelf because Americans didn’t demand action to implement them.

I could go on all day about Jim Baller and his inspiration that drives us all to fight for better broadband in America, but I will highlight this quote: “It is a disgrace that every American does not have affordable access.”  Baller rallied the crowd with a video clip from Al Pacino’s speech in Any Given Sunday.  It’s not difficult to carry Pacino’s message about football to our fight in the broadband arena, and the enthusiasm Baller brings can only be a positive.

Perhaps the most newsworthy event from the conference was a speech from the newest FCC Commissioner, Mignon Clyburn.  She gets it.  In an amazing 20-minute speech, Clyburn succinctly delivered a message we wish some of our state lawmakers would understand and support:

“Thus, the Plan recommends that Congress clarify that state and local governments should not be restricted from building their own broadband networks. I firmly believe that we need to leverage every resource at our disposal to deploy broadband to all Americans. If local officials have decided that a publicly-owned broadband network is the best way to meet their citizens’ needs, then my view is to help make that happen.

When cities and local governments are prohibited from investing directly in their own broadband networks, citizens may be denied the opportunity to connect with their nation and improve their lives. As a result, local economies likely will suffer. But broadband is not simply about dollars and cents, it is about the educational, health, and social welfare of our communities. Preventing governments from investing in broadband, is counterproductive, and may impede the nation from accomplishing the Plan’s goal of providing broadband access to every American and every community anchor institution.”

Clyburn’s speech clearly illustrates she’s an advocate for consumers and is interested in knocking down barriers that block Americans from enjoying world class broadband service.  Clyburn considers the National Broadband Plan a group effort developed by and for the American people, not just a policy document from the FCC.  It was truly an uplifting speech that gave me hope positive change in broadband and broadband policies are possible with her presence on the Commission.

[flv width=”540″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CommClyburn.mp4[/flv]

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn delivers the keynote speech at the SEATOA conference.  Clyburn goes on record advocating municipally-run broadband projects where communities deem them appropriate.  This clip comes courtesy of Communities United For Broadband and you saw it first here on Stop the Cap! (April 27, 2010 — 20 minutes)

(This video is large in size.  If playback stops, please pause the video to allow more of the clip to load into the player’s buffer to reduce the chance of stalled playback.  If you still experience problems, please Contact Us.)

Sometimes you have to wonder who telecom front groups hire to push their agenda.  In the Stop the Cap! e-mail box came a news tip last week that a new study proved beyond doubt that passing Net Neutrality would put up to 1.5 million jobs at risk by the year 2020.  Just as bad, the study warns, broadband investment would plummet as a result, causing an investment retreat worth up to $5 billion dollars.  They thought I should know.

All of this ruinous news results from a government that wants to make sure your Internet Service Provider doesn’t block, impede, or censor the traffic of independent websites that don’t  pay a protection fee to keep their content online and accessible.  What’s that I smell?  The easily recognized scent of plastic grass — more astroturfing from a broadband industry intent on keeping broadband regulation as far away from them as possible.

The Employment and Economic Impacts of Network Neutrality Regulation: An Empirical Analysis, by Dr. Coleman Bazelon — working on behalf of something called “The Brattle Group, Inc.,” is a real page-turner.  I tore right through it myself.

Just reading the background of Dr. Bazelon rang all sorts of warning bells:

• Dr. Bazelon consulted and testified on behalf of clients in numerous telecommunications matters;
• Dr. Bazelon frequently advises regulatory and legislative bodies;
• Dr. Bazelon was a vice president with Analysis Group, an economic and strategy consulting firm.

More ordinary folks use a different, less fancy term to cover all this: lobbyist tool.

The key finding for the report:

New network neutrality regulations proposed by the FCC could slow the growth of the broadband sector, potentially affecting as many as 1.5 million jobs, both union and non-union, by the end of the decade.

So how does Bazelon come to this conclusion?

The academic literature on possible effects of network neutrality regulation does not provide a consensus view on whether such regulations should be expected to help or harm the broadband sector, although several economists have concluded that such regulation would be harmful.

I tore right through Bazelon's report.

Many of those economists were paid by the broadband industry to conclude that in their own “reports.”  Many of Bazelon’s footnotes reference himself, telecommunications company executives, or other connected parties who have a financial interest in opposing Net Neutrality or broadband regulations.

At the heart of Bazelon’s theory is that content-related jobs, those involving the development of the websites you like to visit to read, listen, watch, or download from, cost more money to create than broadband “dumb pipe” jobs.  In other words, if you’re developing iTunes content or a network to stream Netflix movies, your job cost more (and probably pays more) than a line splicer at AT&T who is rolling out 3 Mbps DSL service in Rolla, Missouri.

