Does today's decision assure the birth of Comzilla, ready to destroy anything or anyone in its path, or is it the next colossal big media deal flop worthy of AOL-Time Warner?

The wedding of Comcast and NBC-Universal was given the blessings of two federal agencies today that all but seals the multi-billion dollar deal.

In a 4-1 decision, the Federal Communications Commission approved the merger.  It’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, claimed it would ultimately be good for consumers as the company promised to add at least 1,000 hours of news and information programming and a new ultra-budget “lifeline” broadband tier priced at $9.95 per month for low-income families.

The lone dissenter, Democratic commissioner Michael Copps, rejected notions that a combined company the size of Comcast, which controls more than a quarter of all cable subscribers, and NBC-Universal, a major media company, would deliver anything to consumers.

“It’s too big. It’s too powerful. It’s too lacking in benefits for American consumers,” Copps said after the FCC vote to approve the merger. “And it continues us down a road of consolidation we’ve been on for a couple of decades now.  And the most threatening part about it is that this is not just traditional media, but it’s new media, too. It touches just about every aspect of our media environment.”

National Public Radio’s ‘All Things Considered’ gave measured coverage to today’s Comcast-NBC merger developments, and how it will impact consumers. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Indeed the combined Comcast-NBC will own or control one of every seven television channels and networks seen by Americans.  Copps worries that kind of media concentration is sure to reduce diversity in programming and on-air voices.

Even worse, some analysts predict the merger could trigger a new wave of media consolidation as other players try to maintain their positions in the media marketplace.  Second-place Time Warner Cable could begin looking for merger opportunities with smaller cable companies, such as Cox, for example.

Just about an hour after the FCC gave approval, the Justice Department and five states’ Attorney General announced a tentative settlement that could resolve concerns that the transaction was anti-competitive.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNYW New York Comcast FCC Approval 1-18-11.flv[/flv]

WNYW-TV in New York reported on today’s merger decision and explained how Comcast customers, and online video fans, could be impacted.  (3 minutes)

The Terms & Conditions

Two different federal agencies insisted on Comcast’s agreement to several terms and conditions before agreeing to the deal.  Many of them presented no problem for Comcast, who had voluntarily agreed to several of them early on in negotiations.  But the Justice Department delivered one of the strongest conditions, and a first for online video protection — it insisted the new combined entity of Comcast-NBC bow out of its voting rights in Hulu, the online video service.

√ No Playing Favorites: Comcast has to agree that if it carries its own news and business channels, it has to include competitors on the same tier.

Since Comcast-NBC has ownership interests in so many news, sports, and weather channels, making space for the competition was considered crucial by federal regulators.  The cable company can’t bury its competitors in Channel Siberia, or stick them on “digital tiers” that are priced higher than standard cable service.  Who wins?  Bloomberg News, rarely found even by cable viewers who go looking, and the very low-rated Fox Business Channel, which can’t attract 30,000 viewers on a good day.  Both will find prominent positions on Comcast Cable going forward, even if nobody watches.

√ Cheap Internet Access for Qualified Families: Comcast has agreed to provide a “lifeline” broadband service, but only for families pre-qualified by federal eligibility for free school lunches.

No word on what speeds these customers will receive, and Comcast estimates the program will barely make a dent in its bottom line.  It is expected to reach only around 400,000 homes nationwide, and only as long as those subscribers remain eligible under federal guidelines.  No free lunch for broadband.

√ Standalone Internet Service Must Be Provided: Comcast must sell at least a 6Mbps broadband plan without cable or telephone service for $49.99 a month for three years.

Since Comcast already routinely sells standalone broadband service to customers at around this price, this was hardly a concession.  Comcast can still pile on extra fees, such as their overpriced cable modem rental, and any other charges that could be mandated by federal, state, or local government in the future.  They can also keep their usage caps.

√ Comcast must agree to the FCC’s Homeopathic Net Neutrality Rules:  Comcast has to agree to the FCC’s heavily-watered down definition of Net Neutrality… the ones Comcast itself suggested.

Since the FCC largely caved-in to Big Telecom’s lobbying against Net Neutrality, Comcast’s agreement to adhere to what the FCC calls Net Neutrality won’t present any problems, because those terms were similar to what Comcast had asked for all along.  Their “digital phone” service is exempted, which means Comcast can “manage” competing Voice Over IP services at its pleasure.

