Suddenlink, one of America’s smaller cable operators, has been undergoing a transformation as it tries to meet expectations of today’s cable subscribers and match whatever phone company competition comes their way.  While some of the upgrades are customer-friendly, others pose ominous signs for the future — particularly with respect to Internet Overcharging broadband customers.

Let’s explore:

The Good — New Broadband Speeds, New DVR, New Investments

Suddenlink cuts the ribbon on its new store in El Dorado. (Courtesy: Suddenlink FYI)

In parts of Suddenlink’s service area, particularly in Texas, the company is moving most of its cable service to a digital platform.  This transition is designed to open up additional space for more HD channels, keep up with broadband demands, and open the door for additional on-demand programming.

In Nacogdoches, Suddenlink announced it was adopting an all-digital TV lineup.  Starting this week, the company is offering subscribers free digital adapters — also known as “DigitaLinks,” to enable continued viewing on analog television sets that do not have a set top box or digital tuning capability.  Every subscriber purchasing more than the broadcast basic package (that only includes local stations and a handful of cable networks) will either need a digital tuner-ready television, a set top box, or a DigitaLink device to continue watching.

What is good about this transition is that Suddenlink is not charging customers a monthly fee for the adapters, either now or in the future.  That contrasts with other cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable that have handed customers a set top box or a digital adapter they will begin charging for after a year or two.

Suddenlink expects to invest nearly $120 million this year in Texas, and by the end of the year will have invested nearly a half-billion dollars in the state since 2006.

Texas is extremely important to Suddenlink.  The third largest cable company in Texas serves about 450,000 households and approximately 27,000 business customers in Amarillo, Lubbock, Abilene, Bryan-College Station, Midland, San Angelo, Georgetown, Tyler, Victoria, Conroe, Kingwood and Nacogdoches.

Suddenlink's New TiVo DVR

The company has also lit new fiber connections to handle data communications, primarily for business customers, and is upgrading its broadband service to fully support DOCSIS 3, which will deliver faster speeds and less congested service.

Customers in the state are also among the first to get access to a new and improved DVR box built on a TiVo software platform.  Suddenlink’s “Premiere DVR” service ($17/mo) is now available in Midland, Floydada, Plainview, Amarillo, Canyon, and Tulia.

The Bad — “Suddenlink Residential Internet Service is for Entertainment” Purposes Only

The Humboldt County, Calif. Journal's "Seven-o-heaven" comic strip commented on Suddenlink's problems. (Click the image to see the entire strip.)

Do you take your broadband service seriously, or is it simply another entertainment option in your home?  If you answered the latter, this story may not be so surprising.

In Humboldt County, Calif., broadband users started noticing their favorite web pages stopped updating on a regular basis.  At one point, a blogger in McKinleyville noticed he couldn’t manage to post comments on his own website.  But things got much worse when several web pages started reaching customers with other users’ names (and occasionally e-mail addresses) already filled in on login screens and comment forms.

It seems Suddenlink started to cache web content in the far northern coastal county of California, meaning the first customer to visit a particular website triggered Suddenlink’s local servers to store a copy of the page, so that future customers headed to the same website received the locally-stored copy, not the actual live page.

But the caching software went haywire.

Web visitors began to receive mobile versions of web sites even though they were using home computers at the time.  Some were asked if they wanted to download a copy of a web page instead of viewing it.  And many others discovered websites were customized for earlier visitors.

While the caching problem was irritating, the privacy breaches Suddenlink enabled were disturbing, as was the initial total lack of response from Suddenlink officials when the problem first started in late January.

The Journal finally reached a representative who provided this explanation:

Suddenlink Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications Pete Abel knew that a cache system had recently been installed in Humboldt County, but was unaware of the particular problems reported by users. After speaking with the Journal and other Suddenlink employees, though, he released a statement explaining what appeared to have happened.

