Time Warner Cable announced late last week it would add 650 call center jobs in South Carolina in 2013.

Most of the new positions will be in Lexington County at a newly expanded call center in West Columbia.

The company said it was increasing telephone sales and support positions by 50 percent in the state and would make a $24 million investment in its operations this year.

Gov. Nikki Haley said Time Warner Cable chose South Carolina for its business-friendly climate.

“The ultimate celebration in South Carolina is when a company expands,” Haley said at an event announcing the expansion. “It’s the biggest compliment to a county, it’s the biggest compliment to a state because it shows that there is true commitment in taking care of the businesses that we already have.”

In July, Haley further demonstrated that commitment by signing a bill promoted by Time Warner Cable and other telecommunications companies that would make it next to impossible for communities to construct and operate their own broadband networks in a state woefully underserved by the cable company and AT&T.

As Christopher Mitchell from Community Broadband Networks points out, the new law is corporate welfare at its finest, requiring local governments to avoid undercutting the rates charged by incumbent phone and cable companies, even if the government could provide the service at reduced cost.

“It effectively prohibits municipalities from operating their own broadband systems through a series of regulatory and reporting requirements,” said Catharine Rice, president of the SouthEastAssociation of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (SEATOA). “These practically guarantee municipalities could never find financing because the requirements would render even a private sector broadband company inoperable.”

The majority of the new jobs are expected to start at salaries under $40,000 a year. In May, Frontier Communications opened its own call center in Horry County that pays much lower salaries than the call centers it replaced.

In separate announcements, Time Warner Cable noted it planned to “consolidate” call center positions in other locations, which means employees in other cities and states will either lose their jobs or accept invitations to transfer to other facilities, potentially for lower pay.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLTX Columbia 650 New Jobs in SC At TWC 1-4-13.flv[/flv]

WLTX in Columbia favorably reports Time Warner Cable’s forthcoming hiring spree in their area.  (2 minutes)

Echoing the sentiment of many of the member organizations that finance it, the nation’s largest cable lobbying group — the National Cable and Telecommunications Association — may now see itself as a trade organization of broadband providers, so it is considering a name change.

The group filed a trademark application for the brand, “NCTA The Internet and Television Association” at the end of December according to a report by Fierce Cable.

An NCTA spokesperson claimed the new name was just an idea at this point and no formal name change is anticipated at this time. But the move does represent a growing trend away from the product its members are most famous for providing: cable television.

The NCTA got its start in September 1951 as the National Community Television Council, representing the interests of operators that provided community antenna service primarily in the mountainous Appalachian region. The following year it was rebranded the National Community Television Association (NCTA).

By the late 1960s, “community television” was dropped in favor of “cable television” and the group remained known as the National Cable Television Association until 2001, when operators realized the growing importance of broadband. As a result, the group adopted the name it still uses today: the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

The NCTA is dominated by the nation’s largest cable operators, particularly Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Smaller, independent cable operators have felt disenfranchised from the NCTA, which caters to the interests of enormous corporate telecommunications companies, so 150 independent operators banded together and formed the American Cable Association (ACA) in 1993.

Critics of the broadband stimulus project question why the state spent money on unnecessary equipment and failed to identify anchor institutions that already had adequate service.

Another round of miscalculations by project managers overseeing a $126.3 million federal broadband stimulus grant nearing expiration will cost nearly half of West Virginia’s anchor institutions their promised fiber broadband connections.

As a consolation prize, state officials are promising those left out will receive new routers paid for by federal taxpayers whether the institutions want them or not.

As the deadline nears for West Virginia to finish spending their 2010 federal broadband grant, the state has been on a spending spree. Just last week, officials designated 175 new sites as “community anchor institutions” qualified for upgraded Internet service. But the Charleston Gazette found just seven of them will receive fiber broadband upgrades. The rest are getting expensive routers that the state has been trying to unload for nearly two years or new routers the state will spend additional grant funds to purchase.

Among the top vendors paid with grant funds: Frontier Communications, which provides connectivity, and Verizon Communications, the company that supplied the overpowered routers.

“Due to the amount of time required for environmental assessments and fiber builds, we determined that we would limit most of the additional sites to ‘router-only’ so that we could complete the build on time,” Diane Holley-Brown, a spokeswoman for the state Office of Technology told the newspaper.

The state defended its decision to scale back on fiber upgrades pointing out many of the institutions targeted already had the service. That left the state scurrying to find new projects for unspent grant funds.

The state’s latest award of Internet routers is separate from the earlier revelation West Virginia had over-purchased equipment that either proved unnecessary or duplicated equipment already installed.

Eric Eyre’s watchdog reporting in the Charleston Gazette over how the state’s $100+ million broadband grant has been spent has triggered a federal and state investigation.