√ Evidence That PBS Has A Lobbyist, Too — Special Favors for Public Broadcasting: Public television stations win carriage protection from Comcast “for several years.”

In an effort to free spectrum, PBS stations could be pressured to give back some channels or reduce their transmitter power to free up UHF frequencies for more wireless broadband.  Should this happen, Comcast has agreed to keep those stations on their cable systems as if nothing changed at all.  It assures stations that even if their broadcast coverage areas are reduced, their cable carriage will stay the same.

√ Binding Arbitration Comes to Buyers of Comcast-owned Networks:  If a cable system or other provider runs into trouble getting an agreement with Comcast, the FCC offers help.

To protect other cable systems, telco-TV, and satellite companies from uncompetitive pricing or access blockades to Comcast-controlled networks, the cable company agrees to come to the table and submit to binding arbitration over carriage disputes.  Unfortunately for Comcast subscribers, the cable giant can’t force broadcasters or other cable networks to the same table to settle their own carriage wars.

√ Online Access to Programming Comes to Existing Players, Unless Something Big Changes: Everyone loves the status-quo, and this agreement assures it.

The Department of Justice provisions protecting access to online video programming were carefully crafted by lawyers with one eye on Washington and the other on Wall Street.  It effectively provides “stability” in the marketplace and avoids the kinds of competitive surprises Wall Street hates.  Effectively, the agreement grants access to Comcast-owned programming to ventures that existed prior to the agreement reached today.  Existing players have the government’s assurance carriage contracts are secure.  Those with a pre-existing relationship to Comcast can also purchase the entire bouquet of Comcast-controlled programming (no a-la-carte) at prices similar to those charged to other cable and satellite customers.

But brand new players that threaten to turn existing business models on their heads?  Forget it.  The agreement says nothing that would require access to Comcast programming for upstart services like ivi, or even Google TV for that matter.  The only potential, real-world competitive scenario comes if an existing player (say Time Warner Cable, Verizon FiOS, or AT&T U-verse) decided to start a national virtual online cable company open to any American, anywhere.  What are the chances of that happening?  How many of you can choose Time Warner -or- Comcast? Verizon FiOS -or- AT&T U-verse?  Would AT&T risk its U-verse revenue selling Time Warner Cable customers the same channel lineup, knowing it can’t also easily bundle broadband and phone packages with it?

√ No Voting Rights for Hulu: Comcast agrees to limit its role in one of the biggest potential reasons some consumers are prepared to cut cable’s cord.

The Justice Department’s requirement that Comcast effectively butt-out of the day to day decisions affecting Hulu may protect consumers, but Hulu’s partners don’t want to devalue their programming by giving it away for free forever, either.  Nothing prohibits the birds-of-a-feather-partners in Hulu to put the service under a full ad load or behind a pay wall, reducing its value and interest to consumers.  Or, the whole project could be terminated at the behest of News Corp. and Disney.

Phillip Dampier: The real answer to this question is "both."

Whatever consumer protections the FCC and Justice have included, they won’t last forever.  Virtually all expire within three to seven years, at which point Comcast might be humbled by the culmination of a bad business decision the likes of AOL-Time Warner, or become Comzilla, ready to trample its competition (and consumers) into the dirt.

Was This a Commission Cave-In or a Foregone Conclusion?

Although Commissioner Copps calls today’s decision a “dangerous” deal, some ex-regulators suggest the package presented to federal regulators was effectively a foregone conclusion.

Bruce Gottlieb was formerly Chief Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, and offered his take on today’s developments for The Atlantic:

How mergers at the FCC will play out is notoriously hard to predict, but the ultimate result is not. The historical truth is that, in virtually every instance, the commission will approve any major proposed transaction. The only time in recent memory that the commission declined to do so was the proposed merger of the two leading satellite-TV providers (Echostar and DirecTV) — and that marriage was running into problems with other agencies long before the FCC put the final nail in the coffin.

(Yes, then-Chairman Reed Hundt also famously ended rumors of an AT&T and Southwestern Bell merger in 1997 by preemptively declaring it “unthinkable.” But those companies simply had to wait until 2005, when a different FCC chairman let it go through.)

