Suddenlink, one of America’s smaller cable operators, has been undergoing a transformation as it tries to meet expectations of today’s cable subscribers and match whatever phone company competition comes their way.  While some of the upgrades are customer-friendly, others pose ominous signs for the future — particularly with respect to Internet Overcharging broadband customers.

Let’s explore:

The Good — New Broadband Speeds, New DVR, New Investments

Suddenlink cuts the ribbon on its new store in El Dorado. (Courtesy: Suddenlink FYI)

In parts of Suddenlink’s service area, particularly in Texas, the company is moving most of its cable service to a digital platform.  This transition is designed to open up additional space for more HD channels, keep up with broadband demands, and open the door for additional on-demand programming.

In Nacogdoches, Suddenlink announced it was adopting an all-digital TV lineup.  Starting this week, the company is offering subscribers free digital adapters — also known as “DigitaLinks,” to enable continued viewing on analog television sets that do not have a set top box or digital tuning capability.  Every subscriber purchasing more than the broadcast basic package (that only includes local stations and a handful of cable networks) will either need a digital tuner-ready television, a set top box, or a DigitaLink device to continue watching.

What is good about this transition is that Suddenlink is not charging customers a monthly fee for the adapters, either now or in the future.  That contrasts with other cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable that have handed customers a set top box or a digital adapter they will begin charging for after a year or two.

Suddenlink expects to invest nearly $120 million this year in Texas, and by the end of the year will have invested nearly a half-billion dollars in the state since 2006.

Texas is extremely important to Suddenlink.  The third largest cable company in Texas serves about 450,000 households and approximately 27,000 business customers in Amarillo, Lubbock, Abilene, Bryan-College Station, Midland, San Angelo, Georgetown, Tyler, Victoria, Conroe, Kingwood and Nacogdoches.

Suddenlink's New TiVo DVR

The company has also lit new fiber connections to handle data communications, primarily for business customers, and is upgrading its broadband service to fully support DOCSIS 3, which will deliver faster speeds and less congested service.

Customers in the state are also among the first to get access to a new and improved DVR box built on a TiVo software platform.  Suddenlink’s “Premiere DVR” service ($17/mo) is now available in Midland, Floydada, Plainview, Amarillo, Canyon, and Tulia.

The Bad — “Suddenlink Residential Internet Service is for Entertainment” Purposes Only

The Humboldt County, Calif. Journal's "Seven-o-heaven" comic strip commented on Suddenlink's problems. (Click the image to see the entire strip.)

Do you take your broadband service seriously, or is it simply another entertainment option in your home?  If you answered the latter, this story may not be so surprising.

In Humboldt County, Calif., broadband users started noticing their favorite web pages stopped updating on a regular basis.  At one point, a blogger in McKinleyville noticed he couldn’t manage to post comments on his own website.  But things got much worse when several web pages started reaching customers with other users’ names (and occasionally e-mail addresses) already filled in on login screens and comment forms.

It seems Suddenlink started to cache web content in the far northern coastal county of California, meaning the first customer to visit a particular website triggered Suddenlink’s local servers to store a copy of the page, so that future customers headed to the same website received the locally-stored copy, not the actual live page.

But the caching software went haywire.

Web visitors began to receive mobile versions of web sites even though they were using home computers at the time.  Some were asked if they wanted to download a copy of a web page instead of viewing it.  And many others discovered websites were customized for earlier visitors.

While the caching problem was irritating, the privacy breaches Suddenlink enabled were disturbing, as was the initial total lack of response from Suddenlink officials when the problem first started in late January.

The Journal finally reached a representative who provided this explanation:

Suddenlink Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications Pete Abel knew that a cache system had recently been installed in Humboldt County, but was unaware of the particular problems reported by users. After speaking with the Journal and other Suddenlink employees, though, he released a statement explaining what appeared to have happened.

