Broadband for America is the product of the nation's largest phone and cable companies.

Broadband for America has begun assaulting the airwaves with a high-priced advertising campaign claiming that “broadband is leading the [economic] recovery” but is threatened by “1930s telephone regulations,” urging Congress to get involved to stop broadband reform.

The 30 second ads blanketed cable and several Sunday morning news shows yesterday.

What the ads don’t mention is Broadband for America is actually one giant front group backed by large phone and cable companies.  In a study released last fall, Stop the Cap! found virtually every single “coalition” member, including so-called “independent consumer advocacy groups,” do substantial business with, or have received significant financial contributions or board assistance from companies including AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast.

Well-financed by the telecommunications industry it directly represents, Broadband for America seeks further deregulation and wants Congress to stop the FCC from enacting broadband reforms ranging from “truth in marketing” and billing to Net Neutrality.

The “honorary co-chairs” of the group are Michael Powell, the same Bush Administration FCC chairman that badly bungled the FCC’s approach to broadband policy thrown out in the courts earlier this year, and former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., who left public service for a very lucrative career in “dollar-a-holler” advocacy and working as a lobbyist for the economic-vampire investment bank Goldman Sachs (something Broadband for America left out of his online biography.)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Broadband for America 30 sec spots.flv[/flv]

Broadband for America, a telecom-backed astroturf group, is running these advertisements promoting the agenda of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast to try and stop broadband reform policies.  (1 minute)

WMC-TV in Memphis compared rates among providers to check and see if mandatory Comcast service represented a good deal for Mid-America renters.

Mid-America Apartment Communities, a nationwide apartment management company, continues to unveil new mandatory cable service fees on renters — this time for eight Mid-America apartment complexes in Memphis, Tennessee.

Memphis renters began receiving word of the new required $40 a month Comcast cable package late last month and the controversy has sparked additional media attention.

Mid-America earns a significant kickback bonus from Comcast for mandating cable service on all of its renters.  That upsets many renters who choose not to have cable service, or subscribe to a satellite provider like DirecTV or DISH.  The $40 fee doesn’t go away if you don’t want the service.  Earlier in July, Stop the Cap! covered Mid-America’s mandatory cable service introduction in other parts of Tennessee and Texas.

Legal experts say the arrangement is perfectly legal, so long as it is not imposed unilaterally on renters.  Instead, Mid-America includes the mandatory cable clause in its new renter and lease renewal agreements.  If you don’t want to pay the fee, your only option is to move somewhere else.

The $40 Comcast package delivers 100 digital channels, 45 music channels, and one on-demand channel.  That appears to coincide with Comcast’s Digital Starter package, which normally runs $51.50 a month in Memphis.

Some current Comcast subscribers who rent from Mid-America do appreciate the discount and the convenience of paying cable charges as part of their monthly rent.  But others do not want to be compelled to pay for Comcast service they don’t want or cannot afford.  For them, the extra $40 a month charge is effectively a rent increase.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WMC Memphis Forced to Watch 7-26-10.flv[/flv]

WMC-TV’s ‘Investigators’ Team took a look at Mid-America Apartments’ new mandatory cable charges imposed on its Memphis renters.  (4 minutes)

Netflix has a big problem.

As it gradually shifts its operations towards more instant, on-demand video streaming of movies and TV shows subscribers want, some well-connected studios and distributors have a vested interest in stopping Netflix in its tracks.

Among the most threatened is Time Warner’s HBO, which has watched premium movie channel subscriptions erode for years as consumers dump pay-TV for lower cable bills and Netflix subscriptions.  For up to five dollars less than what cable systems charge for HBO, Netflix customers get access to unlimited video streaming and can still check out one movie at a time on traditional DVDs.

Netflix is slowly evolving their business towards streaming and away from costly and labor-intensive DVD rentals-by-mail.  Customers enjoy the instant access to programming — no waiting for the mail or getting on a waiting list for popular titles.  Netflix does not have to pay ever-increasing postage rates either, or replace lost or damaged DVDs.

But for Netflix streaming to succeed, the company needs agreements with content producers — Hollywood studios and distributors — for so-called “streaming rights.”

One contract wins the right to obtain and rent out the physical DVD’s, which Netflix has had no problem in obtaining… eventually.  But another, separate agreement is needed win the rights to stream movies or TV show over the Internet.

So far, most of Netflix’s streaming agreements cover older movies and TV shows that have already found their way to Hulu or have been run to death on premium movie channels.  Anyone for Big, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, or Class Action?  These are all listed by Netflix as “new releases.”

