The Free UTOPIA website reports that a provider-backed front group is once again trying to pack meetings with their members to oppose UTOPIA – Utah’s municipal broadband network.

Several UTOPIA member cities are gearing up to start taking votes on the new Utah Infrastructure Agency designed to help fund new construction of the network. The Utah Taxpayers Association is trying to get people to show up at these meetings to protest the UIA and try and kill it. In their effort to do so, they continue to distort, twist, and outright lie in their efforts to rile people up.

First off, the UIA bonds are not an unconditional loan. They are funds that will be secured by payments from subscribers. If there aren’t enough subscribers to secure repayment, the money doesn’t get touched. You would think that such an arrangement would be acceptable to an organization that purports to represent taxpayers as it clearly shifts the burden from the taxpayers as a whole to the subscribers. Attempting to characterize the UIA as a big grab-bag is a big lie.

UTA claims UTOPIA is currently running a $20 million deficit, but Free UTOPIA points out part of that “deficit” may include the original seed money required to construct the network, which came in the form of bonds.  Like any start-up venture, UTOPIA’s initial infrastructure costs create operating losses until those costs are paid back.  A financial feasibility study prepared by Design Nine and released last week projects UTOPIA could report positive net income by 2018, with revenue increasing dramatically going forward.

As fiber advocates have noted, start-up costs and the time it takes to pay them off are one reason why so few commercial providers want to invest in fiber.  Commercial providers often demand a return on investment within five years, while many municipal projects consider fiber a longer-term investment that can pay additional dividends for communities that may not always appear on a balance sheet.  Dividends like high technology start-ups, better paying jobs, better health care and education, and eventually additional revenue for the community that stays in the community.

The UTA has repeatedly claimed the UTOPIA project is veiled in secrecy, yet the project’s feasibility study is published on UTA’s own website.  What is secret is exactly how much money Comcast and Qwest pay UTA and its president Howard Stephenson.  Neither company will disclose exactly how much they have spent on UTA beyond contributions directed to Stephenson himself, documented here.

Provider-backed front groups like UTA routinely misinform their members about the benefits of municipal broadband, often to the point of demagoguery not supported by the facts.  Free UTOPIA reports broadband evangelism can make dramatic inroads among opponents of such public works projects:

The Utah “Taxpayers” Association thought it would get an upper hand with a BBQ in Orem just before the city council voted on a new construction bond. Unfortunately for them, the plan backfired when UTOPIA made a surprise appearance at the event with their “mobile command center” and started actually talking directly with the meeting attendees, many of whom had no opinion of UTOPIA yet and came to get more information. According to my sources, about half of the 250 or so attendees ended up registering their interest in UTOPIA services, a major coup for the network that upstaged their most vocal opponent.

Apparently what convinced a lot of the undecideds was the UTA’s refusal to disclose who pays their bills. That lack of transparency translated directly into looking like they have something to hide (hint: it’s Qwest and Comcast dollars) and left many looking at their fantastic claims skeptically. I’d like to say that there were some talking points to address, but an eyewitness account called it so much kool-aid drinking, a series of incomprehensible rants filled with insinuation, innuendo, insults, and no concrete addressable facts. In contrast, UTOPIA discussed their new business plan with individual residents and offered demonstrations of how well the service can work. Truth has power and it wasn’t on the UTA’s side.

Judging from comments left on UTOPIA’s website, the most controversy seems to be why it takes so long to extend service to more neighborhoods:

“Please finish laying fiber in Orem! We live virtually a quarter mile from the cutoff. We are stuck with Comcast’s horrible routing, and inconsistent speeds, Qwest’s DSL which doesn’t work due to damaged lines they are unwilling to repair, or wireless that never works. Please save us. I have been waiting for years.”

Utah fiber advocates are strongly encouraged by Free UTOPIA to repeat earlier successes and attend upcoming town meetings to present a more informed view about the benefits of fiber networks.

Centerville meets tonight (October 19) at 7PM, Orem is October 26 at 6PM, and Payson is October 27 at 6PM.

All meetings are at the city halls of each respective community.

EPB’s new 1Gbps municipal broadband service is causing some serious embarrassment to the telecom industry.  Since last week’s unveiling, several “dollar-a-holler” telecom-funded front groups and trade publications friendly to the industry have come forward to dismiss the service as “too expensive,” delivering speeds nobody wants, and out of touch with the market.

