Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable believe they can win the war against cord-cutting by offering broadband-only customers a less expensive video package with a free Roku 3.

Charter Communications has been quietly testing a subscription service called Spectrum TV Stream that’s aimed at broadband-only customers, starting at $12.99* per month and includes a free Roku 3 streaming player.  Customers can start with a package of around 15-20 local/over the air, home shopping, religion, and weather channels, along with the option of adding Showtime or HBO for an extra $12.99 a month. Several extra cable channels, including: ABC Family, ESPN, Food Network, Hallmark, HGTV, LMN, Nat GEO, AMC, Discovery, History, FX, History 2, TBS and TLC are also available as an option for an extra $7 a month.

Because it’s Charter, there are some gotchas, as indicated by our *asterisk. The most disappointing is Charter’s insistence on applying its usual $5-8/month Broadcast TV Surcharge fee (it varies by market) to the streaming service. Other taxes, fees and surcharges also apply, which means most will pay at least $20 a month for a service Charter is advertising for $12.99. The Charter-supplied Roku 3 ($99 value, which includes a remote and headphones) is required to use the service and comes pre-activated. Customers can also access the service through Charter’s phone/device app, but out of home viewing does not function for some networks for contractual reasons.

Because the service is so new, Charter’s sales representatives have offered inconsistent information about the service. One current Charter customer was charged a $29.99 service change fee to transition to Spectrum TV Stream while several others were told they could not drop existing cable TV service and sign up for streaming without first canceling and disconnecting all Charter services for at least 30 days. To be fair, some representatives offered to open a new account in the name of another household member to avoid the 30 day waiting period and another used the opportunity to offer the customer a retention discount to encourage him not to change his service.

Gotcha with that $30 change of service fee, which may turn out to be a billing mistake. Also notice the out-the-door price of Spectrum TV Stream is higher than advertised.

Based on these experiences, it seems likely Charter is using revenue protection measures to discourage current cable television customers from switching to a less-costly plan.

You need Charter’s Internet service to subscribe.

Charter’s flyer about the service has been sent to cord-cutters, cord-nevers, and broadband-only customers with satellite TV subscriptions. But since a copy landed in our hands, we’re sharing the details with everyone.

To ask if the service is available in your area or to subscribe, customers need to call a special toll-free number: 1-844-560-5730. You will need Charter broadband service to qualify for the streaming TV service. The Roku 3 device is shipped to arrive within one week, and requires a customer signature or waiver on file for FedEx delivery. Although Charter claims the offer of the free Roku 3 expires Nov. 15, 2015, it is likely to be extended. Customers signing up will be considered qualified cable TV subscribers, allowing authenticated access to on-demand content from cable programmer websites, including premium services like HBO Go (if you subscribe). Up to 15 devices can be registered for viewing, five in simultaneous use. There is a 30-day money back guarantee and customers can cancel and keep the Roku 3 with no further obligations to Charter.

Quality and performance was rated fair by beta testers already signed up. The service works over Charter’s broadband network, which may be another reason the company dropped usage caps several months ago. Regular viewing will run up your usage numbers, but not as much as high-definition streams from Netflix or Amazon.

Charter’s Spectrum TV Stream apparently uses MPEG-2 compression and video quality is reportedly not comparable to traditional satellite TV or cable. Some claim it performs about equal to Netflix’s lowest resolution stream setting. Others complain it can take 3-4 seconds to change channels and streaming quality can dynamically change based on Charter’s broadband performance. Cable customers will also likely miss functionality they get with a DVR to pause, rewind, and start-over television programs — features all absent from Charter’s streaming service.

But even those disappointed with the service are welcoming the consolation prize of an effectively free Roku 3, which Charter allows you to keep with cancellation just for trialing the service.

Time Warner Cable is reportedly planning to launch its own streaming television package today for its broadband-only customers, starting with those in New York City. Usually reliable sources tell Engadget Time Warner Cable will launch a beta test of a new version of its TWC TV service. As with Charter, Time Warner Cable will supply a free Roku 3 tied to the customer’s Time Warner Cable broadband account.

Time Warner will offer its “Starter TV” package as a broadband add-on for $10 a month. That package offers viewers (in NYC): WABC, WCBS, C-SPAN, C-SPAN 2, C-SPAN 3, WWOR, WPXN, WLNY, WMBC, UniMas, WRNN, RISE, WYNJ, Educational Access, EVINE Live, WNYW, Galavision, Government Access, HSN, Music Choice, WNBC, WNET/WLIW, Public Access, QVC, SHOP NBC, TBN, TBS, Telemundo, TWC News, Univision, WGN America, WPIX, and several international/special interest channels.

Showtime and Starz will also be available in an optional package priced at $20 a month. If you want all of Time Warner’s channels and those premiums, they are bundled together for an extra $50 a month. We are not certain if the $50 bundle covered Time Warner’s “Standard” or “Preferred” TV lineup as of press time.

In essence, the package will look a lot like what current Time Warner Cable customers can access over the company’s TWC TV app. The difference is this is the first time Time Warner will sell IPTV service to consumers who now avoid cable television. These streaming-only customers will also never have to lease a cable set top box.

As with Charter’s service, Time Warner Cable customers will have to give up DVR services like pause, fast-forwarding, rewind, and start-over. The service offers no recording capability either, and maintains the same contractual restrictions that limit the number of channels you can watch on devices outside of the home.