According to the release, the cache system was installed in Humboldt County on Thursday, Jan. 27 — the very day that users began experiencing problems — and was intended as an interim solution to relatively low Internet speeds in Humboldt County. The system, it said, was able to cache only unsecure websites — those which, unlike almost all reputable banking or commerce systems — do not encrypt communications. But the company eventually discovered the problems that its customers had been reporting and, having fruitlessly worked with its vendor to find a solution, turned the system off on Monday.

“The good news is that secure Web site pages will not have been cached,” Abel said in a follow-up call to the Journal. “And I have been assured 100 ways from Sunday that never would have happened.”

Andrew Jones, who runs a blog with his Suddenlink broadband account, tried to opt out of the web caching and received an interesting response, in writing, from a Suddenlink representative.  He was told he could not opt out of cached web pages with a residential account because, “the residential service is for entertainment only.”

Jones was told he would have to upgrade to a business account to escape the cache.

“If a small local radio station intermittently went off air for multiple days, the radio host would be apologizing and explaining the situation,” Jones wrote the Journal. “If a large utility company experienced sporadic power outages, people could hear a recording on a toll-free number to learn the cause and about ongoing repairs. What does an Internet provider do when web access becomes spotty and begins serving customers old copies of web pages? The company gets back to you in a couple days and suggests you pay more if you don’t like its recently degraded services.”

The Ugly — Suddenlink’s New Usage Meter Suggests 43GB is An Appropriate Amount of Usage for Standard Internet, 87GB is Plenty for Their $60 Premium Package

Although Suddenlink has not formally adopted an Internet Overcharging scheme of usage caps or metered billing, the company is sending automated e-mail messages to customers who exceed what they call “typical monthly usage for customers in your package.”  The e-mail tells customers they may be infected with a virus or someone else could be using your connection without your permission.  Boo!  For the uninitiated, this kind of message can bring fear that their computer has been invaded, either with malicious malware or the neighbor next door.

Customers have also received letters in the mail from the company telling them to check out their new “usage meter.”  Several have been sharing how much they’ve racked up in usage during the month on Broadband Reports.  One customer managed 243GB while another looking at the company’s super premium 107/5Mbps package managed a whopping 786GB.

Although the wording of the message has strenuously avoided telling customers they are wrong for this amount of usage, the implication is clear to many: they are counting your gigabytes and identifying the outliers.  One customer called it Suddenlink’s “You’re actually using your connection, and we really wish you wouldn’t”-message.

“No one with an ounce of sense would pay for a 20/3Mbps connection and only use 78 GB in a month. Let’s hope they’re just making cute suggestions, not easing us into a cap, because that just won’t fly,” wrote one West Virginia customer.

Another in Georgetown, Texas did the math and made it clear 43GB better not turn out to be a cap because it means customers can barely use the service they are paying for.

“It’s way too low. I got 10Mbps [service] because of price/value and not because I use less than 43GB,” he writes. “[Even] if I downloaded at 1.25MB/s for 30 days straight (1.25 * 2592000 seconds) I could [still] grab 3.164TB.”

Clyde (Courtesy: KUSH Radio/Donna Judd)

Meanwhile, some controversy over the quality of Suddenlink’s service during the upgrade process had some residents in Cushing, Okla., up in arms at a recent city meeting.  Lorene Clyde complained Suddenlink’s “new and improved” service is worse than ever.

“I’m tired of paying for a service I’m not getting,” Clyde said.  “And the Suddenlink commercials – they are like rubbing salt in a wound.”

KUSH-AM reporters were on hand to cover the event, noting Clyde was not the only one complaining.  The radio station noted that “the buzz around town echoes her sentiments – from the ‘mildly irritated’ to the ‘downright mad’ – citizens have been complaining.  Not only have they been complaining to Suddenlink – as difficult as that may be (the call center is in Tyler, Texas) – but to city leaders.”

What Clyde and others may not have realized is that Suddenlink officials were in attendance and were able to apologize for the problems, but a growing consensus among consumers and city leaders is that a broad-based refund for the poor service was warranted.

Commissioner Joe Manning said while he appreciated the promise to figure out the problem, it wasn’t good enough to just apologize and promise – that subscribers’ bills should be adjusted to reflect the poor service.

