Home » Issues » Recent Articles:

Call to Action: Push Poll Scam – Hang Up on the Pro-Cable/Telco Poll Calls in North Carolina!

Phillip Dampier April 28, 2009 Community Networks, Public Policy & Gov't 2 Comments
North Carolina residents get pro-industry "push poll" calls.

North Carolina residents get pro-industry "push poll" calls.

Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.  A certain company or group of companies is apparently spending some of the money that could be spent on better things (DOCSIS upgrades?) to run a disingenuous “push polling” scam on the residents of Wilson, North Carolina.  A “push poll” incorporates propaganda or misinformation in an attempt to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.  People receiving calls are given misleading suppositions and then polled on how they feel about them.

Our friends at Save NC Broadband report calls going out that include questions that cannot possibly be answered without siding with commercial providers.  I can only guess a few samples:

“Do you believe that your hard earned tax dollars should be used to pay for a socialist broadband Internet scheme that is designed to kill jobs in your community and destroy a tax-paying, capitalist company?”  Answer “yes if you hate America” or “no if you are not a traitor to the American dream.”

“If you knew that a local town or city was run by anti-American forces in league with communists that wanted to use government funding to control your Internet connection, would you be in favor of this government controlled network that might spy on you or are you opposed?”  Answer “in favor of a Communist takeover” or “as an upstanding American, I would have to be opposed.”

You get the idea, even if I over sprinkled some hyperbole on top for added flavor.  Alright, I poured it on….

If you live in Wilson or Salibury, you may be getting a call.  Tell the pollster you realize they’re working for big cable and telco interests and hang up the phone.

Later this week, the folks in league with the push polling firm hired to pull this scam will no doubt use some of the results in their effort to convince North Carolina legislators that there is no need for municipal broadband.

Don’t be a sucker for big cable and telco broadband that is terrified of competition.  Keep on your elected officials and tell them to oppose HB 1252, and make sure you call or write today because the bill comes before the Public Utilities Committee on Wednesday.

Also this week, we’re hearing from our readers who are starting to get replies from their elected officials.  StoptheCap! reader Shawn shares a particularly arrogant reply he got from Big Cable’s BFF, Rep. Ty Harrell, who helped introduce this horror show:

Thanks for your email. I appreciate hearing from you. I am to assume that you have read the bill, correct? Based on that assumption, you do realize that Wilson, and all of the other municipalities that have been reported on, have been exempted from the bill, correct?

Further still, you do realize that the bill does NOT prohibit any municipality from offering broadband services or any kind, correct?

Again, thank you for your email.

Warmest wishes,

Ty Rep. Ty Harrell NC State House, District 41 16 W. Jones Street Room 2121 Raleigh, NC 27601-1096 919.733.5602 [email protected]

Here is my suggested reply:

Thanks for your reply to my recent letter asking you to reconsider support for HB 1252.  I appreciated hearing from you, too.  I am to assume that you have fully contemplated the impact of your proposed bill, correct?  Based on that assumption, you do realize that I have a lot of questions about how much you and your staff know when I learned that a Time Warner staff member and an attorney who represents the industry had to answer questions on your behalf posed in last week’s session in the Science & Technology Committee, correct?

Further still, you do realize that this pro-industry legislation, while not outright banning municipal broadband, turns the mechanics of building and running one into an Olympic event of Herculean proportions, which basically amounts to the same result — prohibiting them, correct?

And lastly, you do realize that if you should see fit to continue pushing this anti-consumer legislation, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that you will have my vote, or those of my friends who agree with me, come the next election.

I urge you to reconsider your position on this important legislation and perhaps shelve or withdraw it until its fullest implications can be explored and weighed.

Again, thank you for your reply.

Warmest wishes,

An actual consumer who is unlikely to get a check from a telecom lobbyist in the near future.

(Leave off that last line and replace it with your own signature, of course.)

Get Busy North Carolina!