Customers can stream video on up to four registered devices, including the Xbox One/Xbox 360, Android, iOS, Fan TV, Kindle Fire and Samsung’s Smart TVs.

It’s our contention these IPTV services are the likely future of cable television. It’s inevitable cable operators will eventually use their fiber/coax networks to deliver one platform — broadband, on which it will sell Internet access, television, and phone service. This could mean the eventual end of the set top box, replaced with inexpensive devices like a Roku. DVR’s can be replaced with cloud-based DVR-like services to manage time shifting and similar conveniences. That would be welcomed by many cable subscribers who detest the current generation of power hungry devices and their monthly rental costs, especially as cable systems continue to move to all-digital service, necessitating a box on every connected television in the home.

The current TWC TV app offers both good and bad to users. The alphabetic channel lineup is a welcome change from trying to find a channel by its number. The app is also ready-made for out of the home viewing, at least when programmers allow Time Warner the ability to offer that option. But TWC TV has also suffered from regular buffering glitches, service or channel outages, video quality degradation at peak usage times, and in our experience runs up to a minute behind live television.

Once again, a writer from the corporate-funded Mercatus Center is back to shill for the telecom industry.

Eli Dourado landed space in Slate to write a ridiculous defense of Comcast’s expanding trials of usage caps. When we first read it, we assumed a Comcast press release somehow managed to find its way into the original article. It quickly became impossible to discern the difference.

Before we take apart Mr. Dourado’s nonsensical arguments, let’s consider the source.

Sourcewatch calls Mercatus one of the best-funded think tanks in the United States. And why not. Its indefatigable advocacy of pro-corporate policies is legendary. The Center itself was initially funded by the Koch Brothers to advocate against consumer protection and oversight and for deregulation.

With that kind of mission and money, it’s no surprise the authors coming out of Mercatus are in rigid lock-step with the corporate agendas of Comcast, AT&T, and other large telecom companies. The Center is also a friend of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that counts Comcast and AT&T as dues-paying members. ALEC’s corporate members ghostwrite legislation that ends up introduced in state legislatures across the country.

We have never seen a Mercatus-affiliated author ever write a piece that runs contrary to the interests of Big Telecom companies. They oppose community broadband competition, Net Neutrality, and have defended wireless mergers that would have killed T-Mobile, turn Time Warner customers into Comcast customers, and believed AT&T’s buyout of DirecTV was just dandy and Charter’s buyout of Time Warner Cable is even more consumer-y.

They favor usage caps/usage pricing, defend higher bills, and laughingly claim Americans are probably underpaying for broadband compared to the rest of the world.

Life must be good on Broadband Fantasy Island, where those in favor of Comcast’s usage pricing experiments live. In a style that eerily resembles a Comcast corporate blog post, Dourado unconvincingly tells readers, “metered data is good for most consumers and for the Internet.”

Dourado’s defense of Comcast’s idea of reasonable pricing only had one slip-up, when he accidentally told the truth. He effectively derailed Comcast’s usual talking point that “it is only fair for heavy users to pay more” when he correctly noted, “broadband networks are composed almost entirely of fixed costs—costs that don’t vary very much with usage.”

(Image: Jacki Gallagher)

That ripping sound you hear is a corporate executive starting to tear up their contribution check to Mercatus Center for being off message. But hang on, Mr. Corporate Guy, Mercatus Center has always had your back before, let’s see if Dourado can pull his feet out of the fire.

“But when users pay for data use, cable companies have an incentive to make it easier than ever to use a lot of data—that is, to invest in speed upgrades. They want you to blow right by your habitual usage amounts, which you will probably do only if you are on a superfast connection. In this way, metered data encourages broadband network upgrades,” Dourado claims, back on message.

Dourado’s core argument is one we’ve heard from telecom companies for years: heavy users are responsible for the allegedly high fixed costs of delivering broadband to America. Because networks must be built to accommodate all users, those ‘data hogs’ force providers to charge top dollar to everyone to assure access to promised speeds, unfairly penalizing light users like grandma along the way just to satiate someone else’s desire for more downloading.

If that were true, broadband costs everywhere would be around the same and Frontier’s DSL service wouldn’t be so universally awful. Unfortunately for Dourado’s argument, we have the ability to look at broadband pricing and service quality beyond the monopoly/duopoly marketplace we have in North America. Fixed costs to deliver broadband service here are comparable in western Europe and Asia and somehow they manage to do a lot more for a lot less.

Closer to home, newly emerging competitors like Google Fiber, municipal/community broadband, and private overbuilders like Grande Communications and WOW! also manage to deliver more service for less money, without any need to gouge and abuse their customers. The fact Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Charter and Bright House have seen no need to impose compulsory usage caps or usage pricing (AT&T does not enforce their cap on U-verse service either) and also do business in the same states where Comcast is imposing caps is just the first of many threads that unravel Dourado’s poorly woven argument.

Let’s break Dourado’s other arguments down:

Phillip Dampier

Dourado’s Claim: “Broadband networks are composed almost entirely of fixed costs—costs that don’t vary very much with usage. Cable companies have to spend many billions of dollars to build and maintain their networks whether or not we use them. One way or another, users of the network have to collectively pay those billions of dollars.”