In 2011, then Gov. Joe Manchin promised that federal broadband stimulus funding would provide fiber connectivity to 1,064 schools, libraries, public safety and health care institutions. When the project funding expires at the end of January, only 639 institutions will be slated to receive fiber upgrades.

Schools are among the hardest hit institutions. At least 60 percent of those promised upgraded Internet service will only receive a new router instead.

The project has remained under scrutiny since the Gazette revealed $24 million of the grant was spent on 1,064 Cisco routers that were never intended for use at many of the institutions targeted to receive them. Hundreds of the $20,000+ routers were stored, unused, in state buildings for at least two years waiting for a new home.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Inspector General and West Virginia Legislative Auditor are reviewing the router purchase.

When the grant expires West Virginia officials have made it clear those institutions left without fiber upgrades should not hold their breath waiting for the state to pick up where the federal government left off. The reason? The grant money is nearly gone and the state is not interested in financing additional upgrades.

Wyden

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has introduced legislation that would force Internet Service Providers to prove usage caps are designed to manage network congestion instead of monetizing consumer data usage.

The Data Cap Integrity Act would require the Federal Communications Commission to enact new rules forcing providers to justify their usage cap programs, create standards by how ISPs measure usage and to provide useful measurement tools to customers before they incur overlimit fees.

“Internet use is central to our lives and to our economy,” said Wyden. “Future innovation will undoubtedly require consumers to use more and more data — data caps should not impede this innovation and the jobs it creates.  This bill is intended to help consumers manage their data more effectively and ensure that data caps are used only to serve the legitimate purpose of addressing congestion.”

Wyden’s bill is an attempt to force providers to prove their contention that usage limits improve the user experience by preventing so-called “data hogs” from slowing down connections of other paying customers.

Wyden is also concerned that without uniform standards of data measurement, consumers could be blindsided with overlimit fees or even have their service cut off. In the past, providers have stuck customers with a variety of often inaccurate measurement tools that have under or over-reported usage, which can sometimes lead to higher bills. At present, no government agency has authority over the veracity of provider measurement tools, and most ISPs impose terms requiring subscribers to accept their word as final for the purpose of usage measurement.

The Oregon senator’s bill is the first measure regulating usage caps introduced in the Senate. In 2009, Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) introduced a measure in the House that would have banned most usage caps and usage-based billing without first applying a means test. Massa introduced the bill after Time Warner Cable attempted to impose a usage-billing scheme on customers in his district, which includes parts of the Rochester area.

Among the provisions in Wyden’s bill the FCC must enact and enforce within one year of its passage:

• A “truth in labeling requirement” that requires ISPs fully disclose the cost of their services, the true upload and download speed a customer will receive, and the presence of any speed throttles or usage limits;
• A ban on usage caps for any provider that cannot prove they are needed to control congestion and not simply discourage Internet usage;
• A penalty for providers that either do not provide suitable measurement tools or inaccurately measure usage leading to unjustified overlimit fees;
• A provider may not exempt certain content from its usage cap while imposing it on others.

Lyons

Wyden’s bill was introduced at the same time the nation’s largest cable lobbying group, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, sponsored an event defending usage limits and consumption billing. Two of the three experts speaking at the event declared peak usage limits or congestion pricing ineffective.

In fact, Michael Weinberg from Public Knowledge took note of the fact the cable industry now seems to admit it does not have a congestion problem:

“The most refreshing section of the [NCTA’s] study is the one that is not there,” Weinberg wrote. “There is no meaningful discussion of usage-based pricing as a tool to reduce network congestion or a suggestion that monthly data limits are a reasonable way to impact congestion. There is also no invocation of the mythical ‘data hog,’ a sinful creature that can only be punished with data caps. Hopefully, the omission is NCTA’s tacit admission of two things: that cable networks are not congested and, if they become so in the future, monthly caps will do little to address that congestion.

”

“I don’t think congestion is as big a problem in fixed broadband,” said Professor David M. Lyons of Boston College Law School at the NCTA event. “The latest broadband speed surveys that the FCC has come out suggests that there is not a whole lot of slowdown at peak periods on the fixed side.”

Time Warner Cable is expanding its footprint in the capital region of New York with the acquisition of independent Princetown Cable Company, which serves around 600 subscribers in Princetown, Duanesburg and Rotterdam in Schenectady County.

Time Warner already manages cable service for most cable subscribers around the Albany-Schenectady region, but bought Princetown Cable to further solidify its holdings.

Princetown Cable began service in 1990 serving rural areas ignored by then-dominant TCI Cable (later AT&T Cable, then Comcast).

Most customers signed up to get better reception of television signals from nearby Albany and Utica.

Princetown Cable’s lineup of around 100 channels ($82.50/month for digital cable) is dwarfed by Time Warner, and its broadband service is comparatively slow and expensive:

Time Warner Cable agreed to pay $1.2 million for the system, which breaks down to around $2,000 per subscriber.