The Wall Street Journal attempted to attach its own conventional wisdom in an opinion piece about cloud-based streaming that suggests Canada “is just ahead of the U.S. in introducing usage-based pricing [and] has bloggers and politicians accusing Bell Canada of unconscionable ‘profiteering’ from usage caps. The company, they rage, is reaping huge fees for additional units of bandwidth that cost Bell Canada virtually nothing to provide.”

The author, Holman Jenkins, is a regular on the ultra-business friendly editorial page of the Journal, and has been raging against Net Neutrality and for higher Internet pricing for several years now.

Jenkins’ latest argument, just like his earlier ones on this subject, falls apart almost immediately:

This critique, which is common, could not more comprehensively miss the point. Another car on the roadway poses no additional cost on the road builder; it imposes a cost on other road users. Likewise, network operators don’t use overage penalties to collect their marginal costs but to shape user behavior so a shared resource won’t be overtaxed.

Jenkins needs to spend less time supporting his friends at companies like AT&T and Bell and more time exploring road construction costs.  If you are going to try and make an analogy about traffic, at least get your premise straight.

Before debunking his usage-based billing meme, let’s talk about road construction for a moment.  In fact, the kind of traffic volume on a roadway has everything to do with what kind of road is constructed.  In the appropriately named “Idiots’ Guide to Highway Maintenance,” C.J.Summers explores different types of road surfaces for different kinds of traffic.  Light duty roads in rural areas can get results with oil and stone.  Medium duty side streets and avenues are frequently paved with asphalt, and heavy duty interstates routinely use concrete.  Traffic studies are performed routinely to assist engineers in choosing the right material to get the job done.

Digital information doesn’t wear down cables or airwaves.  If broadband traffic occupies 5 or 95 percent of a digital pipeline, it makes no difference to the pipeline.  Jenkins is right when he says Internet Overcharging schemes are all about shaping user behavior, but for the wrong reasons.

Jenkins thinks Netflix and other high bandwidth applications face usage-based pricing to allow providers to keep their broadband pipes from getting overcongested:

Netflix is one of the companies most threatened by usage-based pricing, and it has quickly geared up a lobbying team in Washington. In a recent letter to shareholders, CEO Reed Hastings downplayed the challenge to Netflix’s video-streaming business. In the long run, he’s probably right—the market will settle on flat-rate pricing once the video-intensive user has become the average user.

In the meantime, however, Netflix shareholders had better look out.

In fact, providers are reaping the rewards of their popular broadband services, but almost uniformly are less interested in investing in them to match capacity.  It is as if the AT&Ts of this world assumed broadband users would consume    T H I S    M U C H   and that’s it — time to collect profits.  When upgrade investments don’t even keep up as a percentage of revenue earned over past years, the inevitable result will be a custom-made excuse to impose usage limits and consumption billing to manage the “data tsunami.”

Canadian providers did not slap usage caps on broadband users because Netflix arrived — they lowered them. Telling users they cannot consume the same amount of bandwidth they used a month earlier has nothing to do with managing traffic, it’s about protecting their video businesses by discouraging consumers from even contemplating using the competition.  Jenkins works for a company that understands that perfectly well.  News Corp., has a major interest in Hulu as well as satellite television services in Europe and Oceania.

The rest of Jenkins’ piece is as smug as it is wrong.  In attacking Net Neutrality supporters as “crazies” trying to defend their “hobby horse,” Jenkins claims public interest groups are pouting about usage-based billing, too:

All along, what the net neut crazies have lacked in intellectual consistency they’ve made up in fealty to the business interests of companies that fear their services would become unattractive if users had one eye on a bandwidth meter. That’s why opposition to “Internet censorship” morphed into opposition to anything that might price or allocate broadband capacity rationally. But such a stance is rapidly becoming untenable, whether the beneficiary is Google, with its advertising-based business model, or Netflix, Apple, Amazon and others who hope to capitalize on the entertainment-streaming opportunity.

All are betting heavily on the cloud. All need to start dealing realistically with the question of how the necessary bandwidth will be paid for.

Part of Jenkins’ theory calls back on his usual Google bashing — he perceives the company as a parasite stealing the resources bandwidth providers paid for, while forgetting the success of their businesses ultimately depends on content producers (who indeed pay billions for their own bandwidth) making the service interesting enough for consumers to buy.