According to the release, the cache system was installed in Humboldt County on Thursday, Jan. 27 — the very day that users began experiencing problems — and was intended as an interim solution to relatively low Internet speeds in Humboldt County. The system, it said, was able to cache only unsecure websites — those which, unlike almost all reputable banking or commerce systems — do not encrypt communications. But the company eventually discovered the problems that its customers had been reporting and, having fruitlessly worked with its vendor to find a solution, turned the system off on Monday.

“The good news is that secure Web site pages will not have been cached,” Abel said in a follow-up call to the Journal. “And I have been assured 100 ways from Sunday that never would have happened.”

Andrew Jones, who runs a blog with his Suddenlink broadband account, tried to opt out of the web caching and received an interesting response, in writing, from a Suddenlink representative.  He was told he could not opt out of cached web pages with a residential account because, “the residential service is for entertainment only.”

Jones was told he would have to upgrade to a business account to escape the cache.

“If a small local radio station intermittently went off air for multiple days, the radio host would be apologizing and explaining the situation,” Jones wrote the Journal. “If a large utility company experienced sporadic power outages, people could hear a recording on a toll-free number to learn the cause and about ongoing repairs. What does an Internet provider do when web access becomes spotty and begins serving customers old copies of web pages? The company gets back to you in a couple days and suggests you pay more if you don’t like its recently degraded services.”

The Ugly — Suddenlink’s New Usage Meter Suggests 43GB is An Appropriate Amount of Usage for Standard Internet, 87GB is Plenty for Their $60 Premium Package

Although Suddenlink has not formally adopted an Internet Overcharging scheme of usage caps or metered billing, the company is sending automated e-mail messages to customers who exceed what they call “typical monthly usage for customers in your package.”  The e-mail tells customers they may be infected with a virus or someone else could be using your connection without your permission.  Boo!  For the uninitiated, this kind of message can bring fear that their computer has been invaded, either with malicious malware or the neighbor next door.

Customers have also received letters in the mail from the company telling them to check out their new “usage meter.”  Several have been sharing how much they’ve racked up in usage during the month on Broadband Reports.  One customer managed 243GB while another looking at the company’s super premium 107/5Mbps package managed a whopping 786GB.

Although the wording of the message has strenuously avoided telling customers they are wrong for this amount of usage, the implication is clear to many: they are counting your gigabytes and identifying the outliers.  One customer called it Suddenlink’s “You’re actually using your connection, and we really wish you wouldn’t”-message.

“No one with an ounce of sense would pay for a 20/3Mbps connection and only use 78 GB in a month. Let’s hope they’re just making cute suggestions, not easing us into a cap, because that just won’t fly,” wrote one West Virginia customer.

Another in Georgetown, Texas did the math and made it clear 43GB better not turn out to be a cap because it means customers can barely use the service they are paying for.

“It’s way too low. I got 10Mbps [service] because of price/value and not because I use less than 43GB,” he writes. “[Even] if I downloaded at 1.25MB/s for 30 days straight (1.25 * 2592000 seconds) I could [still] grab 3.164TB.”

Clyde (Courtesy: KUSH Radio/Donna Judd)

Meanwhile, some controversy over the quality of Suddenlink’s service during the upgrade process had some residents in Cushing, Okla., up in arms at a recent city meeting.  Lorene Clyde complained Suddenlink’s “new and improved” service is worse than ever.

“I’m tired of paying for a service I’m not getting,” Clyde said.  “And the Suddenlink commercials – they are like rubbing salt in a wound.”

KUSH-AM reporters were on hand to cover the event, noting Clyde was not the only one complaining.  The radio station noted that “the buzz around town echoes her sentiments – from the ‘mildly irritated’ to the ‘downright mad’ – citizens have been complaining.  Not only have they been complaining to Suddenlink – as difficult as that may be (the call center is in Tyler, Texas) – but to city leaders.”

What Clyde and others may not have realized is that Suddenlink officials were in attendance and were able to apologize for the problems, but a growing consensus among consumers and city leaders is that a broad-based refund for the poor service was warranted.