Now Netflix wants to expand their library to include additional titles and they’ve run into a roadblock – HBO.

The premium movie channel controls streaming rights not just for its own programming, but also for Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, and Universal.  Those three movie studios produce an enormous amount of movies and television shows, and without being able to contract streaming licenses, Netflix may be in big trouble.

HBO's Go service streams HBO movies, specials, and series to "authenticated" HBO subscribers

HBO intends to keep those shows, as well as its own, exclusively for itself and its cable and telco-TV partners.  As part of the TV Everywhere concept, HBO will dramatically expand its own streaming movie service — HBO Go, currently only available to authenticated Comcast and Verizon FiOS HBO subscribers.  Everyone else can forget about it.

The pay television industry — cable, satellite, and telco-TV, is more than happy to accommodate HBO sticking it to Netflix.  HBO Go could help sustain the premium movie channel and sell more subscriptions.

The video war means that Netflix will be in the DVD rental-by-mail service for years to come, if only to serve up movies and TV shows from those three studios.  More likely, however, is that Netflix will find a partner to help return fire — denying HBO access to movies controlled by Netflix.

Ultimately, consumers are likely to follow the content.  If Netflix controls it, consumers will sign up for that service.  If the cable industry controls it, they’ll be forced to keep their cable subscriptions.  It’s a high stakes game either way.

Reardon is fine with this vision of your online future.

Marguerite Reardon confesses she’s confused.  She doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about regarding Google and Verizon teaming up to deliver a blueprint for a corporate compromise on Net Neutrality.  In a column published today, Reardon is convinced she’s on a debunking mission — to deliver the message that rumors of the Internet apocalypse are premature.

As I read the criticism of Google and Verizon’s supposed evil plan to demolish the Internet, and as I hear about “protests” of several dozen people at Google’s headquarters, I scratch my head and wonder: am I missing something?

The Google-Verizon Net neutrality proposal I read last week doesn’t sound nearly as apocalyptic as Free Press, a media advocacy group, and some of the most vocal critics out there have made it sound.

In fact, most of proposal sounded a lot like a plan FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski offered nearly a year ago, which many Net neutrality proponents seemed to support.

In short, Google and Verizon say they agree to a set of rules for the Internet that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or degrading lawful content on the Internet. Broadband providers would also not be allowed to take action to impede competition.

This is pretty much what Genachowski has proposed.

OK, terrific. There is agreement.

But wait, Net neutrality zealots are still unhappy.

Hmmm… “zealots?”  Reardon probably just angered the majority of CNET’s readers, who now find themselves labeled as crazed Internet online freedom fighters — net fundamentalists who want absolute protection against big Internet Service Providers tampering with their Internet Experience.

Where can I get my membership card?

Reardon’s “debunk” consists of her narrow, inaccurate definition of Net Neutrality pounded into a pre-conceived notion of what is and is not possible in a competitive broadband marketplace.  In short, she’s satisfied we can all move along… there is nothing to see here:

What Free Press and Public Knowledge don’t seem to realize is that AT&T and Verizon already offer differentiated services today with enhanced quality of service to business customers. Verizon’s Fios TV and AT&T’s U-verse TV services are also examples of managed Internet services that are delivered to consumers. And the last time I checked, no one, other than their cable competitors, has complained about AT&T and Verizon offering competition in the TV market.

The truth is that if Verizon and AT&T wanted to cannibalize their broadband business with premium broadband services, they’d already be doing it. But they aren’t, because there hasn’t been a market for it.

The reality is that consumers are in control of what type of services are offered. If the public Internet can adequately deliver a service for free, then there’s no need to pay for it. But if someone can provide a better service over a dedicated network and there are consumers willing to pay for it, then why shouldn’t it be offered? Isn’t that why some people subscribe to a 768Kbps broadband service for $15 a month, and others pay $100 for a 50Mbps service?

So let’s debunk the debunk.

First, Net Neutrality is not about stopping broadband providers from offering speed-based tiers of service.  In fact, that’s the Internet pricing model we’ve all come to know and love (although those prices are just a tad high, aren’t they?)  Free Press and Public Knowledge do not object to ISPs selling different levels of broadband speed tiers to consumers and businesses to access online content.

Net Neutrality isn’t about stopping ISPs from selling some customers “lite” service and others “mega-super-zippy Turbo” service — it’s about stopping plans from some ISPs to establish their own toll booths on the Internet to charge content producers twice — once to upload and distribute their content and then a second time to ensure that content reaches a particular ISPs customers on a timely, non-speed-throttled basis.  Consider this: you already pay good money for your own broadband account.  How would you feel if you sent an e-mail to a friend who uses another ISP and that provider wanted to charge you 20 cents to deliver that e-mail?  Don’t want to pay?  That’s fine, but your e-mail might be delayed, as paying customers enjoy priority over your freebie e-mail.