The real action at the FCC involves what “conditions” the agency will put on a merger. These are supposed to be narrowly tailored to address specific harms raised by the merger at issue. But, regardless of who is in charge at the agency, it’s all relative.

Often, the conditions applied to a particular merger have more to do with what the chairman and commissioners at the time want to achieve on an industrywide basis. It’s just easier to get these things done when you have the extraordinary leverage of controlling the timing of a multibillion-dollar transaction that the parties are desperate to consummate.

[…]  The FCC’s rules, as described in the press release announcing the merger, appear to be aimed at ensuring that “over the top” providers have fair access to programming (which the NBCU part of Comcast-NBCU will provide), as well as to consumers (which the Comcast part of Comcast-NBCU will provide).

This is, by far, the strongest statement yet from the commission about the importance of over the top video competition. But the business and regulatory stakes in this fight are only going to increase over time. Indeed, the two Republican commissioners (Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker) issued separate statements saying they have concerns over whether the FCC should be writing rules to encourage over the top video. So this is likely to be the first skirmish in what will surely be a long and bloody war.

In the weeks ahead, the lawyers will be able to parse the specific provisions to see where the loopholes are and how it will all play out in practice. The details surely matter. But years from now, the specifics of what was decided in this merger may mean a lot less than the fact that the FCC is now deeply involved in the multifront war to decide who will win online video.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Newshour Comcast Merger Announced 12-3-09.mp4[/flv]

More than a year ago, PBS’ ‘The Newshour’ explored the reasons why Comcast and NBC-Universal would want to join forces.  Now, after millions of dollars of Comcast subscribers’ money has been spent lobbying for approval, will consumers ultimately pay an even higher price later on?  (12/3/2009 — 11 minutes)

What would you do if your broadband bill was the same as your monthly rent?

That’s a question 21-year-old Notre Dame de Grace resident Amber Hunter has been dealing with since the neighbors began hacking their way into her wireless router, gaining access to her cable modem service from Videotron, Ltd., and running her bill into the next province.

It’s the predictable outcome of what happens when Internet Overcharging schemes gain traction, leaving ordinary consumers literally holding the bill.

Videotron sells usage limited broadband service across Quebec, but heavy users who routinely exceed their arbitrary usage caps knew there was a limit on the overlimit fees Videotron charged.

Not anymore.

Videotron left the usage caps on, but removed the limit on how much they can charge customers who exceed their monthly usage allowance.

Videotron sets prices like the OPEC of the Internet -- the sky is the limit

“The sky is the limit, or at least your bank account,” writes our Montreal reader Hei.  “The only thing unlimited with Videotron are the overlimit fees.”

Hunter had no idea she was being hacked.

“I had no idea what a gigabyte was, so when I started getting higher bills, I just assumed it was from watching TV shows online,” Hunter says.

Her boyfriend told her otherwise, making it clear it was impossible for her to be running up 350GB a month in usage just from watching a few movies and TV shows.

Since August, Hunter has accumulated more than $1,800 in broadband bills stemming from parties unknown who hacked their way into her wireless router and “borrowed” her Internet account.  Videotron itself is directly responsible for part of this debacle, encouraging Hunter to upgrade to a higher tier of service that upgraded her from a 30GB usage allowance to a 100GB usage allowance, with a major catch.

Hunter had become accustomed to paying her usual broadband bill plus the $50 maximum penalty charged for her “overuse.”  So a Videotron representative suggested a higher usage allowance plan might lower her bill.  But somehow, the Videotron customer service agent forgot to mention that the new plan no longer included a limit on overlimit charges.

When Amber switched plans, her broadband bill exploded.  Now the waitress hands over most of her weekly salary to Videotron.

“I’m a student, and I work at a bar, and now most of the money I have goes to pay my Internet bill,” Hunter told the Montreal Gazette. “It’s more than I pay for school and books, and I don’t have a lot of money left for food.”

She still owes the cable company $506 and they aren’t interested in providing her any service credits beyond the $313 they gave her a few months ago.

It took a Videotron help desk employee to finally unravel the mystery of the Internet Overcharges — someone was hacking into her wireless network.  Exactly who has been living their online life usage-limit free at Amber’s expense may never be known. Those living in apartment complexes and other multiple dwelling units can often find a dozen or more wireless connections, some password protected, others not.

