Canadian investment analysts are recommending that Canada’s telecom giant Bell (BCE) should explore buying out Bell Aliant, Inc. the largest telephone company in the Maritimes, to further consolidate Canada’s telecommunications marketplace.

Bell already effectively controls the phone company serving provinces east of Quebec through its 44 percent stake in the venture. Picking up the rest through a takeover would make financial sense, said Maher Taghi, a telecom analyst at Canada’s Desjardins Securities.

The Globe and Mail reports Yaghi explained in a note to investors a buyout would boost overall free cash flow for Bell (BCE), primarily from the increased revenue paid by customers for phone, television, and Internet service.

Bell Aliant has been one of Canada’s most conservative telecom companies serving the country’s smallest provinces in Atlantic Canada, as well as parts of rural Ontario under the NorthernTel brand and Télébec, which serves rural Quebec.

Unlike Bell (BCE), Bell Aliant has aggressively deployed fiber to the home service in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia to stem landline losses. Bell Aliant’s FiberOP customers avoid stingy usage caps that are pervasive across the rest of Canada. Its fiber network delivers strong competition to cable operators.

Bell (BCE) is already a major player in Canadian telecommunications, both with its landline operation and Fibe — mostly a fiber-to-the-neighborhood service — wireless phone and broadband, owner of more than two dozen specialty cable networks, a satellite TV service, owner of the CTV television network, new owner of Astral Media, and a few dozen radio stations across Canada. With this level of media concentration, Bell (BCE) would have a tough time trying to buy any additional media assets, but with its current de facto control, Bell would likely have little regulatory scrutiny merging Bell Aliant into its existing operations.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bell Aliant FiberOP Intro Video 1-2014.flv[/flv]

Bell Aliant’s FiberOP introductory video explains the network and its features for Atlantic Canada. (2:20)

Phillip “Size is Everything” Dampier

Comcast’s new $1.2 billion 59-story Comcast Innovation and Technology Center — 1,121 feet in height and the 8th tallest building in the U.S. and highest building in Philadelphia — will be subsidized by taxpayers.

Comcast’s new tower, not far from Comcast Center — the current champion of Philadelphia’s highest buildings — is scheduled to break ground this summer and receive at least $40 million in taxpayer assistance to pay for improvements including a subway stop inside the building and the construction of a Winter Garden on 18th Street viewable by Comcast’s executives and the ordinary little people who also happen to pass by.

The average Philadelphian will probably never visit the top 13 floors, dedicated to the luxury-priced Four Seasons Philadelphia, where well-heeled guests will be invited to check in on the top floor for one of 200 available suites. The public at large will be tolerated in the hotel restaurant (if they behave) and the 2,682-square-feet of space dedicated to retail shops.

Because Comcast is going to pack up to 4,000 employees in its new building, taxpayers are paying Comcast an added bonus — $4.5 million in state job-creation tax incentives for the 1,500 jobs Comcast claims it will bring to the city. That signing bonus, payable to Comcast – not the employee, runs $3,000 per job.

An artist’s conception of Comcast’s newest excess.

Philebrity reports the local NBC station and Telemundo 62 (both owned by Comcast) will also move into the building. For the benefit of the worker class, there will be an atrium every three floors because once you’re spending over a billion dollars, you might as well throw some damn plants in there.

The Inquirer fell all over itself gushing about the new building in a shameless puff piece:

With its new 1,121-foot-tall loft building, designed by Britain’s Norman Foster, Comcast fashions a rebuttal to all that. Think of the towering waterfall of glass that was unveiled Wednesday as a skyscraper version of the great, light-filled factory lofts of the early 20th century, but wedged into the unpredictable heart of Center City atop the region’s densest transit hub. In the six years since Comcast embedded itself in one of the city’s more straight-laced corporate towers, it has done a complete 180: Its second high-rise should be a glorious vertical atelier where employees can make a mess while they invent and build stuff.

In short, this is what the future of the growing Comcast campus at 18th and Arch Streets will look like: Suits to the east, hipster engineers in cutoffs and flip-flops to the west.

Readers will excuse the fact hyperventilating “Inquirer Architecture Critic” (does any other newspaper in America have one of those?) Inga Saffron needed to catch her breath before finally reminding readers in a later update Liberty Property Trust, Comcast’s partner in the building, is under the leadership of William Hankowsky, who coincidentally also happens to be part owner of The Inquirer.