Stop the Cap!: This is true, but Mr. Dourado forgets to mention most of the costs to construct those networks were paid off years ago. DSL and fiber to the neighborhood services avoided incurring the most costly part of network construction — wiring the last mile to the customer’s home. Phone company broadband, excepting Verizon’s complete fiber-to-the-home service network overhaul, benefits from the use of an existing copper-based network built and paid for long ago to deliver basic telephone service.

The cable industry did even better. It used the same fiber-coax network last rebuilt in the early/mid-1990s to deliver more television channels to also deliver broadband, which initially took up about as much space as just one or two TV channels. The cable industry introduced broadband experimentally, spending comparatively little on network upgrades. This was important to help overcome skepticism by corporate executives who initially doubted selling Internet access over cable would ever attract much interest. It shows how much they know.

So while it is true to say the telecommunications industry spent billions to develop their infrastructure, for most it was primarily to sell different services — voice grade telephone service and cable-TV, for which it received a healthy return. Selling broadband turned out to be added gravy. For a service the cable industry spent relatively little to offer, it collected an average of $30 a month in unregulated revenue. That price has since doubled (or more) for many consumers. Cost recovery has never been a problem for companies like Comcast.

In 2014, Techdirt showed broadband investment wasn’t increasing at the rate the cable industry claimed. It has been largely flat, and not because of broadband usage or pricing.

It is easy for providers to show eye-popping dollar amounts invested in broadband improvements. Most providers routinely quote these numbers to justify just about everything from rate increases to further deregulation. When the numbers alone don’t sufficiently sell their latest argument, they lie about them. Adopting any pro-consumer policy like Net Neutrality or a ban on usage pricing would, in their view, “harm investment.” Only it didn’t and it won’t.

What these same providers never include on those press releases are their revenue numbers. Placed side by side with capital expenses/infrastructure upgrades, the clarity that emerges from showing how much providers are putting in the bank takes the wind right out of their sails. It turns out most providers are already earning a windfall selling unlimited broadband at ever-rising prices, while network upgrade expenses remain largely flat or are in decline. In short, your phone or cable company is earning a growing percentage of their overall profits from the sale of broadband, because they are raising prices while also enjoying an ongoing decline in the cost of providing the service. Despite that, they are now back for more of your money.

Dourado’s basic argument is the same one providers have tried for years — attempting to pit one customer against another over who is responsible for the high cost of Internet access. They prefer to frame the argument as “heavy users” vs. “light users.” Hence, it is isn’t fair to expect grandma to pay for the teen gamer down the street who also enjoys BitTorrent file sharing. Their hope is that the time-tested meme “someone is getting a free ride while you pay for it” will act like shiny keys to distract people from fingering the real perpetrator of high pricing — the same phone and cable companies laughing all the way to the bank.

It’s easy to prove and we’ve done it here at Stop the Cap! since 2008.

We have a BS detector that never fails to uncover the real motivation behind usage pricing. It’s simply this. If a provider is really in favor of usage billing, then let’s have a go at it. But it must be real usage pricing.

Here’s how it works. Just as with your electric utility, you will pay a monthly connection/facilities charge to cover the cost of the transport network and infrastructure, typically $15 or less per month (and it should be less because utilities have to maintain physical meters that cable and phone companies don’t). Next come usage charges, and because the industry seems to have adopted AT&T’s formula, we will use that.

Your broadband will now cost $15 a month for the connection charge and usage pricing will amount to $10 for each 50GB increment of usage. Because even Mr. Dourado admits there is no real cost difference supplying broadband at different speeds, you deserve the maximum. If you turn in average usage numbers, you will have consumed between 50-100GB each month. So your new broadband bill will be $25 if you consume 50 or fewer gigabytes, $35 if you consume between 50-100GB. Deal?

Considering what you are probably paying today for Internet access, you will fully understand that howling sound you hear is coming from telecom company executives screaming in opposition to fair usage pricing. That is why no provider in America is advocating for fair usage pricing. In reality, they want to charge current prices –and– impose an arbitrary usage allowance on you, above which they can begin to collect overlimit penalty fees. It’s just another rate hike.

Dourado is stuck with a bad hand trying to play the second part of the “usage pricing fairness” game. While claiming heavy users should be forced to pay more, he is unable to offer a real example of light users paying substantially less.

At this point, Dourado’s proverbial pants fall off, exposing the naked reality that few, if any customers actually pay less under usage pricing. That is because providers are terrified of the word “cannibalization.” In the broadband business, it refers to customers examining their options and downgrading their service to a cheaper-priced plan (shudder) that better reflects their actual usage. To make certain this happens rarely, if ever, Comcast offers customers scant savings of $5 from exactly one “Flexible Data Option” available only to those choosing the improbable Economy Plus plan, which offers just 3Mbps service. Customers agree to keep their usage at or below 5GB a month or they risk an overlimit fee of $1 per gigabyte. It’s like Russian Roulette for Bill Shock. Where can we sign up?

In fact, Time Warner Cable has already admitted a similar plan open to all of its broadband customers was a colossal flop, attracting only “a few thousand” customers nationwide out of 15 million qualified to choose it. We suspect the number of Comcast customers signed up to this “money-saving plan” is probably in the hundreds. Time Warner was smart enough to realize forcing customers into a massively unpopular compulsory usage plan would make them a pariah. For Comcast, “pariah” is a matter of “same story, different day.” Alienating customers is their specialty and despite growing customer dissatisfaction, executives have ordered all ahead full on usage pricing.