The “Information Technology and Innovation Federation,” which has historically supported the agenda of big telecom companies, has been particularly noisy in its condescending dismissal of the mega-speed service delivered in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Robert Atkinson, president of ITIF, undermines the very “innovation” their group is supposed to celebrate.  Because it doesn’t come from AT&T or Verizon, it’s not their kind of “innovation” at all.

“I can’t imagine a for-profit company doing what they are doing in Chattanooga, because it’s so far ahead of where the market is,” Atkinson told the New York Times.

“Chattanooga definitely is ahead of the curve,” Atkinson told the Times Free Press. “It’s like they are building a 16-lane highway when there is a demand for only four at this point. The private companies probably can’t afford to get that far ahead of the market.”

Bernie Arnason, formerly with Verizon and a cable industry trade association also dismissed EPB’s new service in his current role as managing editor for Telecompetitor, a telecom industry trade website:

Does anyone need that speed today? Will they in the next few years? The short answer is no. It’s kind of akin to people in the U.S. that buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini – all that power and speed, and nowhere to really use it. A more apropos question, is how many people can afford it – especially in a city the size of Chattanooga?

[…]Will there be a time when 1 Gb/s is an offer that is truly in demand? More than likely, although I still find it hard to imagine it being really necessary in a residential setting – I mean how many 3D movies can you watch at one time? Maybe a service that bursts to 1 Gb/s in times of need, but an always on symmetrical 1 Gb/s connection? Truth be told, no one really knows what the future holds, especially from a bandwidth demand perspective.

Arnason admits he doesn’t know what the future holds, but he and his industry friends have already made up their minds about what level of service and pricing is good enough for “a city the size of Chattanooga.”

Comcast’s Business Class broadband alternative is priced at around $370 a month and only provides 100/15Mbps service in some areas.  Atkinson and Arnason have no problems with that kind of innovation… the one that charges more and delivers less.

For groups like the ITIF, it’s hardly a surprise to see them mount a “nobody wants it or needs it”-dismissive posture towards fiber, because they represent the commercial providers who don’t have it.

Fiber Embargo

The Fiber-to-the-Home Council, perhaps the biggest promoter of fiber broadband delivered straight to customer homes, currently has 277 service provider members. With the exception of TDS Telecom, which owns and operates small phone companies serving a total of 1.1 million customers in 30 states, the FTTH Council’s American provider members are almost entirely family-run, independent, co-op, or municipally-owned.

Companies like American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Hiawatha Broadband Communications, KanOkla Telephone Association Inc., and the Palmetto Rural Telephone Cooperative all belong.  AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, Verizon, and Windstream do not.  Neither do any large cable operators.

While not every member of the Council has deployed fiber to the home to its customers, many appreciate their future, and that of their communities, relies on a high-fiber diet.

EPB’s announcement of 1Gbps service was made possible because it operates its service over an entirely fiber optic network.  Company officials, when asked why they were introducing such a fast service in Chattanooga, answered simply, “because we can.”

The same question should have been directed to the city’s other providers, Comcast and AT&T.  Their answer would be “because we can’t… and won’t.”

Among large providers, only Verizon has the potential to deliver that level of service to its residential customers because it invested in fiber.  It was also punished by Wall Street for those investments, repeatedly criticized for spending too much money chasing longer term revenue.  Wall Street may have ultimately won that argument, because Verizon indefinitely suspended its FiOS expansion plans earlier this year, despite overwhelmingly positive reviews of the service.

So among these players, who are the real innovators?

The Phone Company: Holding On to Alexander Graham Bell for Dear Life

Last week, Frontier Communications told customers in western New York they don’t need FiOS-like broadband speeds delivered over fiber connections, so they’re not going to get them.  For Frontier, yesterday’s ADSL technology providing 1-3Mbps service in rural areas and somewhat faster speeds in urban ones is ‘more than enough.’

That “good enough for you” attitude is pervasive among many providers, especially large independent phone companies that are riding out their legacy copper wire networks as long as they’ll last.

What makes them different from locally-owned phone companies and co-ops that believe in fiber-t0-the-home?  Simply put, their business plans.

