Time Warner Cable is offering mobile phone providers a solution to their clogged wireless networks — clog ours instead!

Business Week notes the cable company has been aggressively pitching its broadband network to cell phone companies in New York City, which can be used to transport cell phone calls and mobile data between cell towers and the providers’ operations centers.  The “backhaul” network cell phone companies rely on to move calls and data between the cell tower nearest you and your provider’s distribution network is often the source of the worst bottlenecks, especially when those networks are connected by standard copper telephone wiring, as many still are.

The more customers sharing a low capacity copper line, the slower your data speeds and greater the chance for dropped calls.  Although some providers have expanded their fiber capacity to reach busy cell towers, many more are still stuck with copper… until now.

Time Warner Cable’s offer to offload clogged cell phone networks onto the cable company’s broadband backbone has become extraordinarily profitable to the nation’s second largest cable operator.

In fact, it has become Time Warner Cable’s fastest-growing business after revenue tripled last year, Craig Collins, senior vice president of business services told Business Week.

We are talking $3.6 billion dollars in revenue in 2012 from wireless carriers alone, according to researcher GeoResults, Inc.

“Backhaul is a growth play that we are pursuing aggressively,” Collins said. “These mobile players want to get the bandwidth they need at a cost-effective price and our structure allows them to get that pretty seamlessly.”

U.S. smartphone use has grown almost 700 percent in four years, according to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. Mobile-data volume is more than doubling annually as people use devices like the iPhone, BlackBerry and Google Inc.’s new Nexus One to send photos, watch videos and surf the Web. When networks jam, consumers face dropped calls and may find they can’t access Web pages or TV, analysts said.

The coming "exaflood" doesn't seem to worry Time Warner Cable, except when profits from consumers are at stake

Apparently the “exaflood” scare theory that suggests broadband networks are becoming hopelessly clogged does not apply to Time Warner Cable, because the company easily found plenty of free bandwidth in metropolitan New York City to profit from wireless phone traffic.

Not to be outdone, Comcast expects $1 billion from the wireless backhaul gravy train over time, according to its February 3rd conference call with investors.  Comcast is in a unique position to help ease congestion in San Francisco, where the cable operator provides service to some of the same customers who wander the city with Apple iPhones on AT&T’s overclogged Bay Area network.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt doesn’t want to limit the potential revenue to just the wireless big boys — he wants to offer service to carriers large and small:

While Time Warner Cable declined to specify if AT&T, the lone U.S. carrier for the iPhone, is a customer, the New York- based cable company says it wants to sign carriers large and small. Chief Executive Officer Glenn Britt alluded to AT&T’s extra iPhone traffic in a December conference call.

“They want to get that into a cable as fast as they can,” Britt said, referring to overloads. His company began leasing backhaul in 2008 and posted $26 million in sales last year, less than 1 percent of the company’s total sales. Collins declined to give a forecast for 2010.

All this, of course, comes ironically to those Time Warner Cable customers who were subjected to Internet Overcharging experiments from Time Warner Cable just about one year ago.  Apparently, the exaflood only applies to consumers who face enormous broadband pricing increases and/or usage limits because of “overburdened” broadband networks.

Not so overburdened that the company can’t make room for billions in new earnings from cell phone companies, of course.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Moffett Says ATT May Need Cable to Ease Network Jams 3-8-10.flv[/flv]

[Video Fixed!] Craig Moffett discusses wireless smartphone data usage trends and Time Warner Cable’s involvement in transporting mobile phone and data across its cable broadband network (5 minutes)

Mark Cuban

Mark Cuban has once again entered the debate over online video, Internet Overcharging schemes, and giant corporate mergers… and mangled it.

Cuban, who owns HD Net as well as the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, occasionally presents cable industry talking points on his blog, but quickly gets into trouble when he strays from them.

This time, Cuban is annoyed with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) over remarks the senator made about the proposed Comcast-NBC merger.  Cuban seized on comments by Franken that Comcast should put all of its television programming online.  Doing that, Cuban insists, would lead to higher prices for broadband and usage caps on it.

Where has Cuban been?  I realize the man is too wealthy to worry about the relentless rate increases Comcast and other companies force on consumers every year, but he also forgot Comcast already has a usage cap on its service, even before the feared video tidal wave arrives.

I get that no one really cares if Comcast has to spend money on capital improvements to add bandwidth to the home.  They should. Its pretty damn stupid to push consumption in a direction that will raise internet rates  to receive the same content for which there is already a phenomenal digital network in place to deliver that content.

Think about it for a minute Senator Franken. Comcast, and every large TV Provider has a digital network in place that can and does deliver gigabits of tv content perfectly,  every second of every day, to any TV set in any  home that is connected to their network. It works. Well.  What you are asking Sen Franken, is that Comcast duplicate the delivery of theirs and NBCUniversals shows on a network, the internet,  that is not, and has never been designed to handle the delivery of huge volumes of video and tv shows.

Cuban should be arguing that point with the cable industry.  TV Everywhere, the online video platform that will offer consumers access to “hundreds of TV shows and cable programming,” is their invention.  If Cuban’s fears are correct, why would the nation’s largest cable operators launch such an ambitious online video platform?

Cuban has bought into industry propaganda justifying usage caps.  There is always an excuse for rationing broadband service to boost profits.  First it was file sharing, now it’s online video causing the “serious problem” of customers using broadband service for more than just e-mail and web browsing.  Their solution – monetize it.  Usage caps and usage based billing are about preserving high profits, not protecting or increasing network capacity.  TV Everywhere proves that.

Franken does not advocate usage caps, as Cuban suggests.  The senator simply wants to be certain Comcast cannot act as a gatekeeper, determining who gets access to Comcast-NBC programming, and who does not.

Cuban should be welcome to such measures as a victim of Gatekeeper Abuse himself.  Mark, how many subscribers did you lose nationwide when Time Warner Cable unilaterally pulled the plug on your channels?

TelstraClear serves New Zealand

Some broadband customers in New Zealand are treating their monthly usage allowances as usage targets, dedicated to ringing every last penny of value out of the Internet Overcharging schemes.  That means bandwidth usage increases just because customers don’t want to leave their remaining allowance on the table at the start of a new month.

PC World New Zealand notes “caps are essentially stupid” because your allowance resets at the end of every billing cycle:

If I’m away for a month and use zero bytes, it costs just the same as if I’d used my full 20GB. This wouldn’t be so galling if some allowance were made for under-utilising my capacity. It doesn’t have to be a 1:1 thing or roll over from month to month, but some concession would be nice. Perhaps a 1:2 ratio that must be used within the next billing period; in this case an allowance to go up to 30GB in the next month seems reasonable.

That would also get around the other irritating thing about data caps, the punitive charges if you go a single byte over your limit. In the case of TelstraClear it’s $2.95 per GB or part thereof.

TelstraClear - The Internet. Overcharged.

Readers shared their two cents:

I have a 40GB cap which I regularly go over. Telscum charge $20/Gb so it hurts like hell. I tried [switching] to TelstraClear but after three months all I had from them was a bill for services I didn’t receive.

We have 20Gb shared between the three of us and it is rare to go over but we do try like you to use it all up simply because we have paid for it. There is a company in NZ that allows you to roll it over it is Trust power Kinect. A friend uses them and roughly every three months he reckons he can save a month. You do need to have your power and phone with them though and for us it would actually work out more expensive but for others it might not. I do think caps suck though and wish they could be scrapped as I think we would actually use less bandwidth.

I think this part of the world and UK is an exception when it comes to data caps. In Europe data caps are very rare (except in UK which is not typical for Europe in any aspects). Being from Sweden I was a bit surprised moving to NZ and discovered data caps as well as very slow and expensive Internet. Sweden is similar to NZ (e.g. size, population) so it’s a fair comparison. You are being ripped off!

Steven Shepard, president of Shepard Communications Group

Burlington Telecom, the municipally owned fiber to the home cable and broadband provider still reeling from a late fall financial scandal, must think outside of the box if it is to survive and grow its business in Vermont’s largest city.  That’s the assessment of Steven Shepard, president of Shepard Communications Group, a consulting firm based in Williston.

It comes as both city and state officials continue an investigation into a $17 million loan from city coffers to cushion the provider from substantial losses incurred over the past three years of operations.

Burlington Telecom has been criticized for underestimating the costs of wiring Burlington with fiber optics, something Shepard doesn’t think is unusual.

“I haven’t found one yet that has come it at budget, or even under budget,” Shepard told WCAX-TV news.

Burlington Telecom director, Chris Burns, says the company needed the additional money to cover capital expenses as it works to build its all-fiber network in every part of the city. He says the initial investment of $33 million dollars was not enough. “Some of the early estimates weren’t based on firm engineering quotes,” says Burns. “They were rough order magnitude estimates.”

Chris Burns, Burlington Telecom

Burns feels Burlington Telecom needs to expand its service area to bring in additional customers to help keep the provider up and running.  Some customers recognize Burlington Telecom is a unique, municipally-owned asset that can potentially provide services that Comcast, the dominant cable provider in the area, cannot.  Comcast operates a traditional hybrid fiber-coaxial cable network with more limited bandwidth than Burlington Telecom’s direct fiber optic connection to the home can provide.

But Shepard believes most consumers don’t know or care how service reaches them, and believes fiber optic networks alone do not bring instant success to providers.

Unless Burlington Telecom creates services that would be difficult for Comcast to deliver, they are just another telecommunications company, Shepard believes.

One suggestion from Shepard: an automatic file backup service.  Fiber optics can provide upstream speeds equivalent to downstream speeds, something Comcast cannot easily deliver.  Such a service would automatically send a copy of every file to a secured, encrypted off-site backup system.  If a customer needed the file restored, or an entire hard drive, Burlington Telecom could transmit the files on request.  Assuming privacy is protected, such a service would give consumers a potential reason to switch providers.

For broadband customers, providing upstream and downstream speeds faster and cheaper than Comcast will go a long way towards motivating consumers to switch.

[flv width=”368″ height=”228″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington Can Burlington Telecom Survive 11-05-2009.flv[/flv]

WCAX-TV Burlington interviews Steven Shepard about the ongoing viability of Burlington Telecom. (November 5, 2009 – 4 minutes)

For some Burlington Telecom customers, improving customer service is an important first step, as WCAX found:

“A few weeks ago, the whole BT was down for half hour, phone and cable. And probably internet but I don’t have that,” says Beth Cane, who lives in the city’s south end. Cane says getting through to customer service is “like trying to get into Fort Knox.”

She is not the only one complaining. Rob Lyman says he is “not happy” with Burlington Telecom’s service. “I watched a trailer for an on-Demand movie and the whole system froze up and required a reboot of BT’s box. When I called the help desk they said they’ve known about this problem for six months and didn’t know when it would be fixed,” he says.

In mid-November, a possible solution to the funding issues came from Piper Jaffray, a Minneapolis-based investment firm.  The company offered Burlington Telecom a $61.6 million dollar refinancing package that would help keep the company viable and return taxpayer funds caught up in the controversy to the city.

The proposal was met with political wrangling from the Burlington city council, which spent the last month and a half doing damage control.

“Once TelecomGate went radioactive in October, it was everyone for themselves on the city council as the finger pointing started,” Stop the Cap! reader Dwayne writes from Burlington. “The progressives are blaming the former Bush Administration’s economic catastrophe for wrecking the credit and financing markets BT needed to access, the Democrats are trying to play the role of moderates, and the Republicans are questioning why the city should compete with Comcast in the first place.  Demagoguery is universal,” he shares.

The rhetoric has grown so heated, it has stalled the city council’s approval of the loan package, to the disappointment of Mayor Bob Kiss.

[flv width=”368″ height=”228″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington Burlington Telecom Gets New Backing 11-13-2009.flv[/flv]

WCAX reports Burlington Telecom has the potential to secure new funding to refinance operations.  (November 13, 2009 – 3 minutes)

The Burlington Free Press has documented some of the language now a part of the debate:

“I do not believe that keeping Burlington Telecom alive during the absolute failure of our capitalist system was the wrong thing for any of us to do. We can’t afford to sit around. We have an interest payment (for BT’s current $33.5 million outside debt) that is due in February.” — Marrisa Caldwell, P-Ward 3, a Progressive Party member characterized as a fierce supporter of Burlington Telecom, is upset the city council delayed the approval of the loan package.

“The same forces that want to preserve the private insurance monopoly in health care by opposing the “public option” are now out to preserve the private corporate monopoly in Vermont telecommunications. The [Governor Jim Douglas (R)] administration is hell-bent on putting Burlington Telecom — which provides public sector competition to for-profit corporations such as Comcast and FairPoint — out of business, no matter what the consequences.” — John Franco, Vermont Progressive Party

“[Vermont Public Service Commissioner David O’Brien] is a political hack appointed by Douglas. They only want private-sector telecom in the state. He is out to get rid of the competition for the private companies. That’s very clear.” — Marrisa Caldwell

“I’m not going to engage in this kind of dialogue. It serves no purpose. We’re going to proceed with the investigation and work to resolve this situation.” — Deputy Public Service Commissioner Steve Wark, asked to comment on Caldwell’s remarks.

Caldwell also charged that the Free Press coverage of the BT issues has been influenced by advertising revenue from cable provider Comcast. She called the council’s vote to delay action on the new BT loan “disingenuous at best. It’s completely dysfunctional government,” she said. “They just tied the administration’s hands and hamstrung BT.”

“[On the city council’s lack of resolve and action] it’s erroneous and not well-founded. I never heard anyone say why they wouldn’t move forward (on the BT loan). It wasn’t leadership and (was) a lack of ability to collectively try to solve the problem.” Sharon Bushor, I-Ward 1, who generally supports Burlington Telecom.

“It seems only rational to do our homework on this (loan). I don’t think one of us is saying it isn’t feasible. All we’re saying is slow down and learn more.”  Councilman Paul Decelles, a Republican, called Caldwell’s remarks “destructive. I would challenge her to find one councilor who has thrown out the word ‘partisan,'” he said. “That word is coming from the administration and from the three Progressive councilors. We’re trying to do what is best for Burlington. This is the residents’ telecom. If acting in a slow, methodical way is unacceptable to some, so be it. It’s irresponsible of them to expect us to rubber-stamp this.” — Paul Decelles, R-Ward 7

“I am shocked and shocked again every time someone raises the partisan flag. This could have been a Republican or a Democratic blunder. The Progressives have been in office a long time. That’s just a fact. When we disagree, apparently, we’re being partisan, (but) it’s not personal, and it’s just not partisan.” — Nancy Kaplan, D-Ward 4

“No one is interested in destroying BT and the administration. Jonathan Leopold said Monday that (the council’s position on BT) was an attempt to destroy the administration. From my own perspective, that’s not the case at all. The first order is to take care of BT, but there have been missteps by the administration.” Mary Kehoe (D-Ward 6) said she has concerns about the loan proposal from Piper Jaffray, particularly the language that indicates the loan repayment will come from Burlington Telecom revenues in the form of city budget appropriations.  “If (BT is) short, what then?  How do we know BT is going to have the capacity?”  She said she voted to delay a decision on the loan, “because we want information. We’ve not been getting the information, and they want us to sign off. That’s not going to happen anymore.” — Mary Kehoe, D-Ward 6

“This is ridiculous. Burlington is starting to look more and more like Washington, with the level of partisan wrangling reaching an intensity that I’ve never seen before in my 15 years of living in Vermont.” — One resident commenting on the coverage and the back and forth.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPTZ Plattsburgh Burlington Telecom Editorial Oct 28 2009.flv[/flv]

WPTZ in Plattsburgh, which is part of the Burlington television market, ran a station editorial on the Burlington Telecom matter on October 28th.  (1 minute)

Phillip "He Who Shall Not Be Named" Dampier

I’ve tangled with Todd Spangler, a columnist at cable industry trade magazine Multichannel News before.  This morning, I noticed Todd suddenly added me to the list of people he follows on Twitter.  Now I see why.

Todd is back with another one of his cheerleading sessions for Internet Overcharging schemes, promoting consumption-based billing schemes as inevitable, backed up by his industry friends who subscribe and help pay his salary and a guy from a company whose bread is buttered selling the equipment to “manage” the Money Party.

GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham and Broadband Reports’ Karl Bode don’t pay his salary, so it’s no surprise he disagrees them.  Oh, and I’m in the mix as well, but not by name.  Amusingly, I’m “the StoptheCap! guy, who’s making a career directing his bloggravation at The Man.”

Todd doesn’t consider himself “an edgy blogger type because, as everyone knows, I am The Man,” he writes.

Actually, Todd, you are Big Telecom’s Man, paid by an industry trade magazine to write industry-friendly cozy warm and fuzzies that don’t rock the boat too much and threaten those yearly subscription fees, as well as your paid position there.  I’ve yet to read a trade publication that succeeds by disagreeing with industry positions, and I still haven’t after today.