Hunter’s wireless network was secured with a difficult to guess password using a four year old Linksys router.  Unfortunately, older routers often lack robust security and are easily hacked.

A handful of Canadian ISPs still offer unlimited broadband accounts.

As far as Videotron is concerned, it’s all Hunter’s fault — she should have understood what a gigabyte was, how many she was supposed to be using, what the security capabilities of her router were, that they were properly enabled, that she checked her usage on a daily basis looking for anomalies — investing her time, effort, and energy to stop the cable company before it billed her an enormous amount… again.

Speaking for Videotron, Isabelle Dessureault said, “It’s a case where Videotron showed some understanding and listened to what happened. We’re well-renowned in the industry for our technical support team. We credited her account for $313, but at a certain point, we need to share the responsibility. We don’t like these kind of situations.”

Videotron’s responsibility to their customers stopped where their profit margin began.  The company could have sent Amber a bill for the wholesale cost of her Internet usage, which she could have paid with a few of her bar tips.

Because Hunter’s broadband bills were now rivaling her monthly rent she decided to invest in her financial future, buying a new router and making sure the wireless was turned off.  Today she runs dozens of meters of Ethernet cable between all of her computers, just to keep the neighbors off her connection.

Although Videotron has become intractable, demanding Amber pay up, one of their competitors used the opportunity to score public relations points that Videotron sacrificed.

Jarred Miller, the president of the Internet Service Provider YOUMANO offered to cover all of Hunter’s overage fees amassed over the past year that also includes a free year of Internet service with his company, a generous offer Hunter will take.

YOUMANO is one of a handful of Canadian ISPs still offering unlimited Internet access, and do not think of themselves as the OPEC of the Internet.

The entire affair is a warning to Americans.  If you think Videotron is an Internet evildoer, imagine what Verizon, AT&T and Comcast could do to your bank account.  If they have their way, you’ll need to become intimately familiar with your router, the concept of a gigabyte, and take a class in “negotiating to win” when fighting over your future enormous broadband bills.

Listen to an interview with Amber Hunter. She appeared on this morning’s Daybreak on CBC Radio Montreal to discuss her experience with Videotron Internet Overcharging. (8 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

This slide, produced to sell "network management" equipment, is the best argument for Net Neutrality around.

Want to visit Facebook?  That will be two cents per megabyte, please.  Skype?  You can get a real bargain this month — your ISP is only charging you $5 for an unlimited monthly permission pass.  YouTube?  All customers with a deluxe bundled broadband plan get a special discount — just 50 cents for up to 60 videos, this month only!

All of these charges, levied by your Internet Service Provider, are real world scenarios being sold by two equipment vendors — Allot Communications and Openet, for immediate use on Net Neutrality-free wireless broadband networks.  Thanks to Stop the Cap! readers Lance and Damian for sending us the story.

Both companies are excited by the potential harvest of bountiful revenue — for themselves in selling the equipment that will carefully monitor what you do with your Internet connection and then control what kind of experience you get, and for providers who can finally bend the usage curve down while “finally” getting average revenue per customer shooting sky high once again.

In the webinar, run last Tuesday and moderated by Fierce Wireless, the two companies carefully divided their one hour presentation between the technological and financial benefits of “network management” technology.  For every statement about how their bandwidth management system would improve the predictable responsiveness of the provider’s network, another comment followed, touting the enormous new revenue potential this technology will bring providers, all without costly network upgrades.

Poor provider. His stuffed pockets of profit are leaking your money paid to access websites you want to visit. But with Allot and Openet's products, the pot 'o gold is just a few steps away.

On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on a watered-down Net Neutrality proposal that would do nothing to prevent this nightmare scenario from becoming reality.  The webinar and its accompanying slides couldn’t illustrate Net Neutrality-proponents’ arguments better:

1. Such technology requires providers to carefully track and monitor everything you do with your web connection, obliterating privacy and creating a potential data trail that could be exploited for just about anything.  Indeed, Allot and Openet treat the data tracking feature as a benefit, opening the door to marketing campaigns to upsell your broadband connection or target upgrade offers based on your web history;

2. It’s all about the money.  Allot and Openet see their products as a cost-saver for providers to control expenses by cutting speeds/access for heavy users to provide a more consistent service for others, reducing the urgency to upgrade networks.  The companies also heavily focus on the revenue opportunities available from Internet Overcharging schemes;