Dourado also can’t help himself, getting his own cheap shot in at government-mandated Lifeline-like discounts designed to make Internet access more affordable, calling it a “tax and spend program.” He omits the fact Comcast already offers its own affordable Internet plan voluntarily. But mentioning that would further undercut his already weak argument in favor of usage pricing.

Dourado: “If everyone paid equal prices for unlimited data plans, cable company revenues would be limited by the number of people willing to pay that equal rate.”

Stop the Cap!: Providers have already figured out they can charge higher prices for all sorts of things to increase revenue. General rate increases, modem fees, and charging higher prices for faster speeds are also proven ways companies are earning higher revenue from their existing customers.

Dourado: “But when users pay for data use, cable companies have an incentive to make it easier than ever to use a lot of data—that is, to invest in speed upgrades. They want you to blow right by your habitual usage amounts, which you will probably do only if you are on a superfast connection. In this way, metered data encourages broadband network upgrades.”

Stop the Cap!: Nice theory, but companies like Comcast have found an easier way to make money. They simply raise the price of service. Dourado should learn more about the concept of pricing elasticity. Comcast executives know all about it. It allows them, in the absence of significant competition, to raise broadband prices just because they can and not risk significant customer number defections as a result.

After they do that, the next trick in the book is to play games with usage allowances to expose more customers to overlimit fees or force them into more expensive usage plans. In Atlanta, Comcast even sells its own insurance plan to protect customers… from Comcast. For an extra $35 a month, customers can avoid being molested by Comcast’s arbitrary usage allowance and overlimit fees and get unlimited service back. As customers rightfully point out, this means they are paying $35 more a month for the same service they had just a few months earlier, with no improvements whatsoever. Is that innovative pricing or highway robbery?

What inspires companies to raise speeds and treat customers right is competition, something sorely lacking in this country. Just the vaguest threat of a new competitor, such as the arrival of Google Fiber was more than enough incentive for companies to begin investing in waves of speed upgrades, bringing some customers gigabit speeds. Usage pricing played no factor in these upgrades. The fact a new competitor threatened to sell faster Internet at a fair price (without caps) did.

Dourado: “The DOCSIS 3.1 cable modem standard, just now being finalized, will allow downloads over the existing cable network up to 10 Gbps (10 times faster than Google Fiber). Cable companies are now facing a choice as to how fast to roll out support for DOCSIS 3.1. As the theory predicts, Comcast, now experimenting with metering, is planning an aggressive rollout of the new multi-gigabit standard.”

Stop the Cap!: While Dourado celebrates Comcast’s achievements, he ignores the fact EPB Fiber in Chattanooga offers 10Gbps fiber broadband today, charging the same price Comcast wants for only 2Gbps service, and does not charge Comcast’s $1,000 installation and activation fee. EPB did not require the incentive of usage billing or caps to finance its upgrade. Dourado also conveniently ignores the fact almost every cable operator, many with no plans to add compulsory usage caps or usage pricing, are also aggressively moving forward on plans to rollout DOCSIS 3.1. It’s more efficient, allows for the sale of more profitable higher speed Internet tiers, and is cost-effective. Some companies want the right to gouge their customers, others want to do the right thing. Guess where Comcast fits.

Usage Cap Man

Dourado: “It’s not fun to continually calculate how much you are spending. But we all gladly accept metering for water and electricity with no significant mental accounting costs—why should broadband be so different? Both Comcast and Cox make it easy to track usage. And even if we can’t just get over our mental accounting costs, are they really so significant that we should cite them as an excuse for keeping the poor and elderly offline and letting our broadband networks stagnate?”

Stop the Cap!: Assumes facts not in evidence. First, once again Mr. Dourado’s talking points come straight from the cable industry and are fatally flawed. While Dourado talks about usage pricing for water and electricity — resources that come with the added costs of being pumped, treated, or generated, he conveniently ignores the one service most closely related to broadband – the telephone. The costs to transport data, whether it is a phone call or a Netflix movie, have dropped so much, phone companies increasingly offer unlimited local -and- long distance calling plans to their customers. When is the last time anyone bothered to think about calling after 11pm to get the “night/weekend long distance rate?” For years, broadband customers have not had to worry how much a Netflix movie will chew through a broadband usage allowance either. But now they might, because the cable industry understands that Netflix viewer may have cut his cable television package, cutting the revenue the cable company now wants back.

Second, heavy Internet users are not the ones responsible for keeping the poor and elderly offline and allowing broadband infrastructure to stagnate. The blame for that lies squarely in the executive suites at Comcast, AT&T and other telecom companies that make a conscious business decision charging prices that guarantee better returns for their shareholders (and their fat executive salary and bonuses).

But it isn’t all bad news.

Comcast’s Internet Essentials already exists today and is priced at $9.95 a month. Only Comcast’s revenue-cannibalization protection scheme keep it out of the hands of more customers. It limits the program to customers with school age children on the federal student lunch program and is off-limits to existing Comcast broadband customers even if they otherwise qualify. Why? Because if the program was available to everyone, it would quickly cut their profits as customers downgraded their service.