Philebrity, in a less charitable moment, referred to the new skyscraper as Comcast’s middle finger to Philadelphia. Considering the fact Comcast subscribers nationwide will likely help foot the bill, that’s a finger seen from  Cape Cod to Catalina Island.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/American TV Bomb.mp4[/flv]

In less than nine minutes, we can convincingly prove to any judge or jury we should only pay for the channels and networks we actually want to see. Our cable/satellite dollar helped pay for these video atrocities of 2013. Watch if you dare, but NSFW. (8:39)

Phillip “Free Trade in Bad Broadband” Dampier

Sure we’ve had our cultural skirmishes in the past,  but on one thing we can all mostly agree: our largest cable, phone, and broadband providers generally suck.

Outside of hockey season, Canada’s national pastime is hating Bell, Rogers, Vidéotron, Telus, and Shaw. The chorus of complaints is unending on overbilling, bundling of dozens of channels almost nobody watches but everybody pays for, outrageous long-term contracts, and bloodsucking Internet overlimit fees. In fact, dissatisfaction is so pervasive, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper spent this past summer waving shiny keys of distraction promising Canadians telecom relief while hoping voters didn’t notice their tax dollars were being spent by the country’s national security apparatus to spy on Brazil for big energy companies.

The Montreal Gazette is now collecting horror stories about dreadful service, mysterious price hikes, and promised credits gone missing on behalf of readers fed up with Bell and Vidéotron.

Rogers Cable, always thoughtful and pleasant, punished a Ottawa man coping with multiple sclerosis and cancer with a $1,288 bill, quickly turned over to a collection agency after his home burned to the ground. It took headlines spread across Ontario newspapers to get the cable company to relent.

Things are no better in the United States where the American Customer Satisfaction Index rates telecom companies worse than the post office, health insurers airlines, and the bird flu. National Public Radio opened the floodgates when it asked listeners to rate their personal satisfaction with their Internet Service Provider — almost always the local cable or telephone company.

The phone company Canadians love to hate.

Many responded their Internet access is horribly slow, often goes out, and is hugely overpriced. In response, the cable industry’s hack-in-chief did little more than shrug his shoulders — knowing full well American broadband exists in a cozy monopoly or duopoly in most American cities.

Breann Neal of Hudson, Ill., told NPR she has one choice — DSL, which is much slower than advertised. Hudson is Frontier Communications country, and it is a comfortable area to serve because local cable competition from Mediacom, America’s worst cable company, is miles away from Neal’s home.

“There’s no incentive for them to make it better for us because we’re still paying them every month … and there’s no competition,” Neal says.

Samantha Laws, who gets her Internet through her cable provider, says she also only has one option.

“It goes out at least once a day, and it’s been getting worse the last few months,” Laws says. She works with a pet-sitting company that handles all of its scheduling through email and the company website. At times she can’t do her job because of the unreliable connection.

Chicago is in Comcast’s territory and the company is quite comfortable cashing your check while AT&T takes its sweet time launching U-verse in the Windy City. AT&T isn’t about to throw money at improving DSL while local residents wait for U-verse and Comcast doesn’t need to spend a lot in Chicago when the alternative is AT&T.

Where there is no disruptive new player in town to shake things up, there is little incentive to speed broadband service up. But there is plenty of room to keep increasing prices for a service that is becoming as important as a working telephone. Companies are using broadband profits to cover increasing losses from pay television service, investing in stock buybacks, paying dividends to shareholders, or just putting the money in a bank, often offshore.

NPR’s All Things Considered:

“[For] at least 77 percent of the country, your only choice for a high-capacity, high-speed Internet connection is your local cable monopoly,” says Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. She is also the author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age.

Crawford says that today’s high-speed Internet infrastructure is equivalent to when the railroad lines were controlled by a very few moguls who divided up the country between themselves and gouged everybody on prices.

She says the U.S. has fallen behind other countries in providing broadband. At best, Crawford says, the U.S. is at the middle of the pack and is far below many countries when it comes to fiber optic penetration. Given that the Internet was developed in the U.S., she says the gap is a result of failures in policy.

“These major infrastructure businesses aren’t like other market businesses,” Crawford says. “It is very expensive to install them in the first place, and then they build up enormous barriers of entry around them. It really doesn’t make sense to try to compete with a player like Comcast or Time Warner Cable.”

So Crawford is calling for is a major public works projects to install fiber optic infrastructure — a public grid that private companies could then use to deliver Internet service.

Powell

That’s an idea met with hand-wringing and concern-trolling Revolving Door Olympian Michael Powell, who made his way from former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission during the first term of George W. Bush’s administration straight into the arms of Big Cable as president of their national trade association, the NCTA.

Powell, well compensated in his new role representing the cable industry, wants Americans to consider wireless 3G and 4G broadband (with usage caps as low as a few hundred megabytes per month) equivalent competitors to the local cable and phone company.

“I think to exclude [wireless] as a substitutable, competitive alternative is an error that leads you to believe the market is substantially more concentrated that it actually is,” Powell says.

Of course, Powell’s new career includes a paycheck large enough to afford the wireless data bills that would shock the rest of us. All that money also apparently blinds him to the reality the two largest wireless providers in America are AT&T and Verizon — the same two companies that are part of the duopoly in wired broadband. It’s even worse in Canada, where Rogers, Bell, and Telus dominate wired and wireless broadband.

Although America isn’t even close to having the fastest broadband speeds, Powell wants you to know the speeds you do get are good enough.

“I think taking a snapshot and declaring us as somehow dangerously falling behind is just not substantiated by the data,” he says. He says it is like taking a snapshot of speed skaters, where there might be a few seconds separating the leaders, but no one is “meaningfully out of the race.”

That is why we still celebrate and honor Svetlana Radkevich from Belarus who competed in the speed skating competition at the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics. She made it to the finish line and ranked 33rd. Ironically, South Korea ranked fastest overall that year, taking home three gold and two silver medals. In Powell’s world, that’s a distinction without much difference. You don’t need South Korean speed and gold medals when Belarus is enough. That argument always plays well in the United States, where Americans can choose between Amtrak or an airline for a long distance trip. Who needs a non-stop flight when a leisurely train ride will get you there… eventually.

There are a handful of providers uncomfortable with the mediocre broadband slow lane. Google is among them. So are community broadband providers installing fiber broadband and delivering gigabit Internet speeds. EPB in Chattanooga is among them, and it has already made a difference for that city’s digital economy neither AT&T or Comcast could deliver.

Unsurprisingly, Powell thinks community broadband is a really bad idea because private companies are already delivering broadband service — while laughing all the way to the bank.

If a community really wants gold medal broadband, Powell says, they should be able to have it. But Powell conveniently forgets to mention NCTA’s largest members, including Comcast and Time Warner Cable, spend millions lobbying federal and state governments to make publicly owned broadband illegal. After all, cable companies know what is best.

All Things Considered recently asked its fans on Facebook, “How satisfied are you with your Internet service provider?” Many responded that they didn’t like their Internet service, that it often goes out and that their connection was often “painfully slow.” Listen to the full report first aired Jan. 11, 2014. (11:30)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

A U.S. appeals court today ruled the FCC’s Net Neutrality policy requiring all Internet Service Providers to treat Internet traffic equally lacks legal authority.

The court found the FCC relied on an untenable foundation for its Net Neutrality policy that lacked legal standing, handing a victory to Verizon Communications that claimed its free speech rights were being violated.

The three judge panel were unanimous, finding the FCC could not regulate the Internet under the existing regulatory formula, in place since 2011 under the chairmanship of Julius Genachowski.

“Even though the commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates,” Judge David Tatel said.

Many analysts predicted the FCC had a shaky case from the outset, relying on a controversial classification of broadband as an “information service” that was unlikely to survive a court challenge.

“Given that the commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the commission from nonetheless regulating them as such,” Tatel wrote.

Many consumer groups argued the FCC should have reclassified broadband as a “telecommunications service” before implementing Net Neutrality. Today’s court decision seems to agree.

Wheeler

“The FCC — under the leadership of former Chairman Julius Genachowski — made a grave mistake when it failed to ground its open Internet rules on solid legal footing,” said Craig Aaron, president of Free Press. “Internet users will pay dearly for the previous chairman’s lack of political will. That’s why we need to fix the problems the agency could have avoided in the first place.”

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler expressed disappointment in today’s ruling and suggested the court would not have the last word.

“I am committed to maintaining our networks as engines for economic growth, test beds for innovative services and products, and channels for all forms of speech protected by the First Amendment,” Wheeler said in a statement. “We will consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans.”

“We’re disappointed that the court came to this conclusion,” said Aaron. “Its ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against the biggest phone and cable companies — and in the absence of any oversight, these companies can now block and discriminate against their customers’ communications at will.”

But the cable industry denies it will attempt to interfere with Internet traffic.

Former FCC chairman Michael Powell, who helped design the “information service” framework for Internet oversight during the Bush Administration, said the cable industry he now represents as president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association will maintain a “hands-off” approach to Internet traffic.

“The cable industry has always embraced the principles of an open Internet and the Court decision will not change that,” Powell said. “Consumers have always been entitled to enjoy the legal web content of their choosing and they will continue to do so. An open Internet is good for our customers, and good for our business. The cable industry has always made it clear that it does not – and will not – block our customer’s ability to access lawful Internet content, applications or services.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC FCC Loses Net Neutrality Case 1-14-14.mp4[/flv]

CNBC reports today’s Net Neutrality decision could impact online services like Netflix with an Internet “toll road” for video content. (1:48)