While simultaneously complaining about the spiraling costs of sports programming such as MSG Networks, the nation’s two largest cable operators are planning to cut checks worth $80 million to help bail the NY Mets baseball team out of some of its long term debt.

The New York Times reports both Comcast and Time Warner Cable are preparing to funnel funds into the team through regional sports network SNY.

Time Warner Cable and Comcast are nearing a plan to finance SNY’s purchase of four shares in the Mets, worth $80 million, said one person e with knowledge of the plan who was not authorized to speak publicly.

[…] That means they will have much-needed cash to pay off their substantial debts. But it would be a slightly quirky way of doing it. The deal would mean 16 percent of the Mets would be owned by SNY. The Mets’ parent company, Sterling Equities, owns 70 percent of the network.

[…] Lee Berke, the president of a media consulting company, said that Time Warner Cable and Comcast “don’t want to see the team stumble as it has been, because it directly impacts what they’re putting on TV. This is shaping up as a multiyear downswing for the Mets, and this is a way to keep them above water.”

[…] As for Time Warner Cable and Comcast, it was not immediately clear why they would not invest directly in the Mets. But the two companies clearly want to put money into Wilpon’s financially beleaguered hands (the club has lost some $120 million in the last two years), even if it has to be routed through SNY, to ensure that the team meets its $200 million goal.

[…] Together, Time Warner Cable and Comcast own about 30 percent of SNY. The network started carrying Mets games in 2006.

That investment comes at the same time cable operators are increasingly vocal about sports programming costs.

“ESPN, through … sheer muscle, has been able to say to us, ‘You will carry this service on the lowest level subscription you offer, and you will make all of them pay for it,’” Matt Polka, CEO of the American Cable Association, a trade group told Newsweek. “My next-door neighbor is 74, a widow. She says to me, ‘Why do I have to get all that sports programming?’ She has no idea that in the course of a year, for just ESPN and ESPN2, she is sending a check to Disney for about $70. She would be apoplectic if she knew … Ultimately, there’s going to be a revolt over the cost. Or policymakers will get involved, because the costs of these things are so out of line with cost of living that someone’s going to put up a stop sign.”

Cable analysts continue to be astonished by an inflation rate in sports programming rates that rivals health care costs.

“Every time [there is] a huge increase we can’t believe it, and then there’s another huge increase,” says Laura Martin, an analyst with investment bank Needham & Co. “The rapidly rising cost of sports, especially the new NFL contracts, increases the likelihood that sports will be forced by the government to be on a different tier within three years, by our estimates.”

Cable industry investment in sporting teams is now becoming a familiar headline.  In early January, the Los Angeles Times reported Time Warner Cable was considering buying the Los Angeles Dodgers at a price that could exceed $2 billion.  It would compliment two new regional sports cable channels Time Warner plans to launch in southern California featuring the Los Angeles Lakers.

AT&T 3G MicroCell

AT&T has lost another customer.

PC World‘s Tony Bradley noticed reception on AT&T’s network in suburban Houston has been losing bars in more places than it has maintained over the last few years.

“[…] for reasons unknown to me the AT&T network in my area has been getting steadily worse. There have been a couple of weak spots in the same location for years. Rather than improving and eliminating those weak spots, the weak spots became dead zones…and then proliferated.

I don’t live in the boonies. I live in suburban Houston in a community that is very near a major highway, and yet there are four or five areas with literally no service. I could almost understand if the signal decreased, or if it switched from 3G to the older Edge network in places, but in 2012 in an affluent suburb near a highway there is no excuse for a company like AT&T to have any area where my phone literally displays “No Service”.

Even with the growing dead zone epidemic, I was still reluctant to switch. I maintained that the grass is always greener, and that I was better off to stick with the devil I know. That is, until I moved.

I only moved four miles, and I am still in the same community I was in before. However, in my new house the AT&T signal is too flaky and unreliable. I have to walk to special places in my house to get a workable signal, and even then I am told constantly that I am “breaking up” by the person on the other end of the line. I often miss calls because there is no signal and my phone doesn’t even ring. I don’t realize I even had a call until I receive the voicemail.”

AT&T’s response to these kinds of reception problems is to suggest customers purchase one of their 3G MicroCell units, which delivers a wireless signal inside your home or business connected through your broadband account.  But Bradley took exception that AT&T would charge him $200 (negotiated down to $100) and a monthly service fee just to mitigate the company’s own reception problems.  AT&T has since lost Bradley as a long-lasting customer — he took his business to Verizon Wireless, which offers better reception in his neighborhood.

The columnist cannot understand why AT&T would treat a long-term customer so poorly.

“AT&T could have kept me happy, but chose to let me leave instead,” Bradley writes.  “So, let me get this straight. AT&T isn’t capable of delivering the service I am already paying for, and the proposed solution is that I spend $200 (or $100 after a lengthy and heated debate), plus additional money every month for the privilege of routing my calls over the broadband Internet service I am also paying for? That was really the last straw for me with AT&T.”

10-digit dialing is a nuisance in Canada too, where British Columbia and Alberta customers were told to dial the area code for every call.