Commissioners Carey Seigle and Tommy Johnson agreed with Manning.  Seigle pointed out it would be “good P.R.” to give some sort of rebate across the board to subscribers while Johnson complained that the original “upgrade” was only going to take a few weeks and now 8 months later – things are not better, but worse, noted the radio station.

Suddenlink officials on hand said they did not have that kind of authority, but continued to promise things are going to get better.  “I pledge to you,” one said, “We will find it [the problem] and fix it.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJTV Lubbock Borrowing Wi-Fi 2-7-11.flv[/flv]

KJTV-TV in Lubbock, Texas talked with Suddenlink about the growing trend of neighbors “borrowing” neighbors’ unsecured Wi-Fi networks.  Other than the accidental recommendation that consumers should “invest in Internet spyware” to keep your computer safe, the report does a fair job of shining a light on a practice that could have financial consequences if the provider implements an Internet Overcharging scheme.  (2 minutes)

Time Warner Cable’s custom-written bill banning community-owned broadband networks in North Carolina this afternoon received a favorable vote in the Public Utilities Committee — the first to consider the bill.

Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) decided that openly distorting the record of success community broadband has had would be a good way to proceed.  In comments before a jam-packed room this afternoon, Avila claimed fiber optic broadband systems have a long history of “failures,” which is ironic considering her promise to exempt these so-called failures from her bill’s anti-competitive regulatory regime.

Honestly, it was the first time we can recall a sitting legislator openly trashing her own state’s advanced broadband network successes.  (You can’t fault her for going all out for her friends at Time Warner Cable, but you can hold her accountable at the next election.)

Avila would never and could never admit the truth after wading this far in: these state of the art fiber networks are successful enough to have waiting lists from time to time just to get service installed.  Even those who don’t subscribe are benefiting. Just look at GreenLight, operated by the community of Wilson.  While GreenLight subscribers benefit from broadband far superior to what the cable company offers, those staying with Time Warner have seen an end to relentless annual rate increases.  Apparently Ms. Avila wants you to pay higher cable bills now and forever.

Republicans and Democrats from rural districts harshly criticized the proposed legislation for bringing no answers to the perennial problem of inadequate broadband in rural North Carolina communities, as well as the fact this bill contains customized exemptions to protect Time Warner and other Big Telecom companies from regulatory requirements dumped on community networks like a ton of bricks.

That’s favorable treatment for the cable company Ms. Avila seeks to protect at all costs.

Avila

Despite the important arguments raised by those objecting to the bill, the Committee Chair gaveled the debate to a sudden close, held a perfunctory voice vote and adjourned the session without a recorded vote.  That leaves citizens of the state with no idea how individual members voted.  Apparently they do not want to hear from unhappy constituents.

The Time Warner Cable Legislative Railroad next stops at the Finance Committee.

Although Rep. Julia Howard (R-Davie, Iredell), senior chair of that committee and Avila promise changes in the bill to protect existing community broadband operations, we are more than a little skeptical.

Last week, Avila called a meeting of city officials and several Big Telecom companies, including Time Warner and CenturyLink, partly to discuss exemption issues.  To give readers an idea of just how far Avila is in Time Warner’s corner, minutes into the meeting, she turned it over to the lobbyist from Time Warner Cable for the duration.

That’s a public-private partnership any voter in North Carolina should take a dim view about.  If Ms. Avila finds her work in the legislature too difficult to handle, perhaps she can find another line of work.  The only good thing about turning over your legislative responsibilities to the cable company is it cuts out the middleman.

Howard

The fact is, Time Warner has no interest in protecting -your- interests in North Carolina, much less those of the cutting edge fiber networks now up and running in the state.  They want them gone… or better yet, available for their acquisition at fire sale prices.  Yes, they even made sure of that in their bill, which guarantees a city can sell a fiber network hounded out of business to a Big Telecom company without a vote.

Exempting existing networks has turned out to be a highly subjective notion for Ms. Avila anyway.  She originally claimed to exempt them in her bill when it was introduced, but then subjected them to crushing regulation the cable companies do not face.  Any community contemplating starting a new network for their citizens can forget it either way.  Time Warner will not hear of it.

