New Yorkers know the end of summer is upon us when the New York State Fair opens every year at the end of August in centrally-located Syracuse. But at this year’s fair, Time Warner Cable has also made it clear the season for its 4G mobile broadband service has also come to at least a temporary end.

Fierce Cable’s Steve Donohue noticed big changes at the cable company exhibit:

When I attended the New York State Fair outside of Syracuse last year, the Intelligo mobile hotspot–which Time Warner Cable offered to subscribers through a partnership with Clearwire –was one of the hottest pieces of technology that it had on display. Time Warner Cable said that it tripled the number of 4G wireless hotspots that it sold at the fair in 2011 compared to 2010. Here in Central New York, where subscribers don’t have access to the Wi-Fi networks that Time Warner Cable, Comcast and Cablevision offer in the New York area, apparently there was a significant demand for mobile hotspots.

‘Intelligone’

This year, the mobile broadband technology is all gone. Both Time Warner Cable and Comcast are no longer selling access to Clearwire’s 4G WiMAX service marketed under each cable company’s brand. Once it became clear they were partnering up with Verizon Wireless to sell each other’s products, the days of Clearwire were numbered.

Both cable companies are still supporting existing Clearwire mobile broadband customers, but for how long nobody is certain. Verizon Wireless’ products have not yet appeared on the western or central New York regional Time Warner Cable websites, but may be forthcoming soon.

Meanwhile, Time Warner’s push this year is on home automation and security. The company has been test marketing its IntelligentHome service in Rochester for quite awhile and has now expanded to other upstate areas. The service offers a respectable suite of traditional security products apps ranging from watching your pets over webcams to controlling your home’s heating and cooling system from remote locations.

In 2010, Time Warner Cable featured celebrity Mike O’Malley at the Fair to shake hands and sign autographs. This year, they have a player and “spokesmodel” from the Syracuse Crunch, a minor league pro hockey team. Time Warner Cable also hired a juggler on a unicycle to attract crowds to their pavilion.

The Republican party platform on technology gives little credit to the Obama Administration’s handling of all-things-high-tech and demands a wholesale deregulation effort to free the hands of service providers, get rid of Net Neutrality, and sell off wireless spectrum to boost wireless communications.

The platform authors are particularly incensed about Net Neutrality, a policy that requires providers to treat Internet content equally on their networks. Some Republicans have previously called that “a government takeover of the Internet,” telling providers what they can and cannot provide customers. Vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) fiercely opposes Net Neutrality. In 2011, he supported a resolution disapproving of the policy and in 2006 he voted against an amendment to a bill that would have codified it into federal law.

“The most vibrant sector of the American economy, indeed, one-sixth of it, is regulated by the federal government on precedents from the Nineteenth Century. Today’s technology and telecommunications industries are overseen by the FCC, established in 1934 and given the jurisdiction over telecommunications formerly assigned to the Interstate Commerce Commission, which had been created in 1887 to regulate the railroads. This is not a good fit,” the Republican platform states. “Indeed, the development of telecommunications advances so rapidly that even the Telecom Act of 1996 is woefully out of date.”

Mitt Romney is an ardent deregulator. Under a plan favored by the Republican presidential candidate, agencies like the Federal Communications Commission would be required to offset the cost of any new regulations by eliminating existing regulations. Additionally, Romney plans to issue an executive order as president telling all agencies they must notify Congress about any forthcoming regulations and wait for the House and Senate to approve them before they could take effect. With the current level of Congressional gridlock, a consensus to approve any new regulatory policy is unlikely. The end effect would likely be a near-moratorium on government regulation.

The Republican platform also attacked the Obama Administration for failing to expand broadband to rural areas, but offered nothing beyond generalities about “public-private partnerships” on how to expand broadband to the unserved.

Romney

“That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers,” the platform said. “We encourage public-private partnerships to provide predictable support for connecting rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.”

One can infer from the language in the document Republicans are opposed to public broadband initiatives.

The Republicans also promise to accelerate public spectrum sell-offs to private companies through auctions to expand the number of frequencies available for wireless communications.

The Obama Administration defends its telecommunications policies, noting the FCC’s National Broadband Plan and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s broadband stimulus program have identified unserved areas, despite provider obfuscation, and targeted funding to open up new broadband opportunities. The administration also says it has effectively reformed the Universal Service Fund into a new Connect America Fund that will underwrite prohibitively expensive rural broadband expansion projects.

The White House also defends its spectrum policies noting existing spectrum still has licensed users that face lengthy and often costly transitions to other frequencies to clear space for cell phone companies. Still, President Obama ordered the FCC to find 500MHz of spectrum to reallocate to wireless communications and the FCC plans the first ever incentive auction that will let TV stations voluntarily surrender their frequencies in return for financial incentives.

Both the Obama and Romney campaigns oppose efforts to internationalize Internet regulatory policy through organizations like the United Nations or the International Telecommunications Union. Some governments have stepped up their efforts to lobby for a transition away from Internet policies they see dominated by the United States.

Democrats are also considering Internet language in their party platform for the party’s upcoming convention next month.

The newspaper industry’s version of an infomercial.

Does your local newspaper sell its journalistic credibility down the river with an annual “best of” contest asking readers to vote for their favorite companies the newspaper later uses to shamelessly pursue advertising deals for a “special supplement” announcing the results?

The Topeka Capital-Journal sure does, and they’ve transformed the seedy affair into an art form, complete with softball interviews for some of the winning companies.

Take AT&T, which somehow got voted Topeka’s best cell phone company. (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and TracFone also made their “list” — showing either the tiny number of cell phone competitors in Topeka or a desire not to leave anyone out.)

In a “special” to the Capital-Journal, ad sales guy “reporter” Phil Wilke managed to interview an AT&T spokesman… by e-mail. It was not a tough interview:

Pulitzer Prize material it is not.

Consumer Reports readers do not think as highly of AT&T, but then that magazine does not accept advertising from AT&T — Topeka’s newspaper does. (J.D. Power and Associates also put AT&T at the bottom in its own survey.)

I first got suspicious when Olive Garden, the Chef Boyardee of Italian restaurants, made the list for “best restaurant service,” “best Italian restaurant,” and [shudder] “most romantic restaurant.” There is either something very wrong in Topeka, or these results don’t mean a thing.

But they do mean a lot of advertising revenue for the Capital Journal, which can call every winner and implore them to take out a special ad “thanking readers” for placing trust in their establishment. Puff pieces like the AT&T interview found above do little  for the newspaper’s credibility and trust with readers, however.

Surprisingly there was no category for Topeka’s best news source, but we did finally locate one where a nomination for the Topeka newspaper was appropriate: “BEST PLACE TO PLAY SOFTBALL.”

Free Wi-Fi is always popular and Fort Wayne, Ind. is welcoming news that Frontier Communications intends to install and operate a downtown network of hotspots offering what local newspapers characterize as “free access.”

The area being outfitted with wireless Internet is bordered by Clay Street to the east, Broadway to the west, Headwaters Park to the north and Lewis Street to the south, according to city officials.

Frontier says it plans to offer 512kbps access on most hotspots, 1Mbps service on others, with a limited number operating at still higher speeds where fiber optics are available.

But Frontier’s Wi-Fi networks in other cities have some important considerations for those expecting wide open, free access.

Free has its limits.

In Rochester, N.Y., free access hotspots are extremely limited in number and offer very slow speeds (often close to dial-up) to entice users to upgrade to a premium Wi-Fi speed plan starting at $9.99 per month for current Frontier customers, $30 a month for non-customers. The vast majority of hotspots only offer five minutes a week of free access.

In Terre Haute, free access is available to only the first 100 users connected to the network. All others are required to pay. Those who do choose to subscribe can only use one device at a time.

The scheduled rollout of Frontier Wi-Fi in Fort Wayne has yet to be announced.

Phillip “At Least They Are Transparent About Robbing You” Dampier

The unassailable truth is that if there is a right way for a company to treat its customers and a wrong way, AT&T will always choose the wrong way. It’s the primary reason I refuse to do business with them.