A sample letter is available to use as the basis for your own personal e-mail or call.  You can use this resource to find your own representative/senator by clicking on House/Senate from the menu bar at the top. Here is the e-mail contact list for North Carolina representatives:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

HissyFitWatch: Cablevision Delivers Customers Cap Free Blazing Speeds; TWC Says Forget It

Phillip Dampier April 28, 2009 HissyFitWatch 14 Comments

Challenge: How do you, the second largest cable company in the nation convince people you cannot afford to complete needed upgrades of your network without rationing usage and massive rate increases, while the fifth largest cable company just pulled it off with no drama and has announced the nation’s fastest residential broadband service, at fire sale pricing with no caps or limits on usage, starting May 11th.  Cablevision even doubled the speeds of their free wi-fi, offered as a public service to their broadband customers at no additional cost in many public locations, to three megabits per second.

Angry young business man on white backgroundTime Warner wants to ask customers to pay $150 a month for 15Mbps service while Cablevision rolls out Optimum Online Ultra, priced at $99.95 per month for both consumers and business customers, offering 101Mbps service.  You read that right.  One hundred one megabits per second service.  Cablevision has no caps or limits on its customers — doesn’t need them, never wants them.  Cablevision’s new broadband package even blows away Verizon Communications FiOS highest tier, which offers 50Mbps priced at $139.95 a month.

How can Cablevision pull this off while Time Warner has a hissy fit and yanks back their own vaguely-promised upgrades because customers rightfully said no to a 300% rate increase?

Integrity, honesty, real commitment to the communities they serve, and a recognition that a credit-card-like-pricing model at a time when the economy is hurting is about as low as you can go, all might have something to do with it.

Cablevision didn’t whine when it saw broadband growth.  It simply reached inside the broadband division’s profits, and made an investment in the future needs of their customers.  They completed upgrades to DOCSIS 3.0 without a lot of fanfare, without the need to impose rationing plans and without any caps dumped on everyone from the lightest to heaviest users.  In other words, they chose treating their customers with respect instead of considering them crooks, bandwidth hogs, and freeloaders that needed to pay more… much more, for the exact same thing.  That “other company” saw the same growth in Internet usage and felt their best option was to cut investment by 11% last year.

“Optimum Online Ultra firmly solidifies Optimum as the fastest Internet service in the home, at work and through the air over Optimum Wi-Fi,” Cablevision chief operating officer Tom Rutledge said in a statement. “This is a perfect complement to our existing high-speed data products, which are fast, reliable and far superior to anything available from our competitors.”

You bet it is.  Standard service customers who receive 15Mbps/2Mbps service will also reap the benefits of less congested bandwidth pipelines, made possible by the technology upgrade.  For Cablevision, it means reaping the rewards of an easier-to-manage-network, happier customers, new profit-making possibilities afforded by higher speed premium tiers, and an assurance they will retain their 75% market share for broadband services in their service areas.

That “other provider” continues to stomp its feet and decide the real problem isn’t their rape and pillage pricing plans, but the fact customers weren’t “smart” enough to see the genius of turning you upside down and shaking you for every dollar that happens to fall out of your pocket in the process.  You cannot Re-Educate an informed and empowered consumer that can see right through the PR campaign:  not yesterday when you shelved it, not today while you ponder how to market it, and not tomorrow when you bring back the same rejected plans with a new coat of paint.

The Tiresome Return of the “Gas & Electric” Analogy

It’s baaack.  Gary Kim, self-described member of MENSA, elected to link to our recent article about a customer in Austin having his Road Runner service cut so that he could drag out that we have heard before.  Mr. Kim, who has penned his views for a boatload of industry trade publications, as well as running a few of his own, has trotted out that old chestnut about not paying flat rate for gas, electric, and water.  Except he takes the analogy to the extreme “conservation” argument, as if the world of online video is leading us to a broadband global warming catastrophe.

Are you as smart as the industry guy?

Are you as smart as the industry guy?

Now I’m not a member of MENSA.  My experience with IQ tests was limited to those wooden pyramid puzzle things they used to put on your table at the Cracker Barrel.  But I’ll give this a shot anyway.

Lots of people get upset about bandwidth caps that strike me as extraordinarily generous. Does anybody think the planet or the economy would be better off, companies better able to improve service or people given incentives to “do the right thing” if electricity, gasoline, water, natural gas or heating oil were sold on an “all you can eat” basis.