Although a growing number of Republicans and Democrats see Avila’s bill as a classic example of corporate overreach, without your voice demanding this bill be dropped, there still may be enough members of the state legislature willing to do the cable industry’s bidding.  If you make it clear that may cost them your support in the next election, they can be persuaded to do the right thing and vote NO.

But time is running out.  Your job is to begin melting down the phone lines of the Finance Committee members starting this afternoon.  Call and e-mail them and make it absolutely clear you expect them to vote NO on H129 and that you are closely watching this issue.  Ask each legislator for a commitment on how they plan to vote.

Finance Committee Members

Avila’s bill, H129, is up for a vote early this afternoon.  If you live in North Carolina, this is your last chance to contact the members of the committee voting on the bill and encourage them to vote NO.  Tell them you are tired of these anti-competitive bills coming up year after year.  Let them know you support community broadband, that the bill does not exempt existing networks from its lethal regulatory requirements, and that there is no need for these kinds of bills, as local governments already answer to voters.

Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) is getting significant blowback from some of her own constituents for introducing a bill that benefits a cable company, and almost nobody else.

Avila’s district extends into the northern part of Raleigh, the capital city of North Carolina.  Now, the city is making it clear it wants no part of Avila’s bill, H129, which will guarantee residents will continue to pay escalating cable bills year after year.

Raleigh’s City Council adopted a resolution opposing Avila’s legislation, written on behalf of Time Warner Cable.

H129 will destroy North Carolina’s community-owned broadband networks and prevent new ones from launching.

Council Member Bonner Gaylord, who authored the resolution, says passage of these kinds of anti-competitive bills would stop local governments from providing needed communications services, especially advanced high-speed broadband, and deny local governments the availability of federal grants under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to assist in providing affordable access to high-capacity broadband service in unserved and underserved areas.

North Carolina’s broadband rankings do not speak highly of the state’s existing broadband penetration, speeds, or pricing.  Large parts of western North Carolina lack broadband altogether, and what is available is often very slow speed DSL, often providing just 1.5Mbps service.  The mountainous western areas of the state are not well-reached by cable companies, and because of geographic and distance impediments, even telephone company DSL service is sporadically available.

Take Rockingham County, where the local government is pre-occupied with trying to find providers — any providers — to extend broadband service across the north central part of North Carolina.  Adjacent to Caswell County (which Stop the Cap! featured last year), it’s just one more example of how providers have ignored large sections of the state too rural, too poor, or too difficult for them to reach.

On Monday, Mark Wells, executive director for the Rockingham County Business and Technology Center, delivered a report to the county on his progress trying to get someone to provide service between the communities of Wentworth and Madison, which currently have no access to broadband.  Wells reports he is doing all he can to get CenturyLink, the area’s phone company, to step up and provide service, and the county is trying to see if Clearwire could extend service into the northern sections of the state.

Rockingham County, N.C.

Unfortunately, Clearwire has proved to be no broadband replacement, heavily throttling their customers to speeds that occasionally seem more like dial-up than actual broadband.

Rockingham County opposes H129 for the same reasons the city of Raleigh does.  The Board of Commissioners recognizes the broadband reality of northern North Carolina.  Unless local governments have a free hand to address the digital divide themselves, there will be no long-term solution for broadband availability in rural North Carolina.  That’s the message they are sending to their representatives in Raleigh.

Addressing the state’s broadband shortage requires public and private assistance.  Public governments can construct networks that require a longer window to pay off than private “return on investment” requirements allow, and private companies can access community networks to sell their services to the public they currently do not serve (or serve well).

But because companies like Time Warner do not want the competition, particularly from networks more advanced and capable than their own, they would prefer to see them shut down and banned — which is exactly what Avila’s bill would accomplish.

Last year, Sen. David Hoyle openly admitted Time Warner Cable wrote his bill.  There is little doubt the same is true for Avila’s bill this year.