Companies like Frontier, FairPoint, Windstream, and CenturyLink all share one thing in common — their dependence on propping up their stock values with high dividend payouts and limited investments in network upgrades (capital expenditures):

Perhaps the most important metric for judging dividend sustainability, the payout compares how much money a company pays out in dividends to how much money it generates. A ratio that’s too high, say, above 80% of earnings, indicates the company may be stretching to make payouts it can’t afford.

Frontier’s payout ratio is 233%, which means the company pays out more than $2 in dividends for every $1 of earnings! But this ignores Frontier’s huge deferred tax benefit and the fact that depreciation and amortization exceed capital expenditures — the company’s actual free cash flow payout ratio is a much more manageable 73%. Dividend investors should ensure that benefit and Frontier’s cash-generating ability are sustainable.

In other words, Frontier’s balance sheet benefits from the ability to write off the declining value of much of its aging copper-wire network and from creative tax benefits that might be eliminated through legislative reform.

The nightmare scenario at Frontier is heavily investing in widespread network upgrades and improvements beyond DSL.  The company recently was forced to cut its $1 dividend payout to $0.75 to fund the recent acquisition of some Verizon landlines and for limited investment in DSL broadband expansion.

Frontier won’t seek to deploy fiber in a big way because it would be forced to take on more debt and potentially cut that dividend payout even further.  That’s something the company won’t risk, even if it means earning back customers who fled to cable competitors.  Long term investments in future proof fiber are not on the menu.  “That would be then and this is now,” demand shareholders insistent on short term results.

The broadband expansion Frontier has designed increases the amount of revenue it earns per customer while spending as little as possible to achieve it.  Slow speed, expensive DSL fits the bill nicely.

The story is largely the same among the other players.  One, FairPoint Communications, ended up in bankruptcy when it tried to integrate Verizon’s operations in northern New England and found it didn’t have the resources to pull it off, and delivered high speed broken promises, not broadband.

Meanwhile, many municipal providers, including EPB, are constructing fiber networks that deliver for their customers instead of focusing on dividend checks for shareholders.

Which is more innovative — mailing checks to shareholders or delivering world class broadband that doesn’t cost taxpayers a cent?

Cable: “People Don’t Realize the Days of Cable Company Upgrades are Basically Over”

While municipal providers like EPB appear in major national newspapers and on cable news breaking speed records and delivering service not seen elsewhere in the United States, the cable industry has a different story to share.

Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent let the cat out of the bag when he told investors on CNBC that the days of cable companies spending capital on system upgrades are basically over.

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Both cable and phone companies have called a technology truce in the broadband speed war.  Where phone companies rely on traditional DSL service to provide broadband, most cable companies raise their speeds one level higher and then vilify the competition with ads promoting cable’s speed advantages.  Phone companies blast cable for high priced broadband service they’re willing to sell for less, if you don’t need the fastest possible speeds.  But with the pervasiveness of service bundling, where consumers pay one price for phone, Internet, and television service, many customers don’t shop for individual services any longer.

With the advent of DOCSIS 3, the latest standard for cable broadband networks, many in the cable industry believe the days of investing in new infrastructure are over.  They believe their hybrid fiber-coaxial cable systems deliver everything broadband consumers will want and don’t see a need for fiber to the home service.

Their balance sheets prove it, as many of the nation’s largest cable companies reduce capital expenses and investments in system expansion.  Coming at the same time Internet usage is growing, the disparity between investment and demand on broadband network capacity sets the perfect stage for rate increases and other revenue enhancers like Internet Overcharging schemes.

Unfortunately for the cable industry, without a mass-conversion of cable-TV lineups to digital, which greatly increases available bandwidth for other services, their existing network infrastructure does not excuse required network upgrades.

EPB’s fiber optic system delivers significantly more capacity than any cable system, and with advances in laser technology, the expansion possibilities are almost endless.  EPB is also not constrained with the asynchronous broadband cable delivers — reasonably fast downstream speeds coupled with paltry upstream rates.  EPB delivers the same speed coming and going.  In fact, the biggest bottlenecks EPB customers are likely to face are those on the websites they visit.

EPB also delivered significant free speed upgrades to its customers earlier this year… and no broadband rate hike or usage limits.  In fact, EPB cut its price for 100Mbps service from $175 to $140.  Many cable companies are increasing broadband pricing, while major speed upgrades come to those who agree to pay plenty more to get them.