But there is nothing rational about Jenkins’ support for Internet Overcharging.  North Americans already pay some of the highest prices in the world for the slowest service.  While providers attempt to lick the last drop of profits out of increasingly outdated networks (hello DSL!), their future strategy is less about expanding those networks and more about constraining the use of them.

Jenkins is ignorant of the fact several of Net Neutrality’s strongest proponents, Public Knowledge being a classic example, have not historically opposed usage-based pricing, much to my personal consternation.  As we’ve argued (and I submit proved), Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging go hand in hand for revenue hungry providers.  If they cannot discriminate, throttle, or block traffic they consider to be costly to their networks, they can simply cap demand on the customer side with usage limits or confiscatory pricing designed to discourage use.  That is precisely what Canadians are fighting against.

It’s all made possible by a broken free market.  Instead of hearty competition, most North Americans endure a duopoly — a phone company and a cable company.  Both, particularly in Canada, have vested interests in video entertainment, television and cable networks, and other entertainment properties.  As long as these interests exist, companies will always resist challenges to their core business models, such as cable TV cord cutting.  It’s as simple as that.

The “realistic” way bandwidth will be paid for escapes Jenkins because his quest for condescension takes precedence over actual facts.  Content producers already pay enormous sums to bandwidth providers like Akamai, Amazon, and other cloud-based distribution centers.  Consumers pay handsomely for their broadband connections, part of which covers the costs of delivering that content to their homes and businesses.  AT&T and other providers don’t deserve to get paid twice for the same content.  Indeed, they should be investing some of their enormous profits in building a new generation of fiber-based broadband pipelines to keep their customers happy.  Because no matter how much data you cram down a glass fiber, the ‘data friction’ will never cause those cables to go down in flames, unlike Jenkins’ lapsed-from-reality arguments.

 

 

Time Warner Cable is finally getting around to announcing its DOCSIS 3 “wideband” broadband upgrades in the Triad region of North Carolina.  Already available in Charlotte, Time Warner will offer 30/5Mbps service for $10 more than its Turbo service, and 50/5Mbps will also be available for $99.95 a month.

Customers in High Point will be the first to get access to the service in the spring, while other Triad cities will get the service later this year, according to a news release from the cable company.

The Triad region was part of Time Warner Cable’s 2009 Internet Overcharging experiment, which would have tripled pricing for unlimited broadband service to $150.  An outcry from residents forced the company to shelve its plans.

Triad residents are not impressed by Time Warner’s foot-dragging ever since.

Stop the Cap! reader Gene in Greensboro hasn’t forgotten the cable company promised speed upgrades in 2009 as part of its usage cap experiment.

“Other cities in North Carolina that were not on the list for their ripoff pricing got the upgrades while Greensboro drags at the same speeds we’ve had for several years now,” Gene says. “I think this announcement has more to do with the imminent arrival of AT&T’s U-verse in some areas of the Triad.”

AT&T is slowly expanding its U-verse footprint in central North Carolina.

The state is currently embroiled in a political debate over Time Warner-sponsored legislation that would largely eliminate community-owned broadband competition across North Carolina.

“I would trade Time Warner and AT&T for Wilson’s GreenLight fiber in a second,” Gene says. “Both AT&T and Time Warner are playing a snail’s game of incremental upgrades in this state that makes us also-ran when compared to New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut.”

Time Warner Cable Broadband Pricing, North Carolina

Road Runner® Broadband (10 Mbps download, 1 Mbps upload)
Standalone	$57.95/mo
With Broadcast/Basic Cable and/or Digital Home Phone	$52.95/mo
With Digital TV	$47.95/mo
Road Runner® Broadband Turbo (15 Mbps download, 1 Mbps upload) Requires subscription to Road Runner® Broadband	Additional $9.95/mo to Broadband rate
Road Runner® Broadband Extreme – Charlotte (30 Mbps download, 5 Mbps upload) Requires subscription to Road Runner® Broadband Includes Wireless Home Networking	Additional $20.00/mo to Standard Broadband rate
Wideband Internet (50 Mbps download, 5 Mbps upload) Includes Wireless Home Networking	$99.95/mo
Road Runner® Basic (1.5 Mbps download, 256 kpbs upload)	$40.95/mo
Road Runner® Lite (768 kbps download, 128 kbps upload)	$30.95/mo
WiFi Home Network (up to 4 computers)	$9.95/mo

 

Stop the Cap! has obtained the audio from Wednesday’s Public Utilities Committee meeting that quickly pushed through H129, Time Warner’s custom-written, anti-competition and community broadband destruction bill.

Listening to the 44 minute hearing will be disturbing to anyone who supports open government and the concept of voting for or against a complete bill, not one Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) openly admits is going to be changed.  For her, that represents no reason to delay the bill — her good friends at Time Warner need this legislation passed today, not tomorrow or next week.

As you listen, we’ve included a voter’s guide with time-indexed comments to help draw your attention to some critical points, and some much-needed fact checking.  It will also help you identify the members of the legislature that need to stay, and those that need to go.

Our apologies for the distorted audio at times.  When a member leans into the microphone, as some clearly do, it creates significant audio distortion.  It gets worse in the last 10 minutes, so watch your volume.

North Carolina’s House Public Utilities Committee Meeting on H129 – Wednesday, March 2, 2011. (44 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Your Audio Guide to The Committee Meeting

2:50	Apparently Rep. Avila gets her research straight from the cable industry that wants to destroy community broadband.  Avila is factually wrong about citizens being on the hook for “high debt” for North Carolina’s fiber networks, all of which are financed by bonds that leave bondholders at risk, not taxpayers.  The only interests Avila wants to protect are her good friends at the cable company.
3:30	Rep. Avila is dreaming if she really believes the providers that have refused to provide service thus far are going to suddenly do so if her bill passes.  These communities were ignored before and they will be ignored after.  The only difference is that her legislation will guarantee no local community can do anything to fix it.  Avila admits openly her bill will stop competition between providers.
6:00	Rep. Julia Howard is more than willing to hold meetings with those already in the business, but there is no room for actual North Carolina consumers to make their needs known.
8:50	Rep. Avila pays lip service to the ongoing problem of lack of broadband availability in large areas of the state by saying it’s unfair, but ignores the reality that if communities don’t deliver the service, nobody else will.  The red herring of a “public vote” always carries with it loads of fine print.  For example, while the industry can spend unlimited amounts on lobbying and advertising campaigns to demagogue networks, local communities are almost always banned from spending one dime to share their views with the public, or respond to the propaganda the industry sends out.  In fact, Avila’s bill bans networks from advertising their services or advocating for them.  It’s like holding a public debate, but gagging one side so they cannot speak.
12:50	John Goodman, North Carolina Chamber of Commerce presents the pre-written talking points provided by the cable industry.  As you listen, ask yourself whether Mr. Goodman is aware of the details of community broadband, or simply the information handed to him on some sheets of paper from the cable lobby.  Then ponder how many times a community provider has forced a private player out of business with so-called unfair pricing and subsidies.
17:30	Catharine Rice is one of just a handful of speakers that talk about the real-world problems of actual North Carolina citizens.  She’s concerned about them, not the bottom line of Time Warner and AT&T.  Some examples:  Parents of schoolchildren have to drive their kids to a school parking lot so their children can access the school’s Wi-Fi network to complete their homework; A neighborhood of more than a dozen homes can’t get decent broadband because Time Warner demanded $50,000 to wire up cable service.  Meanwhile, just a mile away, a wealthy golf community got their service without a 9 iron to their wallets.
8:30	Jack Stanley from Time Warner Cable delivers the day’s ironic moment when he congratulates his cable colleagues and friend from the Chamber for the “eloquence” of their prepared remarks. And why not, when you consider who wrote them.  His brief remarks consist mostly of empty promises to find a “fair resolution.”  This, from the people who wrote the very unfair bill.
19:30	The North Carolina League of Municipalities delivers an important fact: Community broadband networks are not created on a whim.  They are launched where communities face inadequate or non-existent broadband service.  Most of the cities launching their own services tried the public-private partnership route by approaching companies about broadband problems.  They were shown the door out.  This is why networks like Fibrant and GreenLight exist today.  Community broadband disturbs Big Telecom because it represents competition Wall Street and shareholders never expected they would have.  Anything that challenges the enormous profits cable and phone companies earn must be eliminated.