3. The webinar includes a slide showing that providers can charge individual fees just to visit and utilize third party websites and applications, while letting providers deliver their own content, services and applications for free.  Got a bothersome competitor?  Just make a quick change with Allot’s product and your customers will face a withering admission fee in the amount you choose before they can even use the application;

4. The technology allows providers to wreak special havoc on peer-to-peer traffic, always the bane of traffic-conscious ISPs;

5. Want to extract more cash from an individual subscriber?  Providers can custom-design packages based on web site habits, usage, speed, and even the time of day the person is most likely to use the web.  Providers can then develop so many different usage packages, comparison shopping becomes meaningless.  The price you pay may be different than what others on your street pay, and you may never know by how much or why.

These Big Telecom workmen are not hard at work upgrading networks to meet demand. They are wrangling an Internet Overcharging scheme to reduce your usage while charging you more. (All of these slides were produced by the vendors themselves.)

Public Knowledge legal director Harold Feld saw right through the slide show: “If you want the slide deck to show why we need the same rules for wireless and wireline, this is it.”

Listen to the audio portion of “Managing the Unmanageable: Monetizing and Controlling OTT Applications,” which does not include the slide show. (60 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Broadband advocates have been warning providers have been dreaming of this kind of pricing for a few years now.

“I have been saying that this is where they want to go for a while,” Barbara van Schewick wrote to Wired. “The IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), a technology that is being deployed in many wireline and wireless networks throughout the country, explicitly envisages this sort of pricing as one of the pricing schemes supported by IMS.”

Although the system described by the webinar is currently being sold for use on wireless networks, nothing prevents providers from adopting similar schemes on their wired networks, arguing their use is about “intelligent network management,” not content or pricing discrimination.

It’s a scenario likely to be tested soon, especially with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s watered down Net Neutrality proposals.  More than one observer believes the chairman has made a deal with the Big Telecom Devil: observe our watered down rules, don’t sue to have them thrown out, and the Commission will not invoke Title II and reinstate regulatory authority over broadband.

But as anyone who watches the broadband industry must realize by now, providers always break these deals.  They will sue the moment a controversy erupts that is not in their favor, and they are very likely to win.

Don’t want blazing fast fiber optic broadband speeds?  Unhappy with fiber optic quality video and want to go back to putting a satellite dish on your roof?  If the answer to either question is “yes,” Frontier Communications has good news for you.

The phone company, which assumed control of a handful of communities formerly served by Verizon’s fiber-to-the-home FiOS network, has announced it will begin marketing DSL and satellite TV services to its fiber customers.

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter told investors on a third quarter results conference call that FiOS broadband could be too expensive.

Wilderotter noted Verizon would not allow customers in a FiOS neighborhood to buy DSL service, which leaves budget-minded customers behind.

“Now, FiOS starts at like 50Mbps and it’s very expensive. It’s like $50 a month for a customer. So they left a whole host of customers behind from an affordability perspective who didn’t need that kind of capability on broadband.” Wilderotter explained. “We have just over the last 30 to 60 days opened up DSL in all of the FiOS markets to give the customer choice. So the customer can choose whether they want FiOS broadband or they want high-speed Internet service, typically, and in those markets we’re offering around 6 to 7Mbps.”

Time Warner Cable occasionally runs promotions helping customers break free from Frontier's multi-year service contracts.

Of course, Frontier FiOS starts at 15Mbps — not 50, and that costs $50 a month for standalone service.  For $99, ($89 in Verizon FiOS areas), customers can get broadband, cable TV and unlimited phone service.  Frontier’s “Turbo” DSL service is priced at $40 a month for up to 7.1Mbps service.

Wilderotter also noted their FiOS customers can also choose to skip fiber video and go with DirecTV.

“We think that customers should be able to choose what kind of video they want,” she said. “We have aggressive offers in the market for both DirecTV and for FiOS video, but in our vernacular, what we care about is keeping the customer, getting the customer to take more products and services from us and making sure the customer is happy with the choice.”

Wilderotter said Frontier is prepared to tolerate more congestion on its DSL circuits than Verizon permitted, which opens the door to potential traffic slow-downs down the road.