Comcast’s abysmal performance is legendary, and that isn’t a result of heavy users either. That is entirely the fault of a company that puts its own greed ahead of its alienated customers, something plainly clear from forcing captive customers into usage trials they don’t want or need. Verizon FiOS uses technology far superior to what Comcast is using, offers better speeds and better service. Customers are happy and routinely rate FiOS among the nation’s top providers. They don’t need usage pricing or caps to manage this. Comcast sure doesn’t either.

Mr. Dourado’s arguments for usage pricing are so weak and provably false, it is almost embarrassing. But we understood he was given the impossible challenge trying to mount a defense for Comcast’s latest Internet Overcharging scheme. Nobody can defend the indefensible.

Ricardo Bolán was not happy while reading his latest Comcast bill informing him he was about to be included in Comcast’s creeping trial of usage caps, which has slowly spread across the cable company’s service areas in the south and western U.S.

“Customer service said we were one of the communities ‘opting in’ to Comcast’s data usage plan, which is their way of saying Comcast forced it on us,” said Bolán, who lives in Hialeah, Fla.

Several South Florida customers are writing Stop the Cap! to complain about Comcast’s Oct. 1 imposition of a 300GB usage cap on its broadband service. Customers exceeding their allowance will now pay $10 in overlimit fees for each 50GB increment.

“Comcast’s usage meter hasn’t reliably worked down here for weeks, so you are flying blind over how much data you are using, and we’re talking about Comcast, so who can trust them?,” said Dave — a Stop the Cap! reader in Miami Beach. “I guess it’s back to AT&T.”

When the usage tool does work, some customers claim their reported usage levels suddenly doubled or tripled after Comcast’s usage cap started.

“Since this new data plan trial for Florida went into effect, I decided to check my usage,” Batchman27 wrote on Comcast’s support forum. “I am at 11GB in one day. I looked back at my usage for the past three months (July 1-Sept 30) and my average for those 92 days was 5.86GB per day. I find it very odd and extremely convenient that my usage [nearly doubled] on the day this ‘trial’ began.”

Over the next several days, his usage stayed consistently at or above 11GB a day.

“At this rate, I will exceed the 300GB before the end of the month and will be billed for the additional blocks of data (note: my highest usage during those three months was 202GB in August),” he added.

Another customer has had to banish Netflix, Hulu, and all other subscription video services from his home because they make all the difference whether or not his family of four will face overlimit bill charges and bill shock from Comcast.

“It’s no surprise what they are targeting with these caps,” said Austin Chilson. “If you watch Netflix or Hulu on a regular basis, 300GB is not enough. Netflix alone is responsible for about 17GB of video usage during the first three days of the month, and we were gone most of the day on Saturday the 3rd.”

Another customer echoes Chilson.

“I feel like we’re a pretty average family of four,” GuitarManJonny wrote Oct. 2 on Comcast’s support forum. “Of course we stream Netflix and we do a little downloading although nothing approaching what I’d consider excessive (no torrents, for example) and I have gone over the limit every month since July. I’m already at 13GB for this month, so it’s a pretty safe bet that I will go over again.”

Florida customers have an option other Comcast customers do not — a way back to unlimited usage by paying an extra $30 for an “unlimited use option.”

That seemed to only infuriate customers more.

“It’s amazing that a cap is being turned on and yet I’m asked to pay the same amount that I have been for unlimited and then being asked to pay MORE to continue the same plan I’m on now,” writes Gldoori. “It’s also ironic that I get the ‘We’re sorry. We can’t load your Internet usage meter right now’ [error message] when I try to monitor my usage on the website.”

“I’ll be cancelling my TV and home phone with them in a couple of months when my plan expires and then dropping my Internet speed to fit a “need” rather than a “want,” Gldoori wrote. “I’m not paying $30 more (for unlimited) just to have the same Internet plan I’ve been paying for already.”

A Comcast spokesperson tried to defend the implementation of usage caps in Miami-Dade, Broward and the Florida Keys by suggesting almost none of their customers will be impacted by it.

“To put things in perspective, 300 GB is an extremely large amount of data to use,” Comcast Florida spokeswoman Mindy Kramer told the Miami Herald. “The median data use for our customers is 40GB per month; about 70 percent of our customers use less than 100GB per month. About 92 percent of our customers will see absolutely no impact on their monthly bills.”

Kramer claims the new usage caps are about fairness.

“Our data plan trials are part of our ongoing effort to create a fair, technologically-sound policy in which customers who use more data pay more, and customers who use less pay less,” Kramer said.

Except no customers are paying less. Comcast’s broadband rates have not changed as a result of the market trials, only a usage cap was introduced.

In other cities living under Comcast’s usage caps, the first notice many customers take of the new caps comes in the form of a much higher bill. Clark Howard, a consumer reporter for WSB-TV in Atlanta, has heard from local residents reporting serious bill spikes if they ignored Comcast’s warning or failed to curtail their usage.

Another reader in South Florida reports Comcast does inform Floridians when their usage allowance runs out, including automated phone calls and a browser-injected warning message appearing on all non-https websites when a customer reaches 80 and 100% of their monthly allowance. Once that allowance is exceeded, your Internet will not stop working. Comcast will instead add $10 for each additional 50GB you use until the end of your billing cycle.

“There is no way to opt out of accruing overlimit fees and when the usage tool is down, you have no idea what your bill will look like,” said Bolán. “To keep this in perspective, if you manage to use 500GB in a month, the overlimit fee will add $40 to your bill. If you cut your cable TV and watch Hulu and Netflix, that kind of usage is not surprising.”