The city of Raleigh, North Carolina

The city has an entirely different set of recommendations for Avila to consider:

1. The State of North Carolina adopt policies to encourage the development of high-speed broadband, including advanced, next-generation fiber-to-the-premises networks, in order to fully serve the citizens and advance education and economic development throughout the state;
2. The General Assembly provide incentives for both public and private development of high-capacity connections in order to handle rapidly growing data needs;
3. The General Assembly promote competition by curtailing predatory pricing practices that are used to push new providers and public broadband services out of the market; and,
4. The General Assembly reject any legislation similar to the Level Playing Field bills that would have a chilling effect on local economies and would impede or remove local government’s ability to provide broadband services to enhance economic development and improve quality of life for their citizens.

The resolution also noted that several North Carolina municipalities; including Wilson, Salisbury, Morganton, Laurinburg and Davidson, already have successfully launched local high-speed broadband networks in response to private provider’s unwillingness or inability to provide high-speed service “to serve the public and promote economic development in their respective areas.”

Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) anti-community broadband bill will be up for a vote this Wednesday in the Public Utilities Committee (Room 643, 12 noon) in the state legislature.

The bill was custom-written by Time Warner Cable to eliminate competition and keep your broadband prices high and speeds slow.  The proposed bill, H129 is bad news for every North Carolinian:

1. It will drive existing community networks out of business with onerous conditions;
2. It will damage the state’s credit rating and reputation when community networks fail under the legislative burdens that Time Warner Cable made certain it was exempt from;
3. It will harm local jobs.  Advanced fiber optic cables and equipment are also manufactured in North Carolina;
4. It destroys investment in the high tech infrastructure required to survive in the growing digital economy;
5. It guarantees that rural residents will never have access to the same kinds of broadband choices urban consumers and businesses have.

Nine high tech businesses and associations serving North Carolina have signed a letter telling the Legislature this bill will stifle high technology business in North Carolina.

But Marilyn Avila does not care.  She is only working for the interests of a single cable company that donates to her political campaigns.

Tell your legislator to vote NO on H129, and let them know you are appalled that this anti-consumer, anti-competition legislation keeps coming up year after year because of the lobbying influence of Time Warner Cable.  Make it completely clear you are watching their vote on this bill like a hawk, and it means everything to you at the next election.

Tell your representative to stand up for competition, stand up for advanced fiber optic networks, and to stand down on special interest legislation like H129, which only benefits the cable company that has overcharged you for years.

Your Call List

(click on each name for contact details)

Stop the Cap! reader Jeff from Palo Alto, Calif., dropped us a line over the weekend asking about a story published last week by the Salisbury Post regarding a bill that would banish community-owned broadband providers in the state of North Carolina.  The legislation, custom-written by Big Telecom companies, could eventually spell doom for truly competitive service from community-owned providers like Fibrant, based in Salisbury.

“I got the impression that it said Salisbury was agreeing not to oppose the proposed legislation, in exchange for being exempted from it,” Jeff writes. “That seemed like a long-term victory for Time Warner. Am I missing something?”

The reporter who accepted propaganda at face value from the cable industry certainly did.

The article, “Lawmakers Eye Blocks on Fiber Optic Systems,” was replete with demonstrably false statements from both Time Warner Cable and a high-powered cable industry lobbyist less-menacingly-labeled “a lawyer for the N.C. Cable Telecommunications Association.”  (Perry Mason he isn’t.)

In fact, communities across the state continue to oppose this special interest favoritism, bought and paid for by the telecommunications industry.  But getting people acquainted with the facts is a problem when reporters don’t bother to fact-check some of the rhetoric from the cable industry, which at times leaves some with the ludicrous impression they are “the little guy.”

Rep. Marilyn Avila — The Representative for Time Warner Cable

The Post seems to suggest local officials are negotiating passage to the lifeboats before Rep. Marilyn Avila’s legislative gift to Time Warner Cable becomes the legal iceberg that sinks community broadband in the state.

In reality, city officials are pointing out they harbor no resentment towards any telecommunications company operating in the state.  In fact, they welcome them to participate by securing space on their advanced networks at competitive rates in public-private partnerships.