Commissioner Joe Manning said while he appreciated the promise to figure out the problem, it wasn’t good enough to just apologize and promise – that subscribers’ bills should be adjusted to reflect the poor service.

Commissioners Carey Seigle and Tommy Johnson agreed with Manning.  Seigle pointed out it would be “good P.R.” to give some sort of rebate across the board to subscribers while Johnson complained that the original “upgrade” was only going to take a few weeks and now 8 months later – things are not better, but worse, noted the radio station.

Suddenlink officials on hand said they did not have that kind of authority, but continued to promise things are going to get better.  “I pledge to you,” one said, “We will find it [the problem] and fix it.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJTV Lubbock Borrowing Wi-Fi 2-7-11.flv[/flv]

KJTV-TV in Lubbock, Texas talked with Suddenlink about the growing trend of neighbors “borrowing” neighbors’ unsecured Wi-Fi networks.  Other than the accidental recommendation that consumers should “invest in Internet spyware” to keep your computer safe, the report does a fair job of shining a light on a practice that could have financial consequences if the provider implements an Internet Overcharging scheme.  (2 minutes)

With all of the tumultuous events in the Middle East, the debate over whether to allow Al Jazeera’s English language service on America’s cable systems has begun again, with commentators on the right accusing the channel of being the next best thing to Osama bin Laden anchoring the six o’clock news, and some on the left demanding carriage just to make a point.  But the real question left unanswered is, “how much is this channel going to cost cable subscribers?”

Al Jazeera English managing director Al Ansteys has been negotiating with Comcast and Time Warner Cable, America’s largest cable operators, to find out — and ultimately win carriage of the 24 hour English-language news network on both cable systems.

Arriving at Comcast headquarters in Philadelphia with 13,000 signed petitions for Al Jazeera English, Ansteys said the sheer number of requests should extinguish any doubt that Americans want better coverage of events in the Middle East from the network.

Nearly 8,000 Time Warner Cable subscribers signed petitions and another 1,000 Cablevision subscribers echoed the sentiment.

Time Warner Cable already has experience carrying international news outlets.

The company recently expanded the reach of Russia Today (RT), a 24-hour news network in English based in Moscow and funded by the Russian government.  The channel is the equivalent of an external television service to compliment The Voice of Russia (formerly Radio Moscow), a station familiar to every shortwave radio listener.  Although the Russian government goes out of its way to declare the RT’s journalistic independence, the firewall between the Kremlin and channel’s newsroom has been tissue-thin at times.  Reporters have learned how to cover certain stories, and which ones to avoid.  RT’s news and current affairs programming compliment the foreign policy priorities of Kremlin.

RT’s coverage of the Middle East is occasionally anti-American to the point of stridency.  Some reports on the channel infer the United States government has thrown its former allies under the bus, others claim everything Washington does in the region has to be reviewed by Jerusalem before passing muster.  Message: the Obama Administration’s policies are out of touch, unreliable, and incoherent.  You can get much the same view from Sean Hannity any evening on Fox News, but RT is no right-wing paradise.  Liberal American talk radio host Thom Hartmann has a regular show on RT — The Big Picture.  The news channel also devotes a considerable amount of time talking to fringe commentators across the ideological spectrum, and even has spent time with 9/11 conspiracy theorists.  When that is finished, it’s time for the weather in Minsk.

Russia Today

The presentation is light years ahead of the shortwave service, whose studios still have all the acoustical qualities of a subway station restroom.  Posh British accents and modern graphics make the channel blend in nicely with other international news operations like France 24, CBC Newsworld, BBC World, or CNN International.

But the bigger question is why I, and other Time Warner customers are getting another channel few asked to receive.  Quietly “soft-launched” in western New York on a digital channel in the 100’s, RT’s sudden presence wasn’t likely to draw much attention — and it hasn’t, — all part of its larger plan to expand cable carriage nationwide. If the channel (and others) succeed, it will be able to directly reach American audiences with a Russian point of view, without an American gatekeeper.