Unlike Todd, I am not paid one cent to write any of what appears here.  This site is entirely consumer-oriented and financed with no telecom industry involvement, no careers to make or break, and this fight is not about me.  I’m just a paying customer like most of our readers.

This site is about good players in the broadband industry who deserve to make good profits and enjoy success providing an important service to subscribers at a fair price, and about those bad players who increasingly seek to further monetize their broadband offerings by charging consumers more for the same service.  As one of the few telecom products nearly immune from the economic downturn, some providers are willing to leverage their barely-competitive marketplace position to cash in.

It’s about who has control over our broadband future – certain corporate entities and individuals who openly admit their desire to act as a controlling gatekeeper, or consumers who pay for the service.  It’s also about organizing consumers to push back when industry propaganda predominates in discussions about broadband issues, and we know where we can find plenty of that.  Finally it’s about evangelizing broadband, not in a religious sense, but promoting its availability even if it means finding alternatives to private providers who leave parts of urban and rural America unserved because it just doesn’t produce enough profit.

Let’s derail Todd’s latest choo-choo arguments.

“The idea of charging broadband customers based on what they use is still in play.” — That’s never been in play.  True consumption billing would mean consumers pay exactly for what they use.  If a consumer doesn’t turn on their computer that month, there would be no charge.  That’s not what is on offer.  Instead, providers want to overcharge consumers with speed –and– usage-based tiers that, in the case of Time Warner Cable, were priced enormously higher than current flat-rate plans.  Customers would be threatened with overlimit fees and penalties for exceeding a paltry tier proposed by the company last April.  The ‘Stop the Cap! guy’ didn’t generate thousands of calls and involvement by a congressman and United States senator writing blog entries.  Impacted consumers instinctively recognized a Money Party when they saw one, and drove the company back.  A certain someone at Multichannel News said Time Warner Cable was “taking one for the team.”  At least then you were open about whose side you were on.

“Verizon just wants to make more money by charging more for the same service. What an outrage! It’s not like the company spent billions and billions to build out their network and needs to recoup that investment.” — Recouping an investment is easily accomplished by providing customers with an attractive, competitively priced service that delivers better speed and more reliability than the competition.  Provide that in an era when fiber optic technology and bandwidth costs are declining, and not only does the phone company survive the coming copper-wire obsolescence, it also benefits from the positive press opinion leaders who clamor for your service will generate to attract even more business.  Stacey’s comments acknowledged the positive vibes consumers have towards Verizon’s fiber investment — positive vibes they are now willing to throw away.

Verizon FiOS already gets to recoup its investment from premium-priced speed tiers that are favored by those heavy broadband users.  Most will happily hand over the money and stay loyal, right up until you ask for too much.  Theoretically charging your best customers $140 a month for 50Mbps/20Mbps service and then limiting it to, say, 250GB of usage will be an example of asking for too much.  Verizon didn’t get into the fiber optics business believing their path to return on investment was through consumption billing for broadband.

“Today’s broadband networks — not even FiOS — are not constructed to deliver peak theoretical demand and adding more capacity to the home or farther upstream will require investment.” — Readers, today’s newest excuse for overcharging you for your broadband access is “peak theoretical demand.”  It used to be peer-to-peer, then online videos, and now this variation on the “exaflood” nonsense.  It sounds like Todd has been reading some vendor’s press release about network management.  Peak theoretical demand has never been the model by which residential broadband networks have been constructed.  The Bell System constructed a phone network that could withstand enormous call volumes during holidays or other occasional events.  Broadband networks were designed for “best effort” broadband.  If we’d been living under this the peak demand broadband model, cable modem service and middle mile DSL networks wouldn’t be constructed to force hundreds of households to share one fixed rate connection back to the provider.  It’s this design that causes those peak usage slowdowns on overloaded networks that work fine at other times.

No residential broadband provider is building or proposing constructing peak theoretical demand networks that are good enough to include a service and speed guarantee.  Instead, cable providers are moving to affordable DOCSIS 3 upgrades, which continue the “shared model” cable modems have always relied on, except the pipeline we all share can be exponentially larger and deliver faster speeds.  Will this model work for decades to come?  Perhaps not, but it’s generally the same principle Time Warner Cable is using to deliver HD channels quietly ‘on demand’ to video customers without completely upgrading their facilities.  You don’t hear them talk about consumption billing for viewing, yet similar network models are in place for both.