Unfortunately, they are up against Avila’s “bull in a china shop” bill that would cut the legs out from community-owned networks before such partnerships can become reality.  In fact, Avila’s abdication of her responsibilities to her constituents for the benefit of Time Warner Cable is even worse because it could ultimately harm the state’s credit rating and image if such networks can be run out of business at the behest of a competitor.

For a “small government conservative” to write a bill laden with regulations, rules, and taxes anathema to the “free market” is a testament to just how willing she is to abandon her principles when Big Cable comes calling.

Avila has suggested that existing community-owned networks are exempt in the current language of the bill.  That statement is patently untrue because the micro-management regulations found within it would apply to all community broadband networks, but exempt privately-owned ones.  That’s fair, right?

For mayors in communities with these networks, securing a strong exemption is part of a full-court press against this bill.  If it were to become law, keeping a pre-existing network in business becomes an important priority.

Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable)

Mayor Susan Kluttz told the Post she is hopeful state lawmakers will rewrite the bill to exempt Salisbury and other cities with networks that are up and running.

But the mayor is smart enough to also realize at least some of the people at the table do not have the city’s best interests at heart when it comes to Fibrant.

Sources tell Stop the Cap! there are several members of the General Assembly, Republicans and Democrats, who are more than a little unhappy with Avila’s attempts to ram the bill through.  Not only does the water-carrying look bad inside (and outside) of the state, it will also destroy the potential of expanding broadband service to many poorly reached parts of North Carolina.

“This bill guarantees Time Warner will hold the keys to the broadband kingdom in North Carolina for years to come,” a well-placed source told us.  “Even public-private partnerships to develop broadband in rural areas of the state are directly threatened by her bill.”

Citizens across North Carolina are calling and writing legislators in opposition, but Avila doesn’t show signs of moving away from her pro-cable bill so far.

“Empty promises are being made to some legislators that suggest if they support this bill, Time Warner will magically wire unserved areas for service,” sources tell us.  “The company that had no intention of wiring these areas over the past two decades will continue to ignore them whether this bill passes or not.”

Indeed, Time Warner Cable and other companies use a standard business calculation when determining whether or not to wire outlying communities.  If too few customers live within a square mile radius, they don’t receive cable service.  Nothing has ever changed that unless it is mandated in a formal local franchise agreement.  At AT&T’s behest a few years ago, such local franchise agreements were banished from the state.  Rural residents in places like Caswell County pay the price as large sections of the county go without broadband service.

The implications are dire:

Jobs -are- threatened by Avila’s legislation.  They belong to the those who manufacture spools of fiber and the equipment that utilizes it, the contractors who install, maintain, and service the network, and the customer support staff that deal with customers on a daily basis.

One of the strengths providers like GreenLight and Fibrant bring to their respective communities is their networks are open to all-comers.  Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and other phone companies can obtain access on both to serve their own customers — business and residential.  The impetus for building these networks was to benefit everyone.

The only adversarial players here are cable and phone companies that want to own, manage, and control everything themselves.  The companies that spent years telling communities they saw no need to enhance service now want to legislate away the chance for others to try.

“We have several Republicans who read Time Warner’s claims about this bill, then looked over the inadequate broadband landscape in their districts back home, and are coming to the conclusion this is one bad bill,” one pro-broadband lobbyist told us.  “But this is still going to be a very hard fight unless ordinary consumers make their voices heard loud and clear.”

Fact Checking

The most disturbing thing about the Post story is the complete lack of fact checking the industry’s arguments, most of which are simply flat out false.  A few examples:

Melissa Buscher, Time Warner Cable’s vice president of communications for the Carolinas claimed the city of Wilson raised pole attachment fees by 300 percent after launching GreenLight, Wilson’s community-owned network.  Buscher suggests that is an example of cross-subsidizing networks.  In her mind, mean and nasty Wilson officials jacked up the fees  just to put the cable company at a competitive disadvantage.

But the facts tell a different story.

Wilson’s pole attachment fee, unchanged since 1975 while other communities around the nation raised them year after year, was adjusted well before GreenLight opened its doors for business.

“Before 2007, Wilson’s pole fee had stayed the same since 1975,” city spokesman Brian Bowman said. “The attachment fee increase was not related to GreenLight. The old fee schedule was outdated.”

How much money are we talking about here?  The old rate was $5 per pole annually.  Today it’s $15 per pole per year.  That means Time Warner will have to pay $246,000 a year instead of $82,000 in Wilson — petty cash to a multi-billion dollar cable company.

Time Warner itself provided data nearly five years ago in a Tennessee study on pole attachment fees that proves Wilson is hardly being arbitrary and capricious.  The cable company was paying up to $13.64 per pole four years ago in North Carolina.  The Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association has been complaining as late as last year over average pole attachment rates of $14.86 per pole in that state, adjacent to North Carolina.

The irony of a cable company that has nearly tripled its basic cable rates over the same period of time complaining about rate increases is lost on them.

Buscher also claims their new competition in Wilson and Salisbury is run by the same city governments that regulate them:

“Cities have unfair advantages,” Buscher told the Post, noting when cities get into the broadband business, they become not only a regulator for incumbent providers, but also a competitor. “If municipalities want to get into a business already offered by the private sector, we welcome the competition, but we want to level the playing field.”

The only thing Time Warner wants to level is the competition from community networks that deliver better broadband service than they offer.

In reality, thanks to industry lobbying in the 1990s, the cable industry is almost completely deregulated.  No local, state, or federal government regulates broadband — where it is offered, at what speeds and at what prices.

There is no conflict of interest on the regulatory front.

Time Warner Cable and the North Carolina Cable Telecommunications Association: Waltzing Partners in a Dance of Deception

'Those community networks are not playing fair. How can we possibly compete?'

The North Carolina Cable Telecommunications Association, which helps deliver a one-two punch for Big Cable’s agenda, delivered the next false claim:

“Fibrant and GreenLight have lower operating costs.”

In reality, Time Warner Cable’s enormous size and scope provides them with benefits and cost saving opportunities across their national footprint that neither community provider can match:

• Volume discounts for programming, equipment, and other infrastructure;
• The power of incumbency, which makes them the default choice for most customers who must be compelled to switch providers;
• Access to grants and agreements like “payments in lieu of taxes” to protect cable jobs. Time Warner hardly pays “rack rates” for taxes across its entire footprint;
• Time Warner’s construction costs were mostly incurred in the 1990s when cable systems were last rebuilt.  Suddenlink Cable CEO Jerry Kent said it best: “I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”  That isn’t true for community networks just opening for business or still in the initial construction phase.

Frontier Communications, a private industry player, discovered all of the benefits in programming costs go to large players like Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon and AT&T when claiming they were forced to raise rates $30 a month because they could not get the same volume discounts big cable and phone companies receive.

Marcus Trathen, the lobbyist running the NCCTA, hopes his fear, uncertainty and doubt campaign will be proven correct with the passage of Avila’s bill.  As law, it assures all of the competitive advantages go to the billion dollar incumbents, and any failures will be among the community providers that compete with them:

“Cities are particularly ill-suited to competition in a technology-based industry,” Trathen said in an e-mail to the Post. “Technology changes in an instant.”

Just not for Time Warner customers in Wilson and Salisbury.  The genesis of these, and other, community-based networks come from provider intransigence to deliver the kind of broadband service consumers and businesses increasingly seek, at an affordable price.

Fibrant delivers 15/15Mbps service today in its standard broadband package.  Time Warner Cable delivers 10/1Mbps service.  When Fibrant and Greenlight were first proposed, Time Warner delivered even lower speeds.

The industry cannot have it both ways.  On the one hand, they claim community broadband is an economic failure delivering redundant service and mis-managed by government officials who do not understand the business of broadband.  On the other hand, these companies and their respective mouthpieces are literally spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying for legislation to keep these “failures” from ever getting off the ground.

As we’ve always said on Stop the Cap!, following the money always leads you to the truth.