As of last month, the effort expanded on radio as well.  New York City area radio listeners can now receive The Voice of Russia 24 hours a day on their AM radio dial, thanks to an agreement with WNSW 1430-AM in Newark, N.J., which has effectively leased out the station to Moscow.

This is the dream many international broadcasters have had for years — reaching an American audience that routinely ignores international voices.  During the Cold War, literally millions of watts were thrown back and forth as western stations fought eastern bloc jamming to deliver the Voice of America and Radio Liberty.  The Soviet Union and their satellites carpeted the shortwave bands with English language programming from stations as diverse as Radio Moscow, Radio Tirana, Albania and the Voice of Mongolia.  But it was a battle few Americans paid attention to, content to listen to local AM and FM stations.

As for Al Jazeera English — it is a credible news operation measured against today’s definition of “cable news” and delivers top rate coverage of the Arab Spring — the ongoing transformation of governments across the region.  If anything, their coverage revels in the new democratic possibilities open to the region. It’s not the BBC, but then again what passes for cable news in the United States these days isn’t either.

Al Jazeera makes the assumption you are already familiar with the region, and risks talking over the heads of those who are not, but wild claims that the network is some propaganda arm of Osama bin Laden or other assorted Islamic extremist groups just don’t match the programming.  In fact, one is much more likely to see anti-American rhetoric on RT than on Al Jazeera English, which is completely preoccupied with events closer to the Arab world.

The tone is far more Fareed Zakaria than Glenn Beck.  If you don’t know who those people are, you aren’t going to watch the channel anyway.  And there is the larger point — do we need more channels on the budget-busting cable dial?

Should Al Jazeera be allowed on America’s cable and satellite lineups?  Of course, especially if there is room for channels like RT or CCTV9, the Beijing-based 24-hour English language network from the People’s Republic of China, both seen on many Time Warner cable systems.  But they’d better come free of charge or sold a-la-carte if they are not.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTXF Philadelphia Comcast Al Jazeera Debate 2-24-11.flv[/flv]

WTXF-TV in Philadelphia aired this screamfest debate over Al Jazeera English in the United States that completely misses an important point: who is going to pay for it? (6 minutes)

Time Warner Cable’s custom-written bill banning community-owned broadband networks in North Carolina this afternoon received a favorable vote in the Public Utilities Committee — the first to consider the bill.

Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) decided that openly distorting the record of success community broadband has had would be a good way to proceed.  In comments before a jam-packed room this afternoon, Avila claimed fiber optic broadband systems have a long history of “failures,” which is ironic considering her promise to exempt these so-called failures from her bill’s anti-competitive regulatory regime.

Honestly, it was the first time we can recall a sitting legislator openly trashing her own state’s advanced broadband network successes.  (You can’t fault her for going all out for her friends at Time Warner Cable, but you can hold her accountable at the next election.)

Avila would never and could never admit the truth after wading this far in: these state of the art fiber networks are successful enough to have waiting lists from time to time just to get service installed.  Even those who don’t subscribe are benefiting. Just look at GreenLight, operated by the community of Wilson.  While GreenLight subscribers benefit from broadband far superior to what the cable company offers, those staying with Time Warner have seen an end to relentless annual rate increases.  Apparently Ms. Avila wants you to pay higher cable bills now and forever.

Republicans and Democrats from rural districts harshly criticized the proposed legislation for bringing no answers to the perennial problem of inadequate broadband in rural North Carolina communities, as well as the fact this bill contains customized exemptions to protect Time Warner and other Big Telecom companies from regulatory requirements dumped on community networks like a ton of bricks.

That’s favorable treatment for the cable company Ms. Avila seeks to protect at all costs.

Avila

Despite the important arguments raised by those objecting to the bill, the Committee Chair gaveled the debate to a sudden close, held a perfunctory voice vote and adjourned the session without a recorded vote.  That leaves citizens of the state with no idea how individual members voted.  Apparently they do not want to hear from unhappy constituents.