Chilson’s parents have been impacted by Comcast’s usage caps in another way — they are having trouble selling their home because Comcast is the only service provider. AT&T isn’t providing U-verse service to several homes on the street, including theirs.

“The realtor reports would-be buyers are shying away because they don’t like the Internet options, which are Comcast, Comcast, or Comcast,” Chilson said. “My parents have offered to split closing costs and even tried lowering the price, but because everyone hates Comcast, they just don’t want to be stuck living in a home with Comcast as their only choice.”

Chilson suggested offering would-be buyers $720 — the cost of two years of Comcast’s $30 a month unlimited add-on plan. Still no takers, and several buyers cited Internet availability and Comcast as reasons for backing away.

Jerome Stokes of Palm Springs, Fla. has managed to collect almost 2,000 signatures on his Change.org petition demanding Comcast remove the usage caps from all of their Internet plans. He calls data caps “barbaric,” and thinks they should be illegal. Other customers are also complaining to the FCC.

Sean Miranda thinks they are just bad for business:

“If this doesn’t affect most people anyway, why bother implementing this change? All it does is make people like myself, less inclined to continue using your service, and instead switch to a different ISP that doesn’t put such silly restrictions on their customers. AT&T is starting to look better and better right about now, but where do I go once they start implementing this too, huh? I want no involvement in this “trial” and hope you discontinue this monopoly scheme immediately, or I will have no choice but to take my business elsewhere or to create new competition.”

If the Federal Communications Commission weighed comments for and against the merger of Charter-Time Warner Cable-Bright House Networks based on volume, it would likely be a done deal.

A major lobbying effort by the cable companies involved in the transaction has been underway to encourage politicians, business associations, non-profit groups, and programmers to write the FCC asking the deal be approved. Many are responding, including politicians receiving political donations and/or seeking expanded service for their communities, non-profits that depend on financial contributions from one or more of the companies involved, programmers that live or die based on winning carriage agreements with Charter, Bright House, and Time Warner Cable, and other groups with missions that seem miles away from a multi-billion dollar cable merger.

Stop the Cap! examined many of these curious letters of support. What, for instance, might motivate the New York Snowmobile Association to navigate the cumbersome comment filing systems of both the New York Public Service Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to express glowing support for a cable merger?

The International Soap Box Derby is all-in on the merger of Charter-TWC-Bright House.

What made the Maccabi World Union, the largest Jewish sports organization in the world, enthusiastic enough to dwell on a marriage of three cable companies?

How could the Montana Stockgrowers Association set aside their interest in helping state cattle ranchers to deliver safe and wholesome beef to American dinner tables to ponder modem fees in their letter to the Commission?

One Los Angeles non-profit organization contacted by Stop the Cap! shed some light on the subject, if we agreed to keep their name private.

“Like many non-profits, when Time Warner Cable makes a financial contribution to our organization, they attempt to find ways where both our organization and their company can benefit from goodwill generated by charitable contributions,” the director told Stop the Cap! “When the deal with Charter and Time Warner was announced, we received a gently worded request to participate in the public discussion about the merger.”

The group received information containing talking points about the deal’s benefits to consumers and businesses and was asked to consider using those points in a letter to state and federal regulators that would present a positive view of the deal.

“Non-profits need the contributions of large companies like Time Warner Cable and Charter, which both serve parts of Los Angeles County, to fund our programs,” the director said. “There isn’t any pressure on us to write the letters, but since they are in the public record, we know the cable companies know who wrote and who did not.”

The director of this particular organization had qualms about getting involved in a regulatory matter that did not involve the organization he leads, but he was overruled by his board of directors.

“Money is tight,” the director added. “I don’t want to comment on Charter Cable’s performance in Los Angeles except to say it is the main reason I use someone else.”

The director of the group would not comment when asked if it was uncomfortable signing a letter in support of a company who has failed to meet their personal expectations.

The fact non-profit groups spend time and resources writing letters on behalf of their donors bothers others as well.

Shawn Sheridan of Turlock, Calif. exhaustively researched over 250 pieces of correspondence the FCC has received in favor of the Charter acquisition, and he is not happy about what he found.

“The current public comments process has been infiltrated to purposely influence the independent review process,” Sheridan writes in a letter to the FCC. “I suggest to the Commission that conducting an independent analysis of the comments received from the public for [this merger] would reveal a nationwide campaign to improperly affect the Commission’s independent review of the applications, and reveal unique characteristics of who has and has not commented publicly.”

Sheridan categorized all the letters arriving from state/local representatives, Chamber of Commerce chapters, and non-profit groups:

Letters from different chapters of the Chambers of Commerce, which typically count Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications, and/or Bright House Networks as dues-paying members, were oddly uniform in their praise of the transaction.

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, for example, didn’t seem too interested in getting into the specifics of the deal, satisfied instead to request “the FCC approve all matters related to this merger promptly.”

Dozens of other chapters of the business association used similar language praising the merger proposal. Notice the references to “$2.5 billion” promised to be spent on commercial fiber optics and “one million new residential lines” mentioned in a handful of the filings with the FCC:

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce advocates giving Charter whatever it wants.