So, if we penalize content developers with Internet Overcharging schemes or speed throttles that discourage your use of iTunes or Netflix, AT&T can use the savings from dramatically lower demand and hire more people to wire up communities for basic DSL service.  That’s okay, because it creates new jobs: “to the extent that the absence of network neutrality regulations leads to a transfer of ‘wealth’ (or sector revenues) from the Internet content sector to the broadband sector, such a transfer would be expected to have a positive impact on employment.”

That’s a great deal for you, right?

Net Neutrality doesn’t impede bigger profits for broadband providers – it just insists that they don’t earn those profits parasitically on the back of someone else’s content.  If your cable or phone company owned Netflix, there wouldn’t be an issue.  They would provide a service and earn from it.  But they don’t, and demand a piece of the pie anyway.

By the way, Bazelon’s myopic report completely misses another fundamental fact.  In today’s non-Net Neutral world, large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have slashed tens of thousands of jobs just fine without pesky Net Neutrality or other broadband regulations getting in the way.  It’s like telling a New Orleans resident standing in four feet of water during Hurricane Katrina that if we don’t do something about the levees next year, the city could be flooded.

The author also states the obvious:

Broadband open access and net neutrality regulations are both regulatory interventions aimed at restricting a broadband network owner’s ability to exercise market power. The first acts at a structural level to eliminate any potential market power in the provision of the good; the second acts at a behavioral level restricting the broadband provider’s ability to benefit from any such market power.

Sounds like a plan to me and millions of other consumers who see the results of the industry’s market power workout routine… in the form of ever-increasing monthly bills.

Bazelon's vision for the Internet's future

Bazelon is even willing to predict some winners and losers with the FCC’s proposed Net Neutrality regulations:

Under the strict network neutrality regime being considered by the FCC, different Internet content might flourish. In particular, some Internet content is less commercial and generates very little revenue. Content that does not generate much economic value may be advantaged by a network neutrality regime. It is worth noting, however, that such content, by not primarily being engaged in the economy, does not significantly impact employment. Larger commercial sites have the potential of doing better or worse under network neutrality regulations. On the one hand, potentially lower costs of access should benefit them; on the other hand, potentially less developed broadband infrastructure could harm their businesses. With some content winning and some content losing, there is no reason to believe that the total amount of content will be more or less (or more or less valued by Internet users) under one regime or the other. Some business models will do well under one regime, others under the other regime.

In other words, in Bazelon’s world, the formerly level playing field where content is king and website value is decided on its merits is replaced with a corporate-controlled broadband network where only the big, well-financed players will get to play.  If you’re CNN or Amazon.com, you’ll have no problem meeting the protection racket prices providers could demand to guarantee your content isn’t blocked or slowed to a crawl.  But if you’re a poor blogger, a new business start-up, or use the web to argue for and against various causes, get to the back of the line (if you are allowed in the line in the first place.)

The Internet gets reincarnated as Prodigy, for those old enough to remember using that online service.

Ultimately, Bazelon believes only big broadband providers can create economic success stories in our online future.  Making them play by certain rules will kill that success, he argues.

Only one problem – when Bazelon gazes up into the sky, he sees AT&T logos everywhere he looks.  That’s because Mobile Future, the group that paid for the study, is yet another creature of AT&T.  To hide the fact this is yet another AT&T front group, several of AT&T’s usual friends also turn up on the membership roster.  Just a few days after calling out LULAC – the League of United Latin American Citizens for selling out the Latino community to AT&T’s agenda, here they are again — joined at AT&T’s hip as a member of Mobile Future.

A selection of other Mobile Future (brought to you by AT&T) members

Asian Business Association – No national website, which already makes this suspicious, but the San Diego chapter admits AT&T is a corporate sponsor.

Asian Women in Business – AT&T underwrote their website.

Bump.com – The company is self-described on Mobile Future’s website as “the world’s largest purpose-formed safety, communication and marketing network. BUMP uses safe and convenient voice recognition and ALPR (automatic license plate recognition) to provide drivers worldwide with a communication platform that promotes safety on the roads and builds a unique global network.”  They should win an award for puffery.  In fact, this “world’s largest” enterprise doesn’t even have a website.  It claims it was founded in 2009, but its Facebook page just showed up April 15th of this year with a handful of photos showing… license plates.  Why license plates?  Because the group’s real aim is to set up a registry of those willing to receive text messages sent by typing in someone’s license plate and quietly linking it to your cell phone.

