$1.99 each per month… every month.

Comcast customers in parts of Minnesota are receiving notification their cable lineup is about to switch to “all-digital,” requiring most to rent Comcast-supplied digital cable set-top boxes that will add at least $1.99 per box, per month to customers’ bills.

Residents in Eagan are so upset, a special meeting has been scheduled tonight by the Eagan City Council to discuss the burgeoning cable fees from the largest cable provider in the state.

“What we’ve decided to do is try to gather more information on behalf of our residents,” Eagan communications director Tom Garrison told the Eagan Patch. “I think people are certainly hearing about it. They’ve got questions, they’ve got mailings, and we hope to get them good and useful information they can act on.”

Comcast is in the process of reclaiming space on its cable systems by switching analog television channels to digital service, which will free up considerable bandwidth for other uses. But customers are inconvenienced if they do not already have Comcast set-top boxes.

Comcast has notified customers they can have a Digital Transport Adapter (DTA) sent to them for $1.99 per month, per adapter. The device makes digital signals available in analog so customers can keep watching. But the equipment no longer is provided for free. Customers will have to either install a DTA, a traditional set-top box, or a CableCARD on every television in the home after the conversion is complete.

Although the city will meet with interested residents, local government officials have very little say over how Comcast chooses to conduct business and cannot force the company to change its plans.

Nearly four months after Hurricane Sandy struck Manhattan, many customers are still waiting to get their phone and Internet service restored.

Verizon’s black hole extends across parts of Lower Manhattan, such as along Avenue C, roughly from Third Street to Tenth Street. There, business transactions are often “cash-only,” because stores and bars have no ability to process credit card transactions. But getting cash can also be difficult as ATMs, which also rely on Verizon’s network, display the same “Offline” message they have shown for more than three months.

Some of Verizon’s customers are fed up, especially after the company started asking customers to pay for phone and broadband service they don’t have. Several customers report the company expects its monthly bills to be paid, with complicated service credits forthcoming after payments are applied. Customers who don’t pay have been assessed late fees or face collection activity for service that has not worked since Halloween.

WNYC Radio reports it has been nearly four months since Hurricane Sandy hit the northeastern U.S. and large sections of Lower Manhattan still don’t have phone or broadband service from Verizon. (February 13, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Verizon does not seem to be in much of a hurry, a point of contention with the New York State Public Service Commission, which may be preparing to fine Verizon yet again for failing to meet service standards. The company has been on probation with the PSC for some time. Last summer, the regulator fined Verizon $100,000 for missing required service standards during the month of July, 2012. More than 1,100 of 5,400 reported outages were not repaired within the required 24 hours.

That was an improvement over how the company performed in October and December, 2011, where prolonged service outages provoked the PSC to eventually fine Verizon $400,000.

This time Verizon wants a free pass from more fines, claiming enormous restoration efforts necessitated by Sandy are responsible for any delayed response.

Assistant Attorney General Keith Gordon is not buying it. He called Verizon’s reports on outages “disingenuous at best,” and accused Verizon of manipulating data and delivering incomplete outage statistics.

Nobody outside of Verizon knows how many New Yorkers still lack phone or Internet service — the PSC is obligated to keep specific numbers private at the behest of the telecommunications companies themselves.

“Given the fact that the telecommunication industry is highly competitive, such information is considered confidential,” James Denn, a PSC spokesperson told WNYC Radio.

[flv width=”534″ height=”320″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY1 Lower Manhattan Resident Has Lost Phone Service For Months Following Sandy 1-15-13.mp4[/flv]

NY1 reports on Greenwich Village residents who are still without Verizon service months after Sandy. They claim Verizon broke multiple promises to get service restored.  (1 minute)

The Bloomberg Administration strongly disagrees with the PSC’s handling of outage information.

“This information should also be made publicly available to consumers so they may track the status repairs, obtain reasonable estimates as to when service might be restored, and compare performance across competing carriers,” said Rahul Merchant, chief information and innovation officer for New York City.

For customers who can’t manage their businesses without phone or Internet service, relief is coming from an increasingly aggressive Time Warner Cable.

Verizon’s largest rival has dispatched armies of salespeople onto the streets in Verizon-deprived areas. The cable company has begun to steal away a number of out-of-service Verizon customers.

That occasionally comes as a surprise to Verizon workers that show up to make repairs, only to be told “I quit you two weeks ago,” by annoyed business owners.

Verizon never got the message.

[flv width=”624″ height=”372″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNBC New York Sandy-Damaged High School Still Without Phone Service 3 Months After Storm 2-6-13.flv[/flv]

WNBC reports this New York City high school has been left without Verizon service for three months, forcing teachers and staff to use cell phones to communicate.  (2 minutes)

Windstream is reportedly behind the latest effort to ban community broadband networks in Georgia.

Rural communities across Georgia are upset about a new piece of legislation ghost-written by Windstream Communications that would keep broadband a strictly private affair in the Peach State.

House Bill 282, introduced by Rep. Mark Hamilton (R-Cumming) would prohibit publicly owned broadband networks from being built anywhere an incumbent provider delivers at least 1.5Mbps “broadband” in the state.

Sources familiar with the legislation say Windstream, a phone company primarily serving smaller communities, is the primary force behind the bill now before a legislative committee. When news of the bill came to light earlier this week, consumers and local communities began to push back with state legislators. A planned hearing on the bill has been temporarily pushed back until next week.

The legislation would effectively tie the hands of municipalities that have waited more than a decade for AT&T, Windstream, CenturyLink and other phone companies to bring DSL broadband to rural Georgia.

While not proposing a total ban on public broadband, the bill’s requirement that service be denied to a customer in a “census block” where at least one home can receive slow speed DSL makes building such networks nearly impossible.

The Georgia Municipal Association notes local governments in small towns and cities, already strapped for resources, would have to prove to the Georgia Public Service Commission that each census block a community wants to serve has no existing broadband service (census blocks are the smallest geographic area the Census Bureau uses for data collection.)

There are 291,086 census blocks in Georgia, making such a review difficult at best.

For communities that have already built public broadband networks, the bill brings more bad news. Under its terms, existing networks would not be allowed to expand anywhere any other provider delivers even a modicum of “high speed” 1.5Mbps Internet access. With many community networks built out in stages to minimize initial financial outlays, H.B. 282 could ruin the economic cost recovery models under which existing networks were financed and built, potentially risking bondholders.

Rep. Hamilton does not seem to care about them or whether rural Georgia gets Internet access or not. He answers to a higher calling: Windstream’s lobbyists.

The final report of Gov. Nathan Deal’s Competitive Initiative found rural Georgia at a disadvantage simply because many communities cannot get broadband service. Several regions in Georgia called on Deal’s office to help improve inadequate broadband infrastructure.

Instead, Hamilton’s bill would turn over Georgia’s broadband needs to phone company “Return on Investment” formulas that guarantee large sections of rural Georgia will remain unserved, with other areas left underserved. The bill itself defines suitable broadband at just 1.5Mbps, deemed inadequate by the Federal Communications Commission for today’s broadband user.

The bill’s defenders told The Telegraph the bill was designed to “close off an opportunity for government waste.” The bill also closes off an opportunity for better broadband and competition in Georgia.

“The fundamental question is rather simple: does Georgia want local leaders to determine the economic and investment strategies for their communities or do we want those decisions to be made solely on the business plans of companies based outside of the state,” asked the Georgia Municipal Association.

Georgia residents can contact the House Energy, Utilities & Telecommunications Subcommittee members and tell them to reject H.B. 282. Local municipalities seeking further information about this legislation should contact the Institute for Local Self-Reliance for additional information and guidance.

A handful of broadcasters in California, Michigan, Montana and New Mexico interrupted their regularly scheduled programs earlier this week to warn audiences that zombie attacks were underway and residents should avoid the undead at all costs.

This ‘War of the Worlds‘ scenario did not frighten radio and television audiences, but caught stations off-guard, because the Emergency Alert System messages received over the Internet were programmed to broadcast live over the air with no intervention on the part of the living.

“Local authorities in your area have reported the bodies of the dead are rising from their graves and attacking the living,” said one message, which went out as both a scrolling text message and a voice alert. “Do not attempt to approach or apprehend these bodies as they are considered extremely dangerous.”

The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday warned the nation’s broadcasters to lock down the equipment that monitors for EAS warnings and rebroadcasts them to the public.

The zombie reports managed to find their way to the airwaves in Los Angeles and Michigan Monday. On Tuesday, the messages were delivered across New Mexico on several of the state’s PBS stations.

How are the hackers getting in?

“Before a year or two ago, the EAS systems were hooked up through phone lines, now they’re hooked up to the Internet,” said Karole White, president-CEO of the Michigan Broadcaster’s Association. “We feel fortunate they were not able to get into the entire Emergency Alert System – that’s the good news. The bad news is they got in at all.”

An equipment vendor suspects affected stations never changed the default password supplied with the equipment that inserts warning messages into broadcasts. The FCC agreed, warning broadcasters:

EAS Participants must change all passwords on their CAP EAS equipment from default factory settings, including administrator and user accounts.
EAS Participants are also urged to ensure that their firewalls and other solutions are properly configured and up-to-date.

The hacker or hackers have not yet been found by federal authorities. If convicted, the person(s) responsible face hefty federal fines.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KRQE Albuquerque Zombie attack announced on local TV 2-13-13.mp4[/flv]

KRQE in Albuquerque reports a hacker attack on the state’s largest public broadcaster delivered fake zombie warnings over the Emergency Alert System earlier this week. (3 minutes)

The mouthpiece of Big Telecom.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has looked and looked, and just does not see America’s broadband problems aptly described by industry critics including Susan Crawford, David Cay Johnston and Tim Wu. As far as the ITIF is concerned Americans have little to complain about with respect to broadband availability, speeds or pricing.

That finding is part of a new research paper, “The Whole Picture: Where America’s Broadband Networks Really Stand,” authored by Richard Bennett, Luke Stewart, and Robert Atkinson.

The report sniffs at critics complaining about uncompetitive, high-priced service, dismissing them as misguided “holders of a particular ideology or economic doctrine, which is Neo-Keynesian, populist economic thinking in this instance.”

Bennett, Stewart, and Atkinson, who have all penned pro-industry reports for years, prove another economic doctrine: the free market for industry bought-and-paid-for-“research” is alive and well.

The summary finding of the report:

Taking the whole picture into account, this report finds that the United States has made rapid progress in broadband deployment, performance, and price, as well as adoption when measured as computer-owning households who subscribe to broadband. Considering the high cost of operating and upgrading broadband networks in a largely suburban nation, the prices Americans pay for broadband services are reasonable and the performance of our networks is better than in all but a handful of nations that have densely populated urban areas and have used government subsidies to leap-frog several generations of technology ahead of where the market would go on its own in response to changing consumer demands.

Although the report is extensively footnoted to bestow credibility, once a reader begins to check out those footnotes, trouble looms:

1. Some footnotes lead the reader to business or Wall Street media reports, which can favor an industry point of view or extensively quote from executives and insiders;
2. Several certain critical assertions include footnotes that link only to the home page of the source, making it impossible to find the exact source material used;
3. Many footnotes come from earlier articles, position papers, and statements from the authors or others affiliated with the ITIF — hardly independent sources of information.

Bought and paid for research.

ITIF’s report is riddled with customized benchmarks the ITIF appears to have invented itself. Ars Technica caught one in the executive summary and questioned the relevance of measuring broadband adoption among “computer-owning households” at a time when an increasing number of Americans use broadband for video streaming on televisions, use smartphones, or rely on tablets for access.

We also noted the authors making several assertions without facts in evidence to support them. Among them is the unsupported notion that “the high cost of operating and upgrading broadband networks in a largely suburban nation” makes today’s broadband pricing understandable and fair.

In fact, the most significant costs borne by cable operators came during the early years of their initial construction — one, even two decades before broadband over cable was envisioned. When cable Internet service was introduced, it was praised for its relatively inexpensive start-up costs and its ability to deliver ancillary, unregulated revenue for cable operators. Those cable networks over which broadband is delivered have been paid off for years.

The authors avoid the actual financial reports of the largest phone and cable companies in their study, because as public shareholder-owned companies, they are obligated to disclose reality. Those financial reports show a consistent drop in capital expenses and infrastructure investment and a major increase in revenue and profits from broadband service. Cable industry executives have repeatedly asserted the reason they raise broadband prices is not because the costs to run their networks are very high, but rather because “they can.”

From there, Bennett, Stewart, and Atkinson play endless rounds of Statistics Scrabble.

Claim: America enjoys robust competition for broadband.

Phone Company

Fact: The cable industry has declared itself the victor for delivering high-speed broadband in the United States. DSL has long since given up competing on speed, and even AT&T’s hybrid fiber-copper U-verse platform is rapidly losing ground in the broadband speed race. Wireless and satellite plans are almost all slower and routinely cap usage, often to levels of just a few gigabytes per month.

The cable industry also won the right to keep its network to itself, not allowing third-party wholesalers on-demand access to resell broadband over those networks. Phone companies have been able to charge discriminatory wholesale pricing to access their networks, and only for certain types of connections.

Abroad, most networks are open to third parties on non-discriminatory terms. In places like the United Kingdom, customers have their choice of ISPs available over a traditional BT DSL line. In Asia, public subsidies and incentives helped push providers to construct fiber to the premises networks, but those networks are open access, helping spur competition and lower prices.

Domestically Time Warner Cable permits competitors like Earthlink on its network on a voluntary basis, but unsurprisingly Earthlink charges the same or higher prices for service that Time Warner charges once a six month promotion ends. That represents “competition” in name-only.

Claim: Most speed-test-based research rankings on broadband speeds around the world are wrong.

Cable Company

Fact: ITIF at one point makes the unfounded assertion that since many people only test their broadband speed when something seems wrong with their connection, most speed-test-sourced “actual speed” data is not very useful because there often is something wrong with a broadband connection when testing it, resulting in flawed data. This ‘picked out of the sky’ claim is one of the primary arguments ITIF makes about why broadband rankings (produced by those other than themselves) are irrelevant.

ITIF’s press release about its report makes the completely unsubstantiated assertion that “the average network rate of all broadband connections in the United States was 29.6Mbps in the third quarter of 2012; in the same period, we ranked seventh in the world and sixth in the OECD in the percentage of users with performance faster than 10Mbps.”

DSL customers may find a statistic rating America’s broadband speeds as better than one might expect to be less than useful when it only counts broadband connections faster than the average DSL user can buy themselves.

This cherry-picking may help the ITIF’s arguments look more credible, but it does nothing to improve your broadband speeds at home or at work.

Claim: Broadband provider profits average less than 2% annually.

Fact: Another clever statistic (poorly sourced as ‘from the home page of Bloomberg.com’ — check back with us when you find the original article yourself) that fails to tell the whole story.

We aren’t THAT profitable, really.

First, ITIF defines net profits specifically as “simply the difference between revenue and expenses.” But that definition may not account for a range of corporate accounting activities which can diminish net profits but still let the company walk away with high fives from Wall Street. Share buybacks or dividend payouts, acquisitions, costs and expenses from other divisions not related to broadband, etc., can all affect the bottom line and mask the enormous earnings and profit potential of American broadband.

Take Time Warner Cable, which has a 95 percent gross margin selling broadband. Broadband service is just one of three primary services sold by the cable operator. Broadband does not suffer from landline losses in the phone business or from escalating TV programming expenses. Broadband is clearly the most profitable service in Time Warner’s product arsenal because it occupies only a small part of the company’s wired infrastructure. Supplying broadband service also costs Time Warner relatively little money as a percentage of their earnings and has helped offset revenue loss from the television side of the business. Bandwidth costs have also declined year after year. Infrastructure upgrades are more than covered by pricing that has begun to creep up over the last few years. In effect, broadband earnings are covering for other products that are not selling as well.

ITIF’s claim that supplying broadband is costly and that current rates are justified just isn’t true.

Claim: Europe is behind the United States in broadband.

Fact: The one legacy network that both Europeans and Americans share in common is the copper wire basic telephone service. From there, telecommunications service diverged.

North Americans embraced cable television while much of western Europe (especially the UK) preferred direct-to-home satellite service. That difference set the stage for some significant broadband disparity. Cable broadband technology has proved more robust and reliable than DSL service. Phone companies that rely on basic DSL are falling behind in broadband speeds. Investment to bring fiber online is the only way these phone companies can stay competitive with cable broadband. Some countries with particularly decrepit telephone networks, especially those left over from the Communist era in eastern Europe, are being scrapped in favor of fiber to the home service. Many western European countries are incrementally introducing fiber to the cabinet or neighborhood service, which leaves the last mile copper phone wire connection in place.

This is why speeds in many eastern European countries and the Baltic states with full fiber networks are so high. Advanced forms of DSL are more common further west, using technologies like VDSL2+. But DOCSIS 3 cable upgrades (and those to follow) continue to leapfrog over telephone company DSL advancements. Speed disparity is often the result of fewer cable systems in Europe as well as the amount of fiber optics replacing basic telephone service infrastructure.

Despite that, many Europeans pay less, particularly for faster service, than we do. Plus, fiber optic upgrades are within the foreseeable future in many European countries. In the United States, fiber deployments are now crawling or stalled in areas served by AT&T and Verizon. Neither company shows much interest in spending money on further wired upgrades and no competitive pressure is forcing them to, especially as both phone companies increasingly turn attention to their wireless divisions for most of their earnings.

The kind of research produced by the ITIF is tainted as long as they don’t reveal who is paying for these research reports. As Stop the Cap! readers have learned well, following corporate money usually helps expose the real agenda of these so-called “think tanks,” which are created to distort reality and quietly echo the agenda of their paymasters with a veneer of independence and credibility.