Which bandwidth caps are extraordinarily generous?  The 5GB cap on your wireless phone plan (or the one Frontier considered but discarded in light of the competitive advantage it now seeks in one Time Warner test market), the 40GB power user tier Time Warner started out with, the 150GB limit AT&T is playing with, or the 250GB cap Comcast has today?  The caps are all over the lot, with each company swearing on a stack of press releases their cap is the one most justified and required if a company can survive the Irwin Allen-like Exaflood future.

Second question: What exactly is “the right thing?”  Bowing to the cable television industry’s business plan opposing a-la-carte video packages in order to enjoy the revenue that comes from all you can watch television?  Is it the wrong thing for people to make their own decisions about what they do with their Internet connection?  We’ve been down the road of why the Internet is not the same thing as oil, gas, or even water for that matter.  StoptheCap! reader Brion perhaps had the best debunking of this analogy:

I suggest a simple analog to demonstrate how bandwidth usage tiers is not in any way like your utilities.

Instead of thinking of bandwidth as being like water or gas, think of water or gas companies implementing what Time Warner proposes: cap your usage and give you a meter to monitor it. But that is only half the analogy.

First off, in the best case scenario you already provide your gas, electric, or water meter readings to your utility and they bill you based on consumption. But if you don’t then they either read the meter (attached to your house) directly or make an estimate based on past usage.

Secondly, utilities meter consumable resources: gas, water, electricity — all of which cost time, money and energy to generate. Bandwidth does not get “generated” or “produced” it simply exists at a specific level based on the network hardware Time Warner owns or leases. Bandwidth cannot be consumed in the sense gas can be consumed because when a user stops using bandwidth the amount they were using is once again available for someone else to use. So the real problem (if there is one) is one of simultaneous bandwidth usage.

One could liken this to a water main that’s 12″ in diameter and serving 20 houses on one street. The civil engineers that designed the water main system designed it to service 20 houses on that street. Now imagine the city building 20 or 30 extra houses on the same street without replacing the water main and then telling everyone they now have a “water cap” and if they go over that cap they must pay extra for their “heavy usage”.

Anyone in their right mind can see that the main is simply too small for the demand of 40 – 50 houses because it was built for 20 and it should be upgraded instead of trying to get everyone to reduce their usage or suffer poorer water pressure performance and extra charges.

Time Warner has oversold its bandwidth (the size of the pipe, not the amount of data) and it needs to upgrade its Internet connection, not downgrade the customer experience (while simultaneously charging them for the downgrade).

They’re trying to tell us that this potato is called an apple and for the vast majority of fruit-lovers they won’t notice a difference. Bandwidth is not the amount of data you send or receive, it’s the amount of data you can *possibly* send or receive *at one time*. They are completely different things!

Mr. Kim then suggests he doesn’t necessarily like his electricity or water rates, but he conserves because there is a penalty for unrestrained use.  Actually, there isn’t really a penalty at all.  Gas, electric, and water service are sold on a true metered basis.  There are no “bucket plans” for these services.  They are also utilities, and their rates are either regulated outright, or carefully monitored in the limited competition models some states have for these services.

Your water company bears the minimal cost of pumping a gallon of water from a body of water or aquifer.  It then resells that water at a per gallon rate marked up to cover all of the overhead and expenses it has, sets a little more aside just in case of a non-rainy day, and delivers it to you at a rational, non-gouging price.  If you don’t want to pay, you leave the faucet off.  On the Internet, the faucet drips… all the time.  The only way you are assured of not paying is to unplug your modem, never check your e-mail, and avoid websites with ads, because those are now now on your dime, especially when Time Warner marks up its wholesale cost by 1000% or more for that data.  It’s like getting a glass of water but handing half of it to the stranger walking by your house, who also wants you to pay him a dollar on top of that.

Time Warner is also, like many cable providers, hip deep in a conflict of interest on broadband consumption.  Cable has a vested interest in forcing you to “conserve” your connection, particularly by not using those services which directly compete with its business models.  Streaming video online offers the customer the possibility of foregoing a cable TV package altogether.  A Voice Over IP telephone provider on the Internet makes Time Warner’s Digital Phone product redundant.  A Netflix set-top box that streams movies and other video programming in competition with premium/pay per view channels represent just one more service that panics many in the upper floors at Time Warner Cable’s headquarters.