The company’s recent decision to block Apple FaceTime for customers who refuse to be herded to one of AT&T’s new Mobile Share plans is another shot across the bow of Net Neutrality, which declares customers should be able to use the applications and services of their choosing — particularly on networks where they pay for those choices.

Principal #1 of Net Neutrality: Companies should not be playing favorites with applications or services by blocking or restricting those a provider does not favor.

AT&T’s response: ‘Whatever.’

The predictable outrage of customers should have come as no surprise to AT&T, but somehow it did.

The company picked testy senior vice president for regulatory affairs Bob Quinn to mount a rapid defense against the pitchfork-and-torch-yielding throngs on AT&T’s Public Policy Blog. That was their second mistake.

Quinn, who spent last December valiantly defending AT&T against its too-precious CupcakeGate mini-scandal, conjured up this pretzel-twisted logic tap dance to explain away its latest boorish behavior:

Providers of mobile broadband Internet access service are subject to two net neutrality requirements: (1) a transparency requirement pursuant to which they must disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of their broadband Internet access services; and (2) a no-blocking requirement under which they are prohibited, subject to reasonable network management, from blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services.

AT&T’s plans for FaceTime will not violate either requirement.  Our policies regarding FaceTime will be fully transparent to all consumers, and no one has argued to the contrary.  There is no transparency issue here.

Nor is there a blocking issue.  The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones.  Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps.  Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services.   AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps.  But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”)  Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.

A company lecturing its customers for daring to question its decisions is always a good way to enhance those warm and fuzzy feelings people have about America’s least-liked wireless phone company. Quinn first scolds customers and consumer groups about their “knee jerk reaction,” for being upset about the issue. Then he declares they have “rushed to judgment,” using a turn of phrase not heard since O.J. Simpson’s defense team pounded it to death, and look where that ultimately got us.

The crux of AT&T’s argument is they get a free pass to “block and herd” because Apple FaceTime was pre-installed on customer phones. Therefore, since AT&T didn’t block you from downloading an app you already had, it cannot possibly be a Net Neutrality violation. Because as we all know, Net Neutrality is only about download blocking.

At least AT&T is keeping their promise to be transparent. They have, indeed, fully informed you they are mugging you while in the process of mugging you. Full disclosure… matters.

Somehow, I missed the “preinstalled does not count” section in the Federal Communications Commission’s December 2010 order to providers telling them to preserve the free and open Internet. So I spent last night with this legalese page-turner (194 pages to be exact) to refresh my memory.

Nope, it isn’t in there. You can read it for yourself from the link above.

So it isn’t me. It is them, making up the rules as they go, again.

Quinn graciously offers customers one concession: AT&T will allow you to use Apple FaceTime over your own home Wi-Fi network. Gosh thanks!

For customers addicted to FaceTime, AT&T’s solution is an expensive plan change. An average customer currently paying $70 for 450-barely used voice minutes and 3GB of data will find FaceTime off-limits on AT&T’s network unless they “upgrade” to AT&T’s $95 Mobile Share plan, which gets you only 1GB of data, but endless voice minutes you don’t want and unlimited texting you don’t need.

Result: Pay $25 more a month and get your data allowance slashed by 2/3rds. That’s a deal — AT&T-style.

But it is one some customers are through taking. Nalin Kuachusri:

The new FaceTime restrictions will usher in the end of my 12+ year relationship with AT&T. I’m tired of the consistent manipulation of plans and features to extract more and more money for services I don’t need. For example: there used to be several text-message options (200, 1000, 1500, unlimited) so I could choose and pay for the one that fit my usage best. Then there was the option to move from unlimited data to 2GB/month to save $5. That was great for me and fit my usage. Then I was forced to move back to $30/month if I wanted to add tethering where I’ll get an extra GB that I’ll never use. Finally, after 12 years as a customer with an account in good standing, I was not allowed to unlock my phone for my 10-day trip to Europe so I could get a local SIM. I couldn’t be happier to give you one final $200 payment as an early-termination fee so I can move to Verizon.

Unfortunately for Kuachusri, the bosses at Verizon Wireless are likely slapping themselves silly because they did not come up with the idea first.