Which company has the kind of innovation you want — the one that delivers faster speeds for free or the one that experiments with usage limits and higher prices for what you already have?

No wonder Big Telecom is embarrassed.  They should be.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/EPB Interviews 9-20-10.flv[/flv]

EPB and Chattanooga city officials appeared in interviews on Bloomberg News and the Fox Business Channel.  CNET News also covered EPB’s 1Gbps service, introduced last week.  (12 minutes)

Comcast wants you to know your bill for cable television is going to keep going up and up and up, even as the company spends more of your money on political lobbying and rebranding efforts.  As a result, more of you are pulling the plug on Comcast cable television subscriptions.

Speaking Sept. 15 at the Bank America Merrill Lynch media conference in Newport Beach, Calif., Comcast CFO Michael Angelakis warned that programming costs are continuing to increase, and the cable company is going to pass those increases on to its customers through rate hikes.

Angelakis admitted these costs represent one of Comcast’s toughest challenges, because the cable programming industry has become increasingly consolidated.  If Comcast won’t play ball over fees charged by a single network, a dozen or more other channels owned by that programmer could be withheld from the cable company.

The cable programming industry increasingly relies on “Three Musketeer”-package deals that renew carriage agreements for popular cable networks only if other co-owned channels come along for the ride.  Want USA, SyFy, and Bravo from NBC-Universal?  Then you better make room for the rest of their extended family like Sleuth, Chiller, and qubo.

Most years, these cable networks increase their wholesale prices, which shows up eventually on your Comcast bill in the form of a rate hike.

Subscribers have clamored for a-la-carte opportunities to pick and choose only channels actually watched, but that’s a scary proposition to companies like Comcast, who could see revenues plunge from a “pick your own channels” plan.  Instead, Angelakis told investors he’d rather pay less for networks that simply don’t attract many viewers.

“If programmers aren’t performing, we’d like to see rates go down,” he said.

The impact of those price increases is now more apparent than ever for the nation’s largest cable operator as subscribers reach a virtual ceiling in the price they’re willing to pay for cable television.

Comcast management reported adding 165,000 new customers after the digital television transition in the first half of 2009.  Many of those customers signed up for service with one year promotional deals that are now expiring, exposing customers to Comcast’s usual retail prices.  As a result, so far this year, 169,000 customers looking for basic cable service have canceled.

The cable industry is trying to reduce the revenue impact of subscriber losses by increasing prices for the customers that remain.  Comcast is no different, and Angelakis told investors the company’s financial performance can still be strong with increased average revenue per subscriber and cost-cutting.

One expense Comcast is not cutting: political lobbying.

In the second quarter of 2010 alone, Comcast spent $3.82 million dollars on lobbying activities — a 16 percent increase from the amount it spent at the same time last year, according to the U.S. House of Representatives clerk’s office.  Comcast made campaign contributions to elected officials, paid an army of lobbyists to promote its proposed Comcast-NBC merger, and made payments to fund front groups, astroturf projects, and say “thanks” to non-profit groups engaging in “dollar-a-holler” advocacy for the company’s political agenda.

Comcast also lobbied to stop broadband reforms like Net Neutrality, advocated roadblocks for potential competitors, added its two cents on how the government promotes broadband expansion, and sought to inhibit shareholder rights to influence executive pay.

Comcast’s biggest innovation this year is — changing its name.  The march towards rebranding the company’s cable TV, broadband, and phone products continues, with 63 percent of its cable systems now flying the Xfinity flag.  Comcast hopes customers will take a second look at Comcast’s product lineup once they see the new name.  Kevin Upton, a senior lecturer in marketing at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management says companies can use rebranding to suggest the introduction of new products and services.

Starting Monday, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., customers will find the Xfinity name plastered all over the place, and Upton noted Comcast’s rebranding effort worked on him.

When Upton got a flyer about Xfinity recently, he thought it would offer faster Internet service than Comcast.