The Time Warner Cable Legislative Railroad next stops at the Finance Committee.

Although Rep. Julia Howard (R-Davie, Iredell), senior chair of that committee and Avila promise changes in the bill to protect existing community broadband operations, we are more than a little skeptical.

Last week, Avila called a meeting of city officials and several Big Telecom companies, including Time Warner and CenturyLink, partly to discuss exemption issues.  To give readers an idea of just how far Avila is in Time Warner’s corner, minutes into the meeting, she turned it over to the lobbyist from Time Warner Cable for the duration.

That’s a public-private partnership any voter in North Carolina should take a dim view about.  If Ms. Avila finds her work in the legislature too difficult to handle, perhaps she can find another line of work.  The only good thing about turning over your legislative responsibilities to the cable company is it cuts out the middleman.

Howard

The fact is, Time Warner has no interest in protecting -your- interests in North Carolina, much less those of the cutting edge fiber networks now up and running in the state.  They want them gone… or better yet, available for their acquisition at fire sale prices.  Yes, they even made sure of that in their bill, which guarantees a city can sell a fiber network hounded out of business to a Big Telecom company without a vote.

Exempting existing networks has turned out to be a highly subjective notion for Ms. Avila anyway.  She originally claimed to exempt them in her bill when it was introduced, but then subjected them to crushing regulation the cable companies do not face.  Any community contemplating starting a new network for their citizens can forget it either way.  Time Warner will not hear of it.

Although a growing number of Republicans and Democrats see Avila’s bill as a classic example of corporate overreach, without your voice demanding this bill be dropped, there still may be enough members of the state legislature willing to do the cable industry’s bidding.  If you make it clear that may cost them your support in the next election, they can be persuaded to do the right thing and vote NO.

But time is running out.  Your job is to begin melting down the phone lines of the Finance Committee members starting this afternoon.  Call and e-mail them and make it absolutely clear you expect them to vote NO on H129 and that you are closely watching this issue.  Ask each legislator for a commitment on how they plan to vote.

Finance Committee Members

Can’t get enough Jersey Shore?

Customers of Verizon FiOS can now watch selected full length episodes of that, and several other MTV series free of charge on a new online video website for authenticated cable/satellite customers.

MTVNow delivers at least a handful of episodes of their regular series — mostly reality shows.

“It’s clear that today’s consumers want to access their video programming anytime, any place, and Verizon continues to make that possible with online programming from partners like MTV Networks,” said Terry Denson, vice president of content strategy and acquisition for Verizon.

FiOS TV customers will also get access to MTV Networks’ Comedy Central and Nickelodeon online soon.

Verizon customers will be authenticated by using their registered Verizon Online user names and passwords that verify they are existing pay-television subscribers.  If a customer only receives Verizon’s broadband service, they will not be able to access the service.

It’s part of the industry’s TV Everywhere project designed to stop customers from cord cutting their cable/satellite television packages.  By locking out access to popular shows, providers hope to avoid losing customers to a broadband environment where television shows are available free for watching.

But Verizon still faces licensing restrictions that limit the number of shows available to viewers at any one time.  Only about seven episodes of Jersey Shore, for example, were available.  Other series were limited to the last month of programming — a very familiar experience for Hulu visitors.  So are the commercials.

In addition to “Jersey Shore” and “Teen Mom 2,” Verizon and MTV Networks are providing FiOS TV customers with online access to MTV shows like ” Teen Cribs,” “True Life,” “The Real World: New Orleans” and “I Used To Be Fat.”  MTV will make additional shows available online soon including “The Hard Times of RJ Berger,” “Cribs,” “The Real World: Las Vegas” and “Rob Dyrdek’s Fantasy Factory.”

Verizon customers who subscribe to FiOS TV are able to watch the MTV shows on their personal computers or laptops – at home or away – using any broadband connection.  Using their Verizon Online user names and passwords, FiOS customers can access the online programming at either www.verizon.com/fiostvonline or www.mtv.com/tve.