The Century Council – Public interest group padding.  Ask yourself what a group fighting underage teen drinking and driving built from and run by distilleries has to do with mobile broadband, Net Neutrality, spectrum demand, and wireless phone taxes — the primary issues Mobile Future seeks to address.

Climate Cartoons – The group’s CEO is a Washington, DC lobbyist specializing in fighting telecommunications issues.  Among Arnold Consulting Group’s “accomplishments:” building a “telecommunications coalition that successfully opposed federal and state ‘Net neutrality’ legislation” and a “cable television coalition that successfully opposed federal, state and local efforts to enact open access broadband regulations.”  Need I say more?

Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership – Another LULAC — follows AT&T policy initiatives around like a friendly puppy.  HTTP was busted by Ars Technica when asked whether AT&T had any hand in helping the group draft its opposition to Net Neutrality.  HTTP’s Sylvia Aguilera insisted she initiated the drive to oppose Net Neutrality, but was silent on whether AT&T helped draft the letter opposing it.

That’s only halfway down their so-called “coalition” list.  You get the point.  The only name that truly matters among all of Mobile Future’s members is AT&T because they are the ones spreading the money around to pay for it.  At the same time, if AT&T is writing contribution checks to your public interest group, or hiring your consulting/lobbying firm to represent your agenda, those are two compelling reasons for both to hurry on over to sign up for the cause in this, and other astroturf front groups.

On behalf of Climate Cartoons, which purports to “lure people into earth friendly behavior,” please be sure to give all due respect to this latest industry-backed study from Dr. Bazelon by tossing it into the nearest recycling bin.

Turner

Paralleling the debate for better broadband is the fight for renewable, domestically-produced energy, and outspoken former CNN founder Ted Turner has run into the same kind of corporate-backed opposition strategies broadband advocates face in a quest to deliver improved service to Americans.  As part of an event with T. Boone Pickens to promote the cause of renewable energy, Turner launched into an all-out assault on his former colleagues at Time Warner, who he characterized as inept.

“This is what I said at the Time Warner board room. I’m not on the board anymore because they didn’t get it, but I said ‘we’ve got to stop doing the dumb things and start doing the smart things.  We had 5 percent of Google in a music merger and I said to [former CEO] Dick Parsons, ‘Dick, I think we ought to hang onto that Google stock.’ This was about 10 years ago. He said, ‘That company’s a bunch of bullshit.’

Then, listen to this one. We had CNNfn, which was in 50 million homes, as Fox [Business] is in now. And they made the decision to close it down. It was breaking even, a cable network that was breaking even. We should have been in there competing with CNBC and Bloomberg.

They closed it down without even calling Rupert up, who said publicly he was looking really hard at getting into the financial news business. We could have gotten $100 million or $200 million from him just for the name and the 50 million subscribers. They didn’t even call him — they closed it down without even doing that, and he was sitting there with the money wanting to give it to ‘em. I mean, you know, how dumb can you be?”

Whenever incumbent interests are threatened with new innovations that challenge conventional business models, look out.  The well-financed opposition will do everything possible to stop new sources of competition, something a befuddled Pickens noted when he encountered a representative from oil and gas interests opposing his domestic production ideas.  He likened the guy to “Baghdad Bob.”  Turner also confronted corporate-friendly Fox Business News who interviewed both about their joint effort, leading Turner to drop the “BS-bomb” at one point on live television.

It’s just more evidence that the fight for better broadband with fiber-based networks, Net Neutrality, competition, and more affordable access will be resisted in much the same way entrenched incumbents always fight to preserve their profitable positions in the marketplace.  Your interests come second.

As for characterizations of Time Warner management’s ability to predict trends and make smart business decisions, Turner has the credentials to back up his beliefs as a vice-chairman of Time Warner from 1996-2006.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Turner Blasts Time Warner 4-26-10.flv[/flv]

Speaking at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles, Ted Turner had choice words for his former partner, Time Warner.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox Business News Renewable Energy 4-26-10.flv[/flv]

T. Boone Pickens and Ted Turner sit for an interview with Fox Business News about renewable energy.  We’re into the weeds with this clip, but it’s useful to see the same kinds of astroturf campaigns drive other causes crazy as well.  Also fun to watch Turner drop the “BS-Bomb” on live television, causing some consternation for Fox Business News, which also challenged Turner’s notions of how to pay for smart grids.  (7 minutes)