“We’ve opened up in many of these locations the opportunity to sell high-speed service up to 95% capacity on the equipment that we have out in the field. Verizon had set a parameter at 75%,” Wilderotter said.

The company continues to study whether Frontier FiOS is worth maintaining or expanding outside of the Verizon territories where it was originally constructed.

“We are still evaluating it from a financial perspective and a customer perspective, and from a cost perspective and a revenue perspective,” Wilderotter told investors. “In terms of what that does for us overall, what it does for churn, how much does it really cost to extend this capability in the markets that we’re in today — we think that analysis and evaluation will go on through the first quarter [of 2011] and then we’ll be able to make some [decisions] in terms of what we want to do with FiOS from an expansion perspective or a maintenance perspective.”

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter answered questions about broadband expansion and the impact of the fall elections on telecommunications policy in Washington. (11 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Frontier's largely rural service areas provide a captive audience for the company's DSL broadband service.

In the near term Frontier has several plans to get more aggressive in the marketplace to meet its target goal of losing only 8 percent of their customers per year — a goal that illustrates legacy phone companies are still on a trajectory towards fewer and fewer customers:

1. Don Shassian, executive vice president and chief financial officer of Frontier reports expansion of DSL remains a top priority for Frontier.  The company is on track to deliver access to 300,000 additional homes by the end of the year.  Verizon delivered access to 64 percent of Frontier’s acquired territories.  Frontier wants to get that number up to 85 percent.  But part of that target is not just expanding service to unserved areas.  It’s also trying to win back customers lost to other providers through promotions and incentives.
2. Frontier plans to resume aggressive promotions in the coming weeks and months, including its “free Netbook” promotion, which provides a Netbook computer to new customers signing up for several packages of services, committing to remain with Frontier for at least two years.
3. Frontier intends to push “price protection agreements” on as many customers as possible.  Their “Peace of Mind” program locks customers into multi-year contracts with stiff cancellation penalties.  Wilderotter noted: “I think, as you know, in our legacy markets, 96% of all of our sales are on a price protection plan and we have close to 60% of our residential customers on a one-, two- or three-year price protection plans. That number is below 15% in the acquired markets. So we’re also driving for price protection plans with every sale that we’re doing in these new markets as well.”  Such contracts dramatically discourage a customer from disconnecting Frontier, because fees for doing so can exceed $300 in some cases.  Frontier has been heavily criticized by some customers and State Attorneys General for deceptive business practices regarding contracts.

Frontier continues to enjoy a lack of solid cable competition in its largely rural service areas.  Shassian reports Comcast competes with Frontier in only about 32% of homes in some areas, Time Warner Cable in about 23%, and Charter below 15%.  With reduced competition, Frontier often represents the only broadband option in town.

Frontier is also spending an increased amount of time coping with copper thefts, especially in West Virginia where the company is warning would-be thieves it will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

“Damage to our facilities can affect communications access in an emergency, increase company costs and consumer rates, and disrupt community phone and broadband connections,” said Lynne Monaco, Frontier’s Director of Security. “When network connections are severed by copper thieves, it endangers customers and emergency responders and poses significant risks of personal injury and property damage.”

Just last week, West Virginia state police solved another copper caper that disrupted service for some customers.

The Charleston Daily Mail reports:

Stephanie Burdette of Charleston was arrested in connection with a copper wire theft.

Trooper A.B. Ward from the South Charleston detachment went to the Fishers Branch area of Sissonville last Thursday afternoon when a Frontier worker discovered a section of the communications line missing. The worker found that 300-feet of the 400-pair line, valued at about $5,000, was missing, according to a complaint filed in Kanawha Magistrate Court.

A trooper who had worked on a similar investigation told Ward to check the home of Ervin “Tubby” Page, 49, where troopers had previously found evidence of wire burning. Ward went to Page’s home, described as a Goose Neck travel trailer parked next to the Guthrie Agricultural Center in Sissonville, and found three burn barrels about 50 feet in front of the trailer. One of them was on fire.

Page’s girlfriend Stephanie Marie Burdette, 25, of Cross Lanes, was at the scene when the trooper arrived. Ward spoke to her then checked out the barrels where he found aluminum wrap, which is used to cover the copper communications wiring, and pieces of copper cabling, the complaint said.

