[Update: 5:13pm Friday: I hoped to have this up Thursday night, but wanted to add additional links to the article to be certain people can verify the information contained within it.  It’s on a final proofread right now and will be posted within the next two hours.]

Over the past week, I have been involved in some in-depth research on a matter that concerns me greatly — the special interest astroturfing problem.  An article that normally would have taken less than a day to write has now run close to a week, just because under every rock there is yet another special interest group, telecommunications company, or hired gun lobbyist working for what should be legitimate public interest groups.  What is even more disturbing is the apparent influence some of these groups, with yet undisclosed telecommunications company connections, have on public broadband policy, because government agencies and our elected officials do not realize they are taking input from industry-connected front groups.

The stage is being set once again this year for a public debate on issues like the National Broadband Plan, Net Neutrality, and our own battle against Internet Overcharging schemes.  Before this battle goes too far, some of the opponents working against consumer interests need to be revealed.  Therefore, a very lengthy special report is forthcoming shortly that will be required reading for any visitor to this site, so you fully comprehend what is taking place, and are well prepared to engage these groups.  We’ve already tangled with some of the astroturf groups who’ve debated us, and we’ve done so successfully.  Soon, there will be many more.  When fighting for an honest National Broadband Plan, Net Neutrality, and no Internet Overcharging schemes, this is your chance to call out the cozy little astroturfing game that has been used successfully in the past to fool legislators into believing they are doing the right thing by us, actual consumers.

I hope to wrap up work on the piece by later tonight, assuming I don’t encounter even more entanglements along the way.  This is why coverage this week has been more sparse than usual.  Hopefully after publication, you will understand why.

Cox Cable called attention to new usage cap allowances in Broadband Reports’ Cox Cable forum.

Cox more than doubled its usage cap allowances for several of their broadband tiers.  Cox offers different speeds in different markets for their broadband tiers, depending on how much competition they face.

Most Cox Cable customers don’t even realize there are usage limits on broadband service, because the company rarely enforces them.  No measurement tool is provided by Cox to allow customers to see what they are consuming on a monthly basis.  Instead, the company currently only contacts customers who create a significant negative impact on their network, and then point the customer to the terms and conditions which include their usage cap limits.  One Cox customer posted their usage showing they consistently exceeded Cox’s old caps by several times over and was never contacted by the company.

Their new caps are more comparable with Comcast than some other providers who have tried usage caps designed to play “gotcha” with customers, and then charge them overlimit fees and penalties when they exceed them.  Cox does not charge overlimit fees or penalties.

Cox also specifically exempted its own Voice Over IP “digital phone” service from usage caps, which gives them a competitive advantage should Cox begin tighter enforcement of their usage cap allowances:  “Cox Digital Telephone is a separate service for which you pay and does not count toward your Monthly Bandwidth Allowance.”

Customers have expressed appreciation for the more generous usage caps, but are even more pleased that Cox has never strongly enforced any of them.

Still, Stop the Cap! calls on Cox to forget about usage caps.  It’s apparent the vast majority of your customers do not present an enforcement issue anyway, so why inconvenience customers with confusing bandwidth allowances.  Those that do create a major problem on the network can be dealt with within the scope of the existing Acceptable Use Policy.  That’s simpler broadband service every consumer can understand, and enhances customer goodwill for Cox’s broadband products.

Economy/Lite/Basic Package

Starter Package

Essential Package

Value Package

Preferred Package

Premier Package

Premier Plus Package (requires a DOCSIS 3 Modem)

Ultimate Package (requires a DOCSIS 3 Modem)

The Wrap last night reported that Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, was deep in talks to purchase a [potentially controlling interest in NBC-Universal, a report Comcast was disputing as of late last night.

Comcast, the nation’s leading provider of cable, entertainment and communications products and services, is in talks to buy the entertainment giant NBC-Universal from General Electric, according to knowledgeable individuals.