“It called attention to itself, and it got me to pay attention to the stuff I’m already overpaying for anyway.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Inside Comcasts Quarter 7-28-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC covered Comcast’s second quarter financial results back on July 28th in this report.  (3 minutes)

The dollar-a-holler crowd that takes “charitable” contributions from Comcast is enjoying an abundance of riches thanks to your cable bill payment and their corporate agenda to get the NBC-Comcast merger approved. Everyone is coming out to celebrate the deal — from the United Way in Denver to a Texas sheriff and a group opposing grave desecration.  Regular Stop the Cap! reader Bones sent word Comcast’s Money Party is just getting started.

The Wrap notes Comcast has donated $1.8 billion in cash and in-kind largess to non-profit organizations since 2001, many of which will helpfully throw 44 cents back in the form of supportive letters to the Federal Communications Commission telling them to do whatever America’s largest cable company wants.

It’s all a part of the dirty little game some non-profits play with corporate benefactors to work against your consumer interests.  Even worse, many of these same groups will also ask -you- for a donation as well.  If Comcast keeps raising its rates, perhaps the best option in response to those playing on Comcast’s side is to tell them you already sent a donation… to Comcast.

This year’s circus of money has generated a torrent of correspondence to the FCC that is often nothing less than absurd.

The Wrap found one letter from the president of the Washington, D.C.-based Cherry Blossom Festival.  Did you know cherry blossoms were deeply committed to seeing Comcast and NBC get married?

“Over the past few years, Comcast has generously donated services and sponsorship to our events,” Diana Mayhew, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Cherry Blossom Festival, wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in July. “I believe as Comcast teams up with NBC, it will continue to be a great partner for the Cherry Blossom Festival.”

But it gets much sillier.

Stop the Cap! has compiled just a sampler of comments from several interest groups all in a hurry to get their letters into the public record.  Most were bad, but we also include an example of a letter from a group that didn’t simply applaud the deal.  Our comments are in italics:

National Puerto Rican Coalition: “In our view, […] this joint venture will lead to valuable benefits and unprecedented advances in media diversity for Hispanics and other people of color.”

Do you think the fact NPRC also received valuable funding from the Comcast Foundation might have had something to do with their cheerleading letter?

Cuban American National Council
Hispanic Federation
League of United Latin American Citizens
National Council of La Raza
National Hispanic Media Coalition
SER-Jobs For Progress National, Inc.: “We strongly believe that the Memorandum of Understanding between Comcast and NBCU and the Hispanic Leadership organizations seeks to promote the goals of expanding economic opportunity for Hispanic families and preserving and enhancing programming for Hispanic audiences, and view these commitments as stepping stones to a more responsive and responsible corporate citizenry.”

These groups, many of which also receive direct funding from Comcast, went over the top cooking up a “Memorandum of Understanding” (or is it a shakedown agreement) to land positions on Comcast’s “Advisory Councils.”  These Latino groups managed to get their travel and other expenses paid for by Comcast to attend twice-yearly meetings to discuss diversity issues.  Their agreement also allows this coalition to empower itself, by getting Comcast to agree to call them when looking for “qualified” Latino law firms, suppliers and vendors, and even top management.  That provides these groups power and influence as interested candidates appeal to them to gain a spot on the “qualified” list.  But it goes even further — Comcast has to add several “qualified” (identified with the help of these groups) Latino-owned cable channels to the lineup whether subscribers want them or not.

This agreement was marked “confidential,” but you can read a copy right here.  By the way, it’s no surprise the League of United Latin American Citizens is on this list.  They’ll peddle themselves out to any Big Telecom company that comes with a check in hand, especially AT&T.

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (“GLAAD”): “Given the weight and significance of the Comcast/NBCU merger, GLAAD urges the FCC to ensure that the community of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans are not forgotten in its calculus of diversity, and that the stories and visibility of LGBT people and their families are held up as part of the valued diversity in its discussions, analysis and recommendations in this merger.

GLAAD’s filing was an example of a respectable comment letter filed by a minority interest group.  They didn’t take a strong position for or against the merger.  Instead, they shined a light on the issues that concern the LGBT community and said the FCC should take a closer look.  That’s fair and appropriate.

Hmong New Life Radio Broadcasting
Hmong Women’s Heritage Association
Hmong Report At 7
Lao Family Community of Fresno
Sacramento Asian-American Minority, Inc.
National Hmong Grave Desecration Committee: “We believe Comcast’s sensitivity to our need for such programming speaks extremely well of them as a company. It is a clear indication that they will continue to exhibit their sense of the responsibility to underserved communities such as ours subsequent to a merger with NBC-Universal.”