21:30	Mr. Trathen opens his remarks with a distortion, claiming cities are jumping into community broadband because they just want to compete with existing providers.  In fact, the record tells a very different story in North Carolina.  Cities and communities to this day are trying to get providers from Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, AT&T, and even Clearwire to deliver service to their citizens and they are being turned down, or delivered DSL service at speeds that will not even qualify as true broadband under the definition established in the National Broadband Plan.  That’s a simple fact.  How many community networks are competing against Verizon FiOS or other cutting edge broadband networks?  The reality is, anemic or non-existent broadband service has been the topic of complaints in local communities across the state for years and years.  Also, Trathen’s desire to “have a conversation” about serving unserved parts of North Carolina reminds me of the saying — talk is cheap.  Time Warner has been a part of North Carolina for years and years, and the cable company routinely bypasses any customers who do not live in a dense, populated area to this day. Trathen’s comments that there is nothing in the law today prohibiting public-private partnerships is very true, but as residents have seen, those are far and few between.  Trathen is also flat wrong when he claims nothing in the bill prevents a city from moving into an unserved area to provide service.  In fact, Avila’s bill prohibits cities from extending service outside of their boundaries.
24:00	Rep. Paul Luebke wonders why this bill is necessary, because local governments proposing these networks are already answerable to their citizens and to an oversight committee.  Leubke correctly points out the legislation is all about letting existing telecom companies decide for the people of North Carolina when/if they will get broadband service, at what speeds, and using what technology.  With no new competition on the horizon, H129 effectively delivers all of the state’s broadband interests into the hands of a cable and phone company cartel.  Leubke also expressed concerns that he (and others) are being asked to vote on a bill that has not been finalized yet.  Should negotiations between existing providers trying to extinguish community networks and the cities that run them fail to find a solution, the bill’s original language will guarantee financial disaster to existing community broadband services.
29:00	Rep. Alexander notes that the legislation establishes onerous conditions on community broadband networks that the private sector is completely exempt from.  Alexander notes these networks came about because communities were faced with last century broadband — the virtual equivalent of two cans with string between them.  This legislation assures those underserved communities will continue to be underserved.
32:00	Rep. Womble has serious concerns about how this bill is being rammed through the committee.  Just minutes before the hearing, Womble was handed a summary of the bill for the first time.  Womble is especially upset he is being asked by the bill sponsors to “trust us” when they say they will work out exemptions for existing providers.
37:00	Rep. Hager goes fishing and catches a number of red herrings about cities expanding their networks outside of their service areas and cross-subsidizing them with pilfered funds from city resources, “unfairly harming” their cable and phone company competitors. He presents no evidence to substantiate this claim.
38:30	Rep. Hastings falls into the trap of conflating middle-mile fiber backbone projects with delivering broadband to individual homes and businesses as he brings up the Golden Leaf Project, a very worthwhile fiber backbone, but one that will never extend to last mile homes and businesses.  Like so many middle-mile projects, this one will deliver service to institutions like schools, libraries and local government.  While all very noble, no funds are provided to directly wire service to individual homes that need broadband the most.  Private providers would have howled had this been the case. Instead, vague promises like “private providers are interested in leasing capacity” on the network leave consumers with the hope of better days, but they should not hold their breath.  Cable operators will not deploy service in rural areas, period, and phone company DSL’s largest impediment remains distance between the central office and individual subscribers.  While Golden Leaf may prove beneficial in incrementally moving residential broadband forward, it is not going to provide service to individuals.  In fact, H129 will ensure none of these communities can tap into Golden Leaf and directly deliver service to those that continue to be broadband-disadvantaged.
40:00	Rep. Warren doesn’t like voting on a bill just to find out what it will eventually contain later on.  “It gives me chills,” he told the committee.  He also dismisses claims the bill is about a “level playing field.”  He then directs several pointed questions to Ms. Avila about the financial implications her bill will have on state finances, its bond rating, and other considerations.  She dodges all of them with non-answer answers.
43:00	In less than 30 seconds, the bill is rushed to a committee vote by a motion from Rep. Brubaker, at which point Rep. Steen cuts off discussion (despite the fact more committee members were raising their hands to speak).  A voice vote clearly delivers a majority to the NO side, but not in the eyes of the committee chair, who claims the AYES have it, the bill is reported favorably out of the committee, and the meeting is adjourned before anyone has a chance to demand a recorded vote.

The shocking conclusion of this legislative travesty is the chairman adjourning before a recorded vote can be taken.  Without it, constituents can’t identify how their member voted and hold them accountable at the next election.