Verizon FiOS’ “digital phone” product is a far cry from Verizon’s traditional landline service.  Some central New York customers now getting hooked up to the fiber-to-the-home service report they are frustrated because they have to dial an area code for every phone call, even those to friends and neighbors right next door.

Verizon told WSYR-TV that unlike traditional landline service based in your neighborhood, Verizon FiOS phone service is, in fact, a nationwide Voice Over IP (VOIP) service, and uses servers across the country to process phone calls.  Although many traditional VOIP services have since learned ways around the area code limitation, Verizon has not made a similar effort to allow customers to pre-designate an area code.  That would permit Verizon’s servers to assume any seven digit number dialed was within a particular area code and complete the call accordingly.

Instead, Verizon advises customers to learn how to use the included “speed dial” feature to make dialing more convenient.

Verizon’s competitors, including companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable are quick to point out seven digit dialing is available from them, except where multiple overlaid area codes in the same geographic area exist.  So far, parts of western and central New York have endured area code splits, but for now each service area maintains just a single area code.

[flv width=”400″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Dialing area code for Verizon FiOS 1-25-12.mp4[/flv]

WSYR in Syracuse answers viewers’ suggested stories.  Today, it’s about why Verizon FiOS customers are forced to dial 10 numbers for every phone call.  (1 minute)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Netflix Business Model Not Sustainable 1-25-12.mp4[/flv]

Porter Bibb, managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners LLC, and Kevin Landis, chief investment officer at First Hand Capital Management, discuss Netflix Inc.’s fourth-quarter results and outlook. Although results improved, a large amount of Netflix streamed content licensed from Starz will disappear this month.  More importantly, their long term business model is “not remotely sustainable” as programming acquisition costs continue to skyrocket, says Bibb.  Bibb and Landis speak with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”  (6 minutes)

A coalition of high tech companies including Google and Alcatel-Lucent are warning South Carolina legislators they are playing with future high tech jobs and will stifle the state’s digital economy if they grant the request of large phone and cable companies to make it difficult, if not impossible for community-owned broadband to compete.  Alcatel-Lucent, American Public Power Association, Atlantic Engineering, Fiber to the Home Council, Google, OnTrac, Southeast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, Telecommunications Industry Association, and the Utilities Telecom Council all co-signed the letter addressed to the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee:

Dear Senator McConnell and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

We, the private-sector companies and trade associations listed below, urge you to oppose H.3508 because these bills, on top of South Carolina’s existing barrier to public communications initiatives, codified in SC Code §§ 58-9-2600 et seq., will harm both the public and private sectors, stifle economic growth, prevent the creation or retention of thousands of jobs, hamper work force development and diminish the quality of life in South Carolina. In particular, these bills will hurt the private sector in several ways: by curtailing public-private partnerships, stifling private companies that sell equipment and services to public broadband providers, and impairing educational and occupational opportunities that contribute to a skilled workforce from which businesses across the state will benefit.

Clearwire's coverage map shows no service in South Carolina.

The United States continues to suffer through difficult economic times.  The private sector alone cannot lift the United States out of this crisis.  As a result, federal and state efforts are taking place across the Nation to deploy both private and public broadband infrastructure to stimulate and support economic development and jobs, especially in economically distressed areas.  For example, in South Carolina, Orangeburg and Oconee Counties have received broadband stimulus awards to bring much-needed broadband services and capabilities to communities that the private sector has chosen not to serve adequately.  H.3508, together with SC Code §§ 58-9-2600 et seq., would impose burdensome financial and regulatory requirements that will prevent public broadband providers from building the sorely needed advanced broadband infrastructure that will stimulate local businesses development, foster work force retraining, and boost employment in these economically depressed areas.

Consistent with these expressions of national unity, public entities across America, including South Carolina, are ready, willing, and able to do their share to bring affordable high-capacity broadband connectivity to all Americans. Enactment or retention of direct or effective barriers to community broadband, such as H.3508 and SC Code §§ 58-9-2600 et seq., would be counterproductive to the achievement of these goals.  These measures are also inconsistent with our country’s National Broadband Plan, which recommends that no new barriers be enacted and that existing barriers be removed.

We support strong, fair and open competition to ensure that users can enjoy the widest range of choices and opportunities.  H.3508 is a step in the wrong direction.  South Carolina should be removing barriers to public broadband initiatives rather than establishing new ones, so that high technology companies can spread and prosper into all the communities in this beautiful state.  Please oppose H.3508, repeal SC Code § 58‑9‑2600 et seq., and reject any future measures that could significantly impair municipal broadband deployments or public-private partnerships in South Carolina.

Stop the Cap! earlier noted this legislation is heavily sponsored by AT&T and other telecommunications companies already operating in South Carolina.  Several months ago, we reported on South Carolina’s woeful broadband: A Corridor of Shame, with large sections of the state without anything close to “broadband” service, even as state legislators in 2009 leased away the state’s publicly owned Educational Broadband Service-spectrum to private companies like Clearwire that don’t appear to be delivering any service in South Carolina.