“Is it fairer to recover that necessary investment in additional capacity from the heaviest users, who are driving the most demand?” Apparently so, because providers already do that by charging premium pricing for faster service tiers attractive to the heaviest users.  But Todd, as usual, ignores the publicly-available financial reports which tell a very different tale – one where profits run in the billions of dollars for broadband service, where many providers Todd feels urgently need to upgrade their networks are, in reality, spending a lower percentage on their network infrastructure costs, all at the same time bandwidth costs are either dropping or fixed, making it largely irrelevant how much any particular user consumes. What matters is how much of a percentage of profits providers are willing to put back into their networks.

Do people like Todd really believe consumers aren’t capable of reading financial reports and watching executives speak with investors about the fact their networks are well-able to handle traffic growth (Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable CEO), that consumption based billing represents potential increased revenue for companies that deny they even have a traffic management problem (Verizon), or that broadband is like a drug that company officials want to encourage consumers to keep using without unfriendly usage caps, limits, or consumption billing (Cablevision.)

“From 7 to 10 p.m., we’re all consumption kings,” Sandvine CEO David Caputo told Todd. “Bandwidth caps don’t do anything for you.” The implication of this finding is that “the Internet is really becoming like the electrical grid in the sense that it’s only peak that matters,” he added. — I would have been asking Todd to pick me up off the floor had Caputo said anything different.  His bread and butter, just like Todd’s, is based on pushing his business agenda.  Sandvine happens to be selling “network management” equipment that can throttle traffic, perhaps an endangered business should Net Neutrality become law in the United States.  His business depends on selling providers on the idea that sloppy usage caps don’t solve the problem — his equipment will.  Todd has no problem swallowing that argument because it helps him make his.  The rest of us who don’t work for a trade publication or a net throttler know otherwise.

What would actually be fair to consumers is to take some of those enormous profits and plow them back into the business to maintain, expand, and enhance services that deliver the gravy train of healthy revenue.  In fact, by providing even higher levels of service, they can rake in even larger profits.  You have to spend money to earn money, though.

Technology doesn’t sit still, which is why provider arguments about increased traffic leading to increased costs don’t quite ring true when financial reports to shareholders say exactly the opposite.  That’s because network engineers get access to new, faster, better networking technology, often at dramatically lower prices than what they paid for less-able technology just a few years earlier.  With new customers on the way, particularly for the cable industry picking up those dropping ADSL service from the phone company, there’s even more revenue to be had.

Or, do you think spreading the cost across all subscribers, thereby raising the flat-rate pricing for everyone, is the better option? Note that Comcast did this to an extent when it raised the monthly lease fee for cable modems by $2 (to $5), citing costs associated with its DOCSIS 3.0 buildout.

The industry already thinks so.  As we’ve documented, cable broadband providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast (and Charter next year), are already raising prices across the board for broadband customers in many areas.  Does that mean the talk about Internet Overcharging schemes can be laid to rest?  Of course not.  They want their rate increases -and- consumption based billing for even fatter profits.

If, on the other hand, you want to pretend that all-you-can-eat plans are sustainable at today’s price tiers, you’d be kind of clueless.

Every ISP maintains an Acceptable Use Policy that provides appropriate sanctions for those users who are so far out of the consumption mainstream, they cannot even see the rest of us.  Slapping consumption based billing on consumers with steep overlimit fees and penalties punishes everyone, and the provider keeps the proceeds, and not necessarily for network upgrades.

If Todd believes consumers will sit still for profiteering by changing a model that has handsomely rewarded providers at today’s prices, with plenty of room to spare for appropriate upgrades, he’ll be the clueless one.  The cable industry’s ability to overreach never ceases to amaze me.  Every 15 years or so, legislative relief has to put them back in their place.  It’s what happens when just a handful of providers decide it is easier to hop on board the Internet Overcharging Express and cash those subscriber checks than actually engage in all-out competitive warfare with one another – keeping prices in check and onerous overcharges out of the picture.

Nobody needs to know my name to understand this.  But some of his provider friends already know the names of our readers, because PR disasters do not happen in a vacuum.  They are also acquainted with two other names: Rep. Eric Massa and Sen. Charles Schumer.  If they want to go hog wild with Internet Overcharging schemes, that list of names will get much, much longer.