These six groups must be new to the influence game because they each sent nearly identical (often word for word) letters to the FCC in support of the merger.  On the ludicrous scale, nothing beats the National Hmong Grave Desecration Committee finding itself compelled to write a formal letter to the FCC on a multi-billion dollar cable-broadcast merger.

Mile High United Way: “Comcast has provided sizeable foundation grants for DRH projects and other meaningful financial donations to other United Way programs. In addition to philanthropy and volunteerism, the company has also provided us with top notch communications support. The company has helped us create video presentations for our key fundraising efforts; it has placed public service announcements on its cable stations in an attempt generate attention and attendance for our events; it has also provided time on its Comcast Newsmakers public service broadcast to publicize our events, our programs and our people.”

That’s all wonderful, but none of it justifies or even argues for a merger between a cable and television network.  This is nothing more than dollar-a-holler advocacy at work — United Way gets goodies from Comcast and now they are returning the favor.  What United Way won’t get from our family is another nickle.  After all, our contributions to United Way pay for this group’s time and effort peddling Comcast’s corporate agenda to the FCC.  And I thought the United Way was supposed to be a charitable organization, not a lobbyist advocating for Comcast.

Sheriff Adrian Garcia – Harris County (Tex.): “Comcast is not just a business operating in Harris County, it is a partner in our effort to be a better and safer community. I hope the FCC will keep all that Comcast does in mind and permit the NBC Universal partnership to move forward.”

Voters in Harris County might want to keep this letter in mind come election time.  This shockingly inappropriate involvement by a law enforcement agency willing to stick its nose in a corporate merger is inexcusable.  Perhaps Harris County needs a sheriff that will spend time fighting crime, not typing up letters to benefit the cable company.  Oh, and by the way Sheriff — Comcast really is just a business.

The National Zoo: “In sum, Comcast has proven to be a reliable partner that cares about our work here at the Zoo in promoting innovative science, educating children, and ultimately establishing a beautiful urban park offering families excitement as well as a welcome place to enjoy nature. We deeply care about our engagement with our local friends and families here in Washington, D.C. and appreciate the fact that Comcast shares our commitment to serving the local community.”

That’s grand, but has nothing to do with a corporate merger proposal.  Comcast’s subscribers are the ones who ultimately care about the Zoo.  It’s their money that paves the way for all those good works.

Center for the Homeless: “I hope you will consider this testimony in favor of Comcast and its strong sense of involvement in American communities and service to those who need it most. Comcast is a true partner in the important work that we do.”

Another group whose mission should be helping the homeless is devoting time and resources to sending love notes to the FCC on behalf of a giant cable company.  By the way, none of the clients your group serves can afford Comcast’s prices.

Partnership for a Drug Free New Jersey: “I look forward to our continued partnership with Comcast and am excited to welcome NBC onto their team. We will continue to reach teens all over New Jersey to help ensure that they remain drug-free and continue to bring the message of hope to so many of our state’s residents.”

The excitement is even greater when you recognize Comcast and the national umbrella group Partnership for a Drug Free America can’t thank each other enough.  The non-profit explained it all in a newsletter: “At the Partnership’s third annual Making A Difference gala held this winter in the Grand Ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, more than 850 guests gathered to honor Ralph J. Roberts, founder and chairman of the executive and finance committee for the Comcast Corporation, and his son, Brian L. Roberts, chairman & CEO of Comcast. Chairing the gala were Geraldine B. Laybourne, chairman & CEO of Oxygen Media and James B. Lee, Jr., vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase & Co. […] The evening generated over $2.1 million to support the Partnership’s programs for children, parents and families.”

The accolades should have stopped at a “thank you” card, not with the unseemly way this group returns the favor by advocating for a merger deal involving one of their benefactors.

The Consumerist covers a minor bungle by Comcast, which sent e-mail to a whole mess of their customers heralding a 50 percent speed increase in huge, bold print that was not to be:

Customers who waded into the text accompanying the festivities discovered the speed increase was only meant for so-called “Economy Service” customers who were getting upgrades from 1Mbps to 1.5Mbps.  A few days later, the requisite “apology for our error” e-mail was headed out — to the wrong customers: