Did you know privately-run cable companies can get public tax subsidies, grants, and even loans at favorable interest rates? When opponents of community broadband complain government-funded broadband competes against the private sector, the hidden truth is many “private sector” companies also enjoy benefits at the public’s expense.

Cablevision is the latest example, reports the Star-Ledger. When the company noted its lease for a call center in Newark was set to expire in two years, the Economic Development Authority responded, approving a $37.5 million Urban Transit Hub tax credit for the private cable company.

“Cablevision has a long-standing and important relationship with the state of New Jersey and the city of Newark, and a commitment to local hiring, local jobs and supporting the local economy,” said Cablevision spokesman Jim Maiella. “We are pleased to be investing in a new state-of-the-art call center, larger than our existing facility, closer to mass transit and modernized for our more than 500 Newark employees.”

New Jersey is currently mired in a major budget battle, trying to find enough revenue to sustain a general tax cut for New Jersey residents.

Canadians: Get ready for more cell towers in your neighborhood.

Industry Canada’s fuzzy math threatens to allow cell phone companies to erect new cell towers in some of the country’s most scenic areas, which often coincidentally offer the best reception.

Residents in Pontiac, Quebec are learning that first-hand, as Industry Canada approves a controversial proposal from Vidéotron to install an 82-meter cell tower in the middle of a vista that tourist officials use in brochures to promote travel in the Ottawa River region.

It turns out the regulator now only considers an antenna’s base as a factor in determining whether to approve a new cell tower. That base amounts to just one square meter, “too small” by Industry Canada’s standards to conduct an environmental assessment. No matter that the antenna will tower nearly 270 feet into the skyline. Industry Canada is only interested in measuring the three legs of the tower (each leg is evaluated individually, not collectively), and at just one tiny meter, it isn’t worth their time.

That means local residents will have to contend with a new tower 25-stories high. As the Ottawa Citizen puts it, Vidéotron’s tower is smaller in the government’s eye than any pre-fabricated garden shed from Home Depot, which often requires a permit to install.

The new tower will be installed on Hurdman Heights, much to the consternation of area residents and naturalists opposed to its presence, ruining what many call the most scenic place in the region.

The local government of Pontiac has opposed the new Vidéotron tower since it was first announced, but the cable/wireless company pulled an end run around the municipality claiming there was a negotiating impasse and local officials would not meet to work it out, a good enough reason for the regulator to approve the new tower. Pontiac Mayor Eddie McCann says there was no impasse and the local council has been trying hard to reach a deal with the telecommunications company and never cut off talks:

If you don’t believe Verizon Wireless’ newest family-share plans work for you, you are not alone.

More than a few Verizon Wireless customers are in open revolt on the company’s interactive forum, and some are preparing to leave a wireless company they have stayed with for up to 15 years. In a word, the consensus from these vocal customers is: “enough.”

Customer ‘bgudgel‘ explains why:

I have been a loyal Verizon customer for seven years now. I have defended them and recommended them to friends and family, but I feel my time as a Verizon customer has come to an end. The simple reason is that Verizon no longer sees me as a valued customer. I am just a source of income to them. I was prepared to swallow the $30 upgrade fee, but the new shared data plans are the final straw.

You can argue pricing and details all you want, but the simple fact is this – Verizon is clearly not interested in providing great service at fair prices to their customers anymore. The want to provide great service at the highest possible price, and they are taking pages out of the Big Cable handbook to do it – requiring services you don’t want/need in order to get the service that you actually do. And on top of that, the price levels they have chosen for data thresholds and adding additional lines are completely indefensible.

Verizon, I have heard your message loud and clear. You no longer care about me as a customer, so I will gladly take my business somewhere else. I do not know if I can get a better deal anywhere else, but I will no longer give money to you based on the simple principle that you have no respect for your loyal customers. It feels like you are just using us, and that is when I say goodbye.

A California customer considers this the last straw for Big Red:

I too have been a Verizon customer for years. But this final slap in the face is it for me. First, the stupid $30 “upgrade” fee for the “privilege” of buying a new phone from Verizon, and now this absurdity.

I am researching other companies’ prepaid plans now, and I fully intend to be gone within a couple of weeks, at most. And I won’t encounter cancellation penalties as our 3-line plan is more than 2 years old.

I have grown weary of “data” and its rising costs and caps, and will purposely look for a voice/text plan only. Enough.

And Lyondellic tallies up Verizon’s nickle-and-diming customers over the past year:

During my year with Verizon, I have seen a failed attempt to impose a $2 ‘convenience’ fee for paying my bill online. I have also seen a $30 fee added for device upgrades. Then there was the February 2012 change in the customer agreement that does not limit so-called ‘Network Optimization’ to 3G devices, which also allows throttling (let’s call it what it is) during the current and NEXT billing cycles. Verizon seems to have no issues with someone getting full 4G LTE speed, as long as they pay for it by the GB, but apparently feel that those of us with unlimited data plans should be considered data hogs that can be slowed down into billing cycle that has not even started. So network optimization in Verizon-speak means freeing up bandwidth for their pay by the GB customers by throttling customers with grandfathered unlimited data plans that are using their devices in a manner that is consistent with their agreements! Finally, we are told about the cries for family shared-data plans. I figured Verizon might do something that would make it attractive for me to move into a tiered data plan, boy was I ever wrong.

Now Verizon wants to charge $40 per smartphone to actually use the shared-data plans! So, for someone who is paying ~$87 per month for a smartphone with unlimited data, the cost per month will now be somewhere around $120 for the 6GB plan! How are these plans a good thing for either new or existing customers?!? I was considering paying full price to upgrade to a Galaxy Nexus in order to keep my unlimited data plan, but I have changed my mind. I can order the Galaxy Nexus from Google for $399 and use a prepaid, no-contract plan from T-Mobile plan that provides me with 100 minutes, unlimited text messaging and 5GB of data at 4G speeds for $30 month. Since I do not make a lot of calls on my phone, why would I want to continue to pay Verizon $87 per month without subsidized device upgrades, which would move me into a $120 month plan?

So I look at this as a simple lesson in economics. I can pay the ETF, buy a GNex and still come out ahead by moving to T-Mobile. The beauty of this is that I will also be taking money away from Verizon, as they clearly want to treat me like a second-class customer that needs to fork over more of my money. So I will vote with my dollars and send a clear message to Verizon that their conduct is unacceptable. I encourage others here to consider doing the same. Your speed may not be blazing fast with T-Mobile, but neither will be the speed that money flies out of your wallet or purse. My .02 cents!

Despite repeated provider claims that usage-based billing will save customers money on their broadband bill, new evidence shows the exact opposite is true. Broadband prices for metered broadband across Canada are rising, not falling, and now outpace pricing in the United States.

The reason for more costly broadband? Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and so-called usage billing, which providers have uniformly implemented on both wired and wireless broadband in most parts of the country.

A new study from PricewaterhouseCoopers finds Canadian consumers now pay 3.9% more for broadband than American consumers do, and prices are expected to increase another 9% by 2016 — from the average $38.43 paid last year to $45 for usage-capped broadband.

Usage billing has been profitable to Canadian providers like Rogers and Bell, with broadband revenues up 17.5% last year as consumers adopted higher priced plans to accommodate their monthly usage.

Canadian providers have also systematically reduced or “re-tiered” usage allowances, engineering service upgrades for customers trying to avoid costly overlimit fees.

“Canada’s broadband fees were lower than those in the United States in 2007-09, but as a result of large increases during the past two years, the average Canadian broadband subscriber paid more in 2011 than the average U.S. subscriber did,” says the report.

Bandwidth caps have allowed Canadian providers to now charge premiums to high bandwidth users, according to the report. Rising use among all broadband customers “should continue to put upward pressure on pricing.”

In the United States, providers are having a more difficult time implementing similar usage caps and overlimit fees, primarily because of consumer-organized backlash.

Holder

The Justice Department has been quietly conducting a wide reaching investigation into whether cable operators are using Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and metered billing to squash online video competition, according to a report in this morning’s Wall Street Journal.

The Antitrust Division has spoken to major online video providers like Netflix and Hulu as well as cable operators, including Time Warner Cable and Comcast.

At issue are data caps — limits on how much a subscriber can use their broadband account.  Justice officials are exploring whether major broadband providers like Comcast and AT&T are using usage limits to protect their video businesses from cord-cutting — canceling a cable subscription to watch shows online.

Providers of online video like Netflix are particularly concerned about operators showing favoritism to their own video platforms. Comcast, for example, exempts partnered content from its usage allowance while continuing to count Netflix viewing against its cap. Comcast’s Xbox “free pass” is attracting particular attention in the Justice probe, in part because it could violate the merger agreement with NBC-Universal which requires the company to not discriminate against third party video content.

Some cable operators claim usage caps protect their networks from heavy users overwhelming their facilities. Comcast claimed its decision not to count Xbox video traffic against the operator’s monthly usage cap was fair because the video content did not travel across the Internet. Now the company has temporarily suspended  usage caps altogether in preparation for testing a new usage limit that also carries overlimit penalty fees.

Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski last month publicly announced his support for usage limits and metered billing, describing both as innovative and enabling customer choice. The Justice Department probe would indicate otherwise, because it suggests customers are finding their options increasingly limited, possibly in violation of federal antitrust laws.

The Justice Department is also investigating the industry’s TV Everywhere project, which provides access to cable network online video exclusively to those with an existing cable television package. Most cable networks specifically prohibit online streaming of their live content, which itself might run afoul of antitrust rules.

The Journal notes Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday suggested he would like to be a cord-cutter himself, picking and choosing only the channels he wants to watch. At a recent Senate hearing, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said cable bills were “out of control” and consumers want alternative options to watch shows online. Holder responded, “I would be one of those consumers.”