Consider the difference between wireless “unlimited” plans and other plans that simply offer more minutes or capacity than you actually use in a month. Is there really any practical difference–for most people–between “truly unlimited” and “more than I can use” plans?

unlimited-callingThank you for at least bringing up the telecommunications industry in this equation.  After all, telephone and wireless telecommunications services are a far better analogy than big oil and gas.  You yourself saw the writing on the wall for the long distance market in some of your essays several years back.  This was a business whose costs to deliver the service were plummeting, especially with the advent of Voice Over IP, and as those costs declined, so would prices, threatening the very business model for long distance in the United States.

Ironically, it was the very same cable companies that are whining about Exafloods and a crisis of costs who have contributed to the demise of “long distance.”  Time Warner, among others, are now pitching cheap unlimited calling plans to customers who will never pay for another long distance call.  In the wireless industry, price skirmishes have already broken out with carriers marketing true unlimited calling plans or calling circles which, for most people, mean no more airtime minute watching.

When I renew my Verizon Wireless contract this December, I will be handed a new phone and the option of a better plan with more minutes at or below the price I am paying now.  By that time, there is every likelihood Time Warner will be asking me to pay three times more ($150 a month) for precisely the same level of service I am receiving now for around $50 a month.  One of these companies is responding to the reality that bandwidth costs are declining, and are reducing rates and offering more.  The other is taking advantage of a very limited competitive market and wants to triple charges claiming they are on the edge of broadband bankruptcy — only they’re not when you read their financial reports.  Guess which is which.

I am also glad you are asking real people these questions, because companies like Time Warner certainly aren’t.  Any reader here can recite poll after poll.  The overwhelming majority of broadband customers, even those who are not defined “at the moment” as “abusers” of the network are content and satisfied paying one monthly fee for their service.  They don’t want your plan, the industry’s plan, buckets, limits, caps, overlimits, or whatever else the marketing people decide to call the equivalent of Internet rationing at top dollar pricing.

We are consumers.  We are customers.  We are not industry insiders and we don’t write for industry trade publications.  We don’t get a paycheck from this industry.  Indeed, this industry raises our bill year after year, delivers inconsistent messages about why we are now being asked to pay for “buckets of broadband,” yet still denies us the ability to choose the channels we want for our own video package, paying just for what we want.

We also are empowered and educated enough to use this incredible tool called the Internet to research the assertions some make and simply expect others to accept at face value.  We now read financial reports and statements.  We verify.  We also discover the language of the lobbyist, the marketers, the astroturfers, and the executive elements that are now attempting to sell consumers on their scheme to pay considerably more for the exact same thing, or less.  Then we compare that with the glowing results given to shareholders, and we see the chasm between the two messages.  We realize what we are being sold:  a soon-to-be-even-more-inflated bill of goods.

Frankly, you don’t have to be a genius to recognize that looking at a gas gauge, worrying about overlimit fees, and being stuck paying $100 more a month for broadband is not going to make anyone outside of this industry happy.

Caps are just buckets. As long as the buckets are capacious enough, the plans clear enough, the usage information available and the prices reasonable, buckets work. Bandwidth caps are just buckets.

The first time a consumer gets a bill from a company with a plan like Time Warner’s, they are going to kick the bucket.

Anyone who doesn’t recognize and admit the real potential of market abusive pricing and policies in a limited competitive marketplace isn’t being completely honest, especially when the players do not offer roughly equivalent levels of service.  If the future of broadband in this country is to be unregulated virtual duopolies, then perhaps consumers need to insist on common carrier status for those networks, allowing equal access to a variety of competing providers, with oversight to guarantee fair wholesale pricing and access.

WROC Rochester Connects Time Warner Outage to “Capacity”/Exaflood Theory

Phillip Dampier April 28, 2009 Broadband "Shortage", Video 4 Comments

Argh…  Lauren MacDonough, WROC Web Reporter, what were you thinking?  MacDonough adds to WROC’s highlighted coverage of the Time Warner service outage, with a follow-up explanation that belies belief.  She gets the first part of the explanation correct: a router failed in Syracuse which affected domain name servers, among other things.  That assured any connections made through the Syracuse Operations Center would end up getting no further if they were relying on Time Warner’s equipment to route the traffic properly.

But then MacDonough wades out into the deep end, and gets into trouble.  She posits the theory it could have been a “strain” on its network which caused the hardware to fail, and then quotes Time Warner’s earlier press release about “Internet brownouts could be on the horizon,” and then draws a line between the events on Sunday and Time Warner’s exaflood theory.  [Shudder]

Generally speaking, traffic on an electronic piece of equipment does not wear it out, leading to a failure.  Routers have failed since Road Runner began service.  It happens.  Sometimes it’s heat related, other times a power supply stops functioning properly.  A pesky spider spinning a web inside the case might be indictable.  There are lots of reasons.  Heavy traffic, on a Sunday morning yet, causing the thing to flame out is unlikely to be among the first theories I’d come up with.

Some readers have asked why I’ve been covering this story in the first place.  Today you know.  It’s not an intention to pile-on any negative bad news about Time Warner, but rather to be sure we are on guard against media misinterpretation of unrelated events which lead to any inappropriate tie-ins to Time Warner’s kooky theory of broadband management.

As you’ve just seen, that’s precisely what Lauren MacDonough did.  It’s likely unintentional on her part, but it doesn’t change the fact we will need to help correct the record and not allow debunked exaflood theories to be used as “evidence” for usage caps and rationing tier plans.

WETM Elmira – Why Limited Competition & Caps Kill Smaller Communities

Phillip Dampier April 28, 2009 Community Networks, Public Policy & Gov't, Video 2 Comments

Many people still think of broadband Internet access as some sort of luxury “extra,” like a premium movie channel on your cable subscription, or maybe a nice dinner out at an expensive restaurant.  Only it’s not.  Increasingly, students are choosing where to attend school based on connectivity, high tech business incubators are built in communities where access is available at affordable prices, and now one New York State senator has released a report showing lack of access to affordable broadband is hurting the real estate market.

Senator George Winner (R/C/I – Elmira) released a report last fall documenting the trials and tribulations of inadequate availability and competition for broadband in smaller towns and cities, including many in his district in the southern tier of New York.

Winner fears that without equity of access and a healthy competitive marketplace, the impact will be felt community-wide.

Lack of access to broadband is influencing the real estate market. Homes that have broadband are winning out over more remote ones that don’t. Areas with better and faster broadband are becoming more desirable than ones with slower access. Experts believe that over time, the lack of universal broadband, could pull people from the countryside toward cities and suburbs. On the federal level, the FCC is considering using the Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes phone service in rural areas, to promote broadband coverage as well.

That’s why communities like Elmira, and others in the Twin Tiers region, were paying attention when Time Warner announced broadband usage cap experiments in Beaumont, Texas.  For most, Road Runner -is- their broadband provider.

Can anyone place that anchor’s accent?  It’s definitely not from the western New York area!

StoptheCap! heard from many Frontier customers scattered nationwide across their service area, which encompasses mostly rural communities from coast to coast.  For them, broadband Internet service means getting it from an expensive satellite service, or getting DSL from Frontier Communications.  There is no cable service in many of these communities.  When Frontier was considering a usage cap of 5GB per month, these consumers weren’t just alarmed, they were in full panic.

Rural and underserved markets are routinely bypassed by providers from the latest technological innovations, and are often under punitive contracts at high prices.  Senator Winner’s report details private and public initiatives to reach these communities.  He’s a conservative Republican who serves a district that would prefer not to be bothered by political schemes hatched in Albany, but the issue of broadband access is one that crosses party lines, as readers of this site have come to learn.  It’s not a right or left issue.  It’s one that will rapidly become as important as wiring communities for electricity and universal access to telephone service.

Expensive caps and overlimit fees are an anathema to the development of broadband nationwide.  It’s an issue rural communities are following, as they often have few, if any alternatives.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!