• “The Missoula Area Chamber of Commerce is the voice of business in Missoula County….We are excited by New Charter’s commitment to invest $2.5 billion into networks in commercial areas.”
• “As a member-driven organization, the Montana Chamber of Commerce represents the interests of business, ranging from small mom-and-pop operations to large companies….The new company would commit $2.5 billion to the commercial sector and would build out residential lines, improving both industry competition and local infrastructure.”
• “With nearly 700 members that employ more than 12,000 people, the Fremont Chamber of Commerce represents a vibrant, regional business community in eastern Nebraska….Specifically, we are told, the greater financial strength of the unified operations would lead to investment of at least $2.5 billion to upgrade commercial lines to fiber-optics….Therefore, based on their assurances to us, we believe New Charter would be a great partner….”
• “The Florida Chamber of Commerce is pleased to support Bright House Network’s merger with Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable into New Charter….New Charter would be committed to infrastructure investment. It would devote at least $2.5 billion towards commercial networks, contributing important upgrades and competition into this influential market.”
• [Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce:] “We understand that New Charter plans to invest $2.5 billion toward commercial networks, contributing important upgrades and competition
• into this influential market and to provide substantial investment throughout the entire State.”
• [Lakeland Area Chamber of Commerce:] “For example, New Charter has committed to $2.5 billion in commercial networks and would build out one million residential line extensions.”
• [San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce:] “The proposal promises to bring in at least $2.5 billion in new commercial infrastructure investment, much of which will be invested in areas
  where the Charter Communications currently does not operate.”
• “With more than 10,000 members, the Greater Cleveland Partnership (GCP) is a membership association of Northeast Ohio companies and organizations and one of the largest metropolitan
  chambers of commerce in the nation….Specifically, it would commit at least $2.5 billion to build out commercial network lines and put up one million new residential lines….”
• “The Buffalo Niagara Partnership is the region’s private sector economic development organization and regional chamber of commerce….In the near future, our state will benefit from
  a $2.5 billion expansion in the build-out of networks into commercial sectors.”
• “At the Finger Lakes Chamber of Commerce, we serve as the voice of our local business community….We have [been] made aware of a major change in the cable broadband industry. The potential merger of Charter Communications, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks into New Charter….”

The language that implies these are not spontaneous, coincidental pieces of correspondence was couched using phrases like, “we are told,” “we understand,” and “we have [been] made aware.”

These talking points actually originate from Charter Communications’ Resource Center, which distributes pro-merger information to organizations in Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks’ service areas. The references to $2.5 billion for commercial upgrades and line extensions to one million new residential customers originate in documents like this, tailored in this case to New Yorkers.

Some organizations devote more time to customizing their correspondence than others. The Business Council of New York State and the Orange County Partnership couldn’t be bothered, and essentially cut and paste nearly identical language in their “individual” letters of support:

“We recognize that the information and communications sector is an increasingly critical component of a healthy economy….The Business Council understands that access to a reliable 21st Century communications infrastructure—with competitive options for service—is essential for New Yorkers in their homes, schools and workplaces.“

“The Partnership recognizes that the information and communication sector is an increasingly critical component of a healthy economy….We also understand that access to reliable 21st Century communications infrastructure, with competitive options for service, is a necessity for Orange County residents in their homes, schools and workplaces.“

…and the chances of a multibillion dollar cable merger winning regulatory approval.

Dominic J. Jacangelo was so nice, he liked Charter Communications’ merger twice — once on the letterhead of the New York Snowmobile Association, where he serves as executive director, and in a nearly identical letter signed by Jacangelo as Supervisor of the Town of Poestenkill, N.Y. He cited the same talking points the various Chambers of Commerce did.

Representing the interests of 2.5 million people worldwide or its member Time Warner Cable?

Sheridan disputes how merger supporters often attempt to give their views more weight by implying their positions are shared by their constituents. The Orange County Business Council claimed in its letter it represented nearly 300 Southern California businesses employing over 250,000 in the region and more than two million globally. Sheridan doubts more than 2.25 million people, many working outside the country, support the cable merger as much as OCBC suggests.

A larger question is what motivates the letter writers to weigh in on a cable merger in the first place?

For the ranchers in Montana, the desire for more rural broadband is well known. Cable operators usually don’t provide service to large, expansive ranches where a herd of cattle often vastly outnumbers the local population.

For Mr. Jacangelo, his LinkedIn page cites his talents for developing “professional relationships with business sponsors and [supporters], which might be helpful as the town of Poestenkill, like many other rural communities in upstate New York, seek expanded broadband service.

In 2009, the Maccabi World Union partnered with Jewish Life Television to provide in-depth coverage of the Maccabiah Games, a global sporting event. U.S. viewers see coverage of those games over Jewish Life TV, a cable network that reaches Time Warner Cable and Bright House customers, but not Charter Cable customers. A takeover of Time Warner and Bright House by Charter Communications could risk the end of that carriage agreement. Supporting Charter at its time of need may establish enough goodwill to guarantee JLTV will be a part of the “New Charter” lineup.

Sheridan’s research also discovered, as of Oct. 9, 2015:

• With a total of 31 letters from politicians in the state of Texas, not one came from a local official. Eighteen Chambers of Commerce in Texas sent letters in support of the deal;
• No state-level representatives weighed in on the deal in New York either, although 30 local and county leaders gave their support;
• One third of the 28 states where Charter provides service had no comment on the merger, pro or con, hardly representing a nationwide groundswell of support;
• Charter Communications’ corporate headquarters, formerly in Missouri and now in Connecticut, also drew little hometown interest. Just one letter from a state-level politician in Missouri reached the FCC. There were no letters from Connecticut at all;
• Of 258 unique commenters sending letters in support of the merger, 211 (82%) claimed to represent the interests of their members and affiliates without providing supporting evidence that was true. Most of those organizations received direct financial support or in-kind contributions from one or more of the involved cable operators or counted them as dues-paying members;
• Not counting Time Warner Cable or Bright House’s combined 13+ million customers, only about 30 unique consumers submitted a comment to the FCC regarding the merger, representing 0.000005% of Charter’s six million customers.

An aversion of open, hilly landscapes and trees is apparently responsible for keeping residents of rural Connecticut from getting broadband service from the state’s two dominant providers — Comcast and Frontier Communications.

In the Litchfield Hills of northwestern Connecticut, you can visit some of the state’s finest antique shops and Revolutionary War-era inns, tour vineyards and even establish roots in the Upper Naugatuck Valley in towns like Barkhamsted, Colebrook, Goshen, Hartland, Harwinton, Litchfield, Morris, New Hartford, Norfolk, Torrington, and Winchester. Just leave your cellphone, tablet, and personal computer behind because chances are good you will find yourself in a wireless dead spot and Internet-free zone.

Obtaining even a smidgen of cell phone service often means leaning out a second story window or worse, climbing the nearest church steeple. The wealthiest residents, often second-homeowners from New York or California, can afford to spend several thousand dollars to entice the cable company to extend a coaxial cable their way or buy commercial broadband service at eye-popping prices from Frontier Communications, which acquired AT&T’s wireline network in the state. But for many, dial-up Internet remains the only affordable or available option.

Despite the area’s significant number of high income residents ready and willing to pay for service, Comcast and Frontier blame hilly terrain and dense woods for staying away. Those excuses get little regard from residents who suggest it is all about the money, not the landscape.

Broadband-challenged areas in northwest Connecticut are shown in green and the often “No signal” and “No Internet” Litchfield Hills region is shown in blue.

Despite the need for service, deregulation largely allows cable and phone companies to decide where to offer broadband service, and arguments about fulfilling a public need and performing a community service don’t get far with Wall Street and shareholders that constantly pressure companies to deliver profits, not expensive investments that may never pay off.

State Rep. Roberta Willis (D-Salisbury) told the Register Citizen News the status quo is not acceptable — telecommunications companies are not doing enough to build out their networks.

“You just can’t say it’s the topography and walk away,” she told the newspaper. “If electricity companies were deregulated like this there would be no electricity in my district.”

Comcast spokeswoman Laura Brubaker Crisco claims the company extended cable service nearly 62 miles in northwest Connecticut since 2005 (ten years ago) and completed nearly 100 projects extending fiber more than 10 miles in the past two years. But many of those projects overhauled Comcast’s existing middle-mile network and extended cable service to profitable new markets serving commercial customers, especially office parks and commercial storefronts. Comcast’s other priority was to reach new high-income residential developments being built as the area continues to grow. Rural customers who could not meet Comcast’s Return On Investment formula in 2005 are still unlikely to have service in 2015 unless population density increases in their immediate area.

Connecticut’s effort to extend gigabit fiber statewide is dismissed as a waste of money by incumbent cable operators.

Crisco admits Comcast does not wire low density areas and isn’t surprised other providers won’t either.

Frontier prefers to blame the area’s topography for keeping broadband out.

David Snyder, vice president for engineering for the east region of Frontier Communications, told the newspaper “it’s just natural the investment and the time become more challenging.”

Frontier does say it has expanded broadband to 40,000 additional households in Connecticut since taking over for AT&T a year ago. But nobody seems to know exactly who can get broadband in the state and who cannot. The have-nots are the most likely to complain, and those businesses that serve visitors are in peril of losing business without offering reasonable Wi-Fi or Internet access. Rural families with school-age children are also at risk from having their kids fall behind those that can get broadband.

Wireless Internet Service Providers, which offer long-range wireless broadband in rural areas, complain the federal government is wasting money on studies instead of helping to underwrite solutions that can quickly bring Internet access to the rural masses.

Others believe talking to Frontier and Comcast is futile. They prefer to follow the lead of western Massachusetts, where 24 small communities across the region have joined forces to build a public fiber to the home broadband network. One estimate suggests 22 Connecticut towns covering 200,000 residents could be reached with a bond-financed fiber network completed by 2018. That network would likely reach more unserved customers than Frontier or Comcast will elect to serve over the next three years combined.

A separate effort to establish gigabit fiber broadband across the state — the CT Gig Project — promptly ran into a buzzsaw of opposition, primarily from incumbent telecommunications companies that refuse to offer that service now. With a threat to current profitable business models, it was not unexpected to hear opposition from Paul Cianelli, CEO of the New England Cable & Telecom Association — a cable company lobbying group.

He called public broadband unnecessary and “potentially disastrous.” He wants assurances no government subsidies or loan guarantees are given to the project. He also said providing gigabit service was unnecessary and faster Internet speeds were not important to the majority of customers in the state. Public broadband proponents respond Cianelli should tell that to the residents of Litchfield Hills and other unserved and underserved communities.