[Update 3:05pm Monday — Stop the Cap! misidentified Rep. Warren as Rep. Rowan at the 40:00 mark.  We have corrected the audio log above and regret the error.]

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

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.

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

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.”

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)

Avila’s bill, H129, is up for a vote early this afternoon.  If you live in North Carolina, this is your last chance to contact the members of the committee voting on the bill and encourage them to vote NO.  Tell them you are tired of these anti-competitive bills coming up year after year.  Let them know you support community broadband, that the bill does not exempt existing networks from its lethal regulatory requirements, and that there is no need for these kinds of bills, as local governments already answer to voters.

Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) is getting significant blowback from some of her own constituents for introducing a bill that benefits a cable company, and almost nobody else.

Avila’s district extends into the northern part of Raleigh, the capital city of North Carolina.  Now, the city is making it clear it wants no part of Avila’s bill, H129, which will guarantee residents will continue to pay escalating cable bills year after year.

Raleigh’s City Council adopted a resolution opposing Avila’s legislation, written on behalf of Time Warner Cable.

H129 will destroy North Carolina’s community-owned broadband networks and prevent new ones from launching.

Council Member Bonner Gaylord, who authored the resolution, says passage of these kinds of anti-competitive bills would stop local governments from providing needed communications services, especially advanced high-speed broadband, and deny local governments the availability of federal grants under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to assist in providing affordable access to high-capacity broadband service in unserved and underserved areas.

North Carolina’s broadband rankings do not speak highly of the state’s existing broadband penetration, speeds, or pricing.  Large parts of western North Carolina lack broadband altogether, and what is available is often very slow speed DSL, often providing just 1.5Mbps service.  The mountainous western areas of the state are not well-reached by cable companies, and because of geographic and distance impediments, even telephone company DSL service is sporadically available.

Take Rockingham County, where the local government is pre-occupied with trying to find providers — any providers — to extend broadband service across the north central part of North Carolina.  Adjacent to Caswell County (which Stop the Cap! featured last year), it’s just one more example of how providers have ignored large sections of the state too rural, too poor, or too difficult for them to reach.

On Monday, Mark Wells, executive director for the Rockingham County Business and Technology Center, delivered a report to the county on his progress trying to get someone to provide service between the communities of Wentworth and Madison, which currently have no access to broadband.  Wells reports he is doing all he can to get CenturyLink, the area’s phone company, to step up and provide service, and the county is trying to see if Clearwire could extend service into the northern sections of the state.

Unfortunately, Clearwire has proved to be no broadband replacement, heavily throttling their customers to speeds that occasionally seem more like dial-up than actual broadband.

Rockingham County opposes H129 for the same reasons the city of Raleigh does.  The Board of Commissioners recognizes the broadband reality of northern North Carolina.  Unless local governments have a free hand to address the digital divide themselves, there will be no long-term solution for broadband availability in rural North Carolina.  That’s the message they are sending to their representatives in Raleigh.

Addressing the state’s broadband shortage requires public and private assistance.  Public governments can construct networks that require a longer window to pay off than private “return on investment” requirements allow, and private companies can access community networks to sell their services to the public they currently do not serve (or serve well).

But because companies like Time Warner do not want the competition, particularly from networks more advanced and capable than their own, they would prefer to see them shut down and banned — which is exactly what Avila’s bill would accomplish.

Last year, Sen. David Hoyle openly admitted Time Warner Cable wrote his bill.  There is little doubt the same is true for Avila’s bill this year.

The city has an entirely different set of recommendations for Avila to consider:

1. The State of North Carolina adopt policies to encourage the development of high-speed broadband, including advanced, next-generation fiber-to-the-premises networks, in order to fully serve the citizens and advance education and economic development throughout the state;
2. The General Assembly provide incentives for both public and private development of high-capacity connections in order to handle rapidly growing data needs;
3. The General Assembly promote competition by curtailing predatory pricing practices that are used to push new providers and public broadband services out of the market; and,
4. The General Assembly reject any legislation similar to the Level Playing Field bills that would have a chilling effect on local economies and would impede or remove local government’s ability to provide broadband services to enhance economic development and improve quality of life for their citizens.

The resolution also noted that several North Carolina municipalities; including Wilson, Salisbury, Morganton, Laurinburg and Davidson, already have successfully launched local high-speed broadband networks in response to private provider’s unwillingness or inability to provide high-speed service “to serve the public and promote economic development in their respective areas.”