Frontier customers are encouraged to report any suspicious activity around telecommunications equipment and facilities by calling the company’s toll free security line 1-800-590-6605. Anyone witnessing a theft in progress should not confront the suspects but should immediately call 911 and then call Frontier. Vehicle and suspect descriptions are very useful. This is a community safety problem, and the cooperation of the public is critical.

[flv width=”500″ height=”395″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Copper Thieves 11-15-10.flv[/flv]

WOWK-TV in Charleston covers Frontier’s difficulties with copper wire thieves across the state of West Virginia.  (1 minute)

Qwest, the former-Baby Bell serving the upper midwest, mountain west, and desert states got caught on tape telling customers the company’s intent is to eliminate competition from independent Internet Service Providers by banning them from their network.

One such ISP, XMission, has blown the whistle on the anti-competitive practice, noting they could potentially be run out of business if Qwest manages to keep them from delivering competitive service over Qwest’s upgraded partly-fiber network.

In 1997, XMission first started providing service over Qwest’s DSL.  We have literally paid millions of dollars of revenue to Qwest for the privilege, all the while relieving them of the difficult task of providing excellent customer support.  In 2008, Qwest launched their “Fiber-to-the-Node” product which is usually falsely advertised as just plain “fiber”.  Unlike the UTOPIA system which runs fiber optics all the way to the home, Qwest FTTN runs fiber to a neighborhood, then copper DSL lines to the customer.  Because of the subsequent shorter distances on copper, they are able to attain download speeds of up to 40Mbit to the customer and 5Mbit from the customer.  This is normally referred to “download” and “upload” respectively.

There is one key difference in the FTTN product.  Qwest is not not allowing 3rd party ISPs like XMission to sell their own service over it, as we traditionally have with their first DSL product.  In addition, Qwest has been notorious for disinformation and service problems that motivate customers to drop their current ISP and change over to Qwest.  Technical problems exist, such as radio interference that degrades existing XMission customer DSL speeds, sometimes making their Internet connection unusable.  The solution offered by Qwest was not to shield the radio interference, but to switch customers off XMission and to their own product.  We have also had reports and in one case, a recording, of Qwest sales representatives telling customers that Qwest’s intent is to “eliminate” 3rd party ISPs.   Today, I received an email from a customer who was told by Qwest that XMission’s equipment is “too slow” to handle FTTN service.  Considering that we service customers on fiber and in our data center with up to a gigabit in solid bandwidth, one has to wonder why Qwest feels the need to lie to sell their service.  There is no technical reason why Qwest could not allow 3rd party ISPs like XMission to provide service over their FTTN network.

XMission has been hemorrhaging DSL customers for the past year, and I really don’t blame them for looking for bigger Internet connections.  I personally can only get 3Mbit download and 500Kbit upload to my own home and it is not enough bandwidth for me.  With Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and other services demanding more and more bandwidth, homes will need larger and larger connections.  Unless they’re in a UTOPIA connected city, chances are that they are going to choose from two companies to buy Internet from in the future, neither of them stellar.

UTOPIA is Utah’s publicly-owned fiber optic platform delivering competitive choice to residents of 16 Utah cities.  Residents enjoy true fiber optic service and can select from 11 different Internet Service Providers, each offering their own speed levels, bundles, and pricing.  How many ISPs can you choose from?

Qwest’s newest network upgrades deliver service somewhat comparable to AT&T’s U-verse — faster broadband through a hybrid fiber, copper phone line-based network.  Qwest also sells traditional DSL service over standard phone lines, including so-called “dry loop” service that delivers broadband service without also buying a phone line.  While competing providers can sell service over many of Qwest’s DSL lines, they have been barred from selling access over these new, faster-speed lines.

Customers have been unimpressed with Qwest’s traditional DSL services which often promises far more than it actually delivers.

Alex Langshall in South Salt Lake was guaranteed 7Mbps DSL service from Qwest, but ended up with only 640kbps.  The reason?  His distance from the central office and the deteriorating quality of Qwest’s landline network.  Qwest’s technicians told Alex even after line conditioning and rehabilitation, he would only get 1.5Mbps service.

XMission publicized this recording between Qwest and one of their customers about the phone company’s intentions for independent ISPs on their network (July 21, 2010) (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>