A lot of broadband customers may never understand the implications of giant telecom companies building their own toll lanes for “preferred content partners” on the Internet because they’ll just assume that stuck online video or constantly rebuffering stream is the fault of the website delivering it, not their provider intentionally pushing it aside to make room for content from companies who paid protection money to make sure their videos played splendidly.

Second, Reardon need only look to our neighbors in the north to see a non Net Neutral Internet experience in Canada.  There, ISPs intentionally throttle broadband applications they don’t want users running on their networks.  They also spank customers who dare to try what Reardon insists Verizon would never stop — using their broadband service to watch someone else’s content.  With the application of Internet Overcharging like usage limits and consumption billing schemes, cable companies like Rogers don’t need to directly block competitors like Netflix.  They need only spike customers’ broadband bills to teach them a lesson they’ll not soon forget.

Within days of Netflix announcing their imminent arrival in Canada, Rogers actually reduced the usage allowances of some of their broadband customers.  If you still want to watch Netflix instead of visiting Rogers pay-per-view cable menu or video rental stores, it will cost you plenty — up to $5 per gigabyte of viewing.

Reardon seems to think giant providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast care about what their customers want and wouldn’t jeopardize the customer relationship.  Really?  She herself admits she hates paying for hundreds of channels she never watches, yet providers are deaf to complaints from customers demanding an end to this practice.  What about the relentless price hikes?  Wouldn’t that drive off customers?  Perhaps… if customers had real alternatives.  Instead, with an effective duopoly market in place, subscribers pay “the man,” pay an almost identical price from the “other guy,” or go without.

Providers understand their power and leverage in the marketplace.  Until serious competition arrives, it would be a disservice to stockholders not to monetize every possible aspect of broadband service in the United States.

The check against this naked aggression on consumers’ wallets is from consumer groups who are fighting against these big telecom interests.

Before dismissing Net Neutrality “zealotry,” Reardon should experience the Internet in Canada and then get back to us, and more importantly those consumer groups she flicks away with disdain, and join the fight.

Cricket, the regional wireless carrier that claims to offer “unlimited” data plans that really are not, has jacked up prices on its wireless broadband plans and reduced wireless data usage allowances.

Cricket used to charge $40 a month for 5GB of monthly usage, $60 for 10GB.  No more.

Now the company wants you to pay more for less:

2.5GB for $40, 5GB for $50, and 7.5GB for $60 is hardly "respeKting" your wallet

Thankfully, existing Cricket customers are grandfathered into their existing $40 for 5GB plan, so they do not face the price hike and allowance cut.

Cricket’s claimed speeds up to 1.4Mbps are fiction — in our own tests we found service never exceeding 650kbps, and often averages 500kbps or less in the Rochester, N.Y. area.  When Cricket cell sites become congested, as they have in the southeastern part of the city, speeds can drop to 56kbps or less, making the service completely unusable.  While web page browsing and audio streaming are acceptable using Cricket, video streaming is not.  YouTube and other video multimedia was too painful to watch.

Cricket’s best advantage in the wireless broadband market was its pricing.  Customers accepted dramatically reduced coverage areas (don’t expect Cricket to work outside of the city, nearby suburbs, and adjacent major highways), slower speeds, and a “Fair Access Policy” that throttles your connection to dial-up speeds (or less) once you exceed your monthly allowance, all in return for service priced $20 less than most of the competition.  The modem is usually free or deeply discounted, and there is no contract requirement.

But at Cricket’s new pricing, consumers should take a look at Clearwire’s new 4G service, Comcast High Speed 2Go, or Road Runner Mobile instead.  Clear’s 4G-only plan offers unlimited access for $40.00 a month without a “Fair Access Policy” throttling your service to dial-up speeds, and much faster service than Cricket can provide.  The only downsides are the up front cost of the modem and being sure 4G is available in your area.

Clear, Comcast High Speed 2Go and Road Runner Mobile offer 4G service plans with a fallback option to 3G coverage for about $55 a month.  Clear and Comcast do not limit 4G usage, but do limit 3G access to 5GB per month before overlimit fees apply.  Road Runner Mobile offers unlimited access to both 3G and 4G service.

Cricket likes to claim it “respeKts your wallet.”  Raising prices and reducing usage allowances isn’t exactly a sign of respect.