Deal points were hammered out at a meeting among bankers for both sides in New York on Tuesday, executives familiar with the meeting said.

Two individuals informed about the meeting said that a deal had already been completed at a purchase price of $35 billion.

A spokeswoman for NBC-Universal had no comment. Comcast responded with this statement: “While we do not normally comment on M&A rumors, the report that Comcast has a deal to purchase NBC Universal is inaccurate.”

Bloomberg News also reported interest by Comcast in a deal with two of NBC-Universal’s owner-partners: GE and Vivendi of France.  But they noted that three unnamed people with knowledge of the deal claimed Comcast would acquire only a 50% stake in the company, not 100% control, contingent on Vivendi selling its 20% stake to Comcast.

If such a deal were concluded, the NBC television network, two cable news channels, The Weather Channel, and Universal Studios would effectively be under the Comcast umbrella.  Comcast, already the nation’s largest cable company, would have a major ownership interest in a large television content-producing family of companies.  Cable companies have recently feared being owners of “dumb pipes” in an increasingly concentrated entertainment marketplace, and a deal with NBC-Universal would allow Comcast to have ownership of a significant amount of the content they distribute over their cable television and broadband networks.

TV Everywhere, a pet project of Comcast and Time Warner, leverages video content from cable networks distributed to “authenticated” cable or pay television subscribers over broadband networks.  Content owners have had the liberty to govern the terms and conditions of the distribution of their content within the scope of the project.  Outright ownership or control of the content by cable companies provides a much more predictable outcome.

Who foots the bill for an estimated $35 billion dollar investment in a completed deal for NBC-Universal?  Comcast customers, of course.

Wind Mobile

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is back in this news this week after running a dog and pony hearing at the behest of Bell, Telus, and Rogers (three of Canada’s largest incumbent telecommunications companies) pondering whether would-be wireless competitor Globalive was Canadian enough to do business in the country.

The Telecom Act specifies that all wireless phone companies must be controlled by Canadian citizens.  Toronto-based Globalive Wireless Management Corporation insists it has met the requirements of Canadian law, despite having a major percentage of its financing coming from Egyptian-based Orascom, a wireless mobile provider itself.  Globalive points to approval of its holding company business structure by Industry Canada.

Under the arrangement, Globalive would launch competitive wireless service under the brand Wind Mobile starting later this year.  Then the CRTC got involved.

Canada’s three current wireless phone companies — Bell, Telus, and Rogers, complained to the Commission that Globalive is violating the spirit of the Telecom Act and have essentially joined forces to keep Globalive out of Canada.

The CRTC was quick to respond to the incumbents’ concerns and scheduled hearings which started last Wednesday.  As expected, Globalive got hard questioning from the CRTC and the providers.  Canadian citizens looking for competitive choice weren’t on the agenda.

The Commission previously forced Globalive to publicly release more than 1,000 pages of company documents relating to its business structure, pages that were kept confidential by Industry Canada, but made available to Globalive’s existing competitors for their review.  The result was a gold mine of insight on their potential competitor’s business plan, and they used the information gleaned to argue against the company’s right to provide service.  itWorldCanada covered the response:

“I don’t know how the commission could possibly approve that deal now with that kind of capital structure,” Michael Hennessy, Telus’ senior vice-president of regulatory and government affairs said in an interview. “It would be unprecedented.”

Rogers could have gone along with the Industry Canada ruling, said Ken Engelhart, the company’s vice-president of regulatory affairs, “but when we read the documents we were just amazed. There has never been an approval like this before. The rules have always been [a telecom company] could have a major foreign shareholder, a major foreign debt holder, a major foreign strategic partner. But you could never have the same person being all three. Orascom has 65 per cent of the equity, 100 per cent of the debt and they provide the brand and all the strategic and technical skills.”

“If this is OK there’s no point having any more hearings. They should all get rubber-stamped because if this is Canadian owned and controlled, what isn’t?”

Bell concern trolled their way through written comments, ringing their hands over an ownership structure modified to address their earlier concerns is now even worse.

Anthony Lacavera, chief executive officer for Globalive Wireless Management said Globalive has every right to operate a wireless provider in Canada as he is a Canadian citizen and has control.
TMCNet’s Canadian Angle blog explains:

The biggest problem seems to come down to math.  Globalive states that Lacavera is in control, and he is a Canadian citizen.  The incumbents are complaining about the amount of ownership and possible influence that the Egyptian financial backer, Orascom Telecom, has on the Globalive company.  The way that Lacavera has explained it, the Globalive team is following all the rules while still allowing for some out of this country funding.  Here is the breakdown:

• Anthony Lacavera owns 35 % of Globalive, and Orascom owns 65%.
• Orascom funded over $500 Million so Globalive could pay for the wireless spectrum that they bought, and the bridge financing required for the infratructure
• Both of these parties have agreed to replace the loans with third-party investments – as soon as it is commercially viable.

Telus and Bell suggest that Globalive and Orascom are pulling a fast one – trying to get around the legalities by setting up separate companies but still providing Orascom with a majority stake in the company, and  also with the added benefit of controlling the operations.

It shouldn’t be a big shock that Globalive was financed through another country, and as long as Globalive and Orascom commit to what they say they are going to do, there shouldn’t be any problems.

Well – still one hefty problem – the CRTC is under the influence of the incumbents.  The decisions coming from this regulatory body will provide fuel for many posts to come.

Am I the only one that sees the irony in the CRTC grilling Globalive about being influenced by outside sources?  Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black?

The reason for all of the debate is simple enough.  Canada’s three wireless phone companies could lose one quarter of their customers to competitors like Globalive and DAVE Wireless, according to Toronto-based Convergence Consulting Group, Ltd., which released a study on the matter last week.  Without Globalive being one of those competitors, incumbent providers will likely retain more customers and more revenue.

Lynch

Verizon today joined the chorus of large providers looking for an enhanced payday off the backs of their subscribers when Chief Technology Officer Richard Lynch told a 2009 Fiber to the Home Conference and Expo press conference that the days of unlimited broadband may be coming to a close.

“We’re going to have to consider pricing structures that allow us to sell packages of bytes, and at the end of the day the concept of a flat-rate infinitely expandable service is unachievable,” Lynch said, adding that the broadband industry will see a paradigm shift as the Internet grows and Verizon passes on the cost to “someone.”

This is the first public comment from a Verizon executive that directly supports Internet Overcharging, although Lynch said Verizon was not announcing any pricing changes at this point in time.

Lynch’s statements came in concert with Verizon’s more immediate concerns about Net Neutrality, which the company has spent considerable amounts of money on Washington lobbyists to oppose.

Lynch doesn’t want Net Neutrality to interfere with the potential for the company to offer “premium bandwidth plans.”

Assuming Lynch is speaking about plans sold to consumers, there are no provisions in Net Neutrality legislation that address speed-based Internet service tiers.

Verizon’s statement about metered pricing and Net Neutrality may be a “divide and conquer” strategy to suggest to consumers an “either/or” proposition.  Either accept usage caps and metered service plans or Net Neutrality.  Stop the Cap! has written about this strategy in the past, and it has tripped up some public policy consumer groups in the past who were willing to support one or the other instead of objecting to both.

But Verizon’s near limitless capacity fiber optics FiOS network, and the fact the company’s “cost structure is certainly different, as a tier-one [carrier], [means] their transport costs are a fraction of the smaller operators,” according to Vince Vittore, an analyst with The Yankee Group.  That makes justifying such pricing questionable.

Verizon equates usage pricing models on its wireless mobile network with its wired fiber optic network.  Telephony Online quotes Lynch: “We have already gone this way in wireless because that is where the resource is most constrained.”

Of course, wireless mobile broadband is constrained by limits on the amount of spectrum space available to transport the data, something a fiber optic network need not contend with.