Denver residents are discovering that when Comcast says they’re getting a “free speed upgrade,” what they really mean is that upgrade is going to cost you an additional $2 more per month.

Comcast recently increased broadband speeds in Denver “for free,” but now Mile-High City residents are discovering free comes at a price with Comcast.

The price of renting your cable modem is increasing by $2 a month, which means the majority of Comcast customers locally will now spend $5 per month just for the modem.

Denver, Colorado (Courtesy: Yassie)

Comcast blamed the increase on costs associated with upgrading their network facilities to support DOCSIS 3, the latest cable modem standard which supports vastly faster Internet speeds.

Comcast spokeswoman Cindy Parsons said in a statement that the company continually invests in providing customers with next-generation equipment and technology that delivers advanced Internet services with enhanced capabilities.

“Our costs for this new equipment will increase by 167 percent over the next two years,” Parsons said.

Comcast has been increasing the modem rental price on a city-by-city basis across the country, often after speed upgrades like that completed in Denver which doubled speeds from 6 to 12Mbps late last year.

If just two-thirds of Comcast customers nationwide continue to simply pay the monthly rental fee, the company will earn more than $250 million in annual revenue just on the two dollar rate hike.  Is that enough to pay for service upgrades so we can dispense with talk about Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and consumption billing?

Stop the Cap! reminds readers Comcast subscribers can purchase their own cable modem from electronics retailers, often for $100 or less, and never pay a rental fee again.

At $60 a year, customers will more than pay for their modem purchase after less than two years.

The subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet is holding a hearing titled, “An Examination of the Proposed Combination of Comcast and NBC Universal.”

The hearing explores the potential impact on the media marketplace of the proposed joint venture agreement between Comcast and NBC Universal.  It begins at 9:30am EST and is expected to run for several hours.

Participants:

• Brian L. Roberts, Chairman and CEO, Comcast Corporation
• Jeff Zucker, President and CEO, NBC Universal
• Colleen Abdoulah, President and CEO
• WOW! Internet, Cable, and Phone
• Mark Cooper, Ph.D., Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America
• Michael J. Fiorile, President and Chief Operating Officer, The Dispatch Printing Company, Chair of the NBC Affiliates Board
• Adam D. Thierer, President, Progress and Freedom Foundation

To watch, click the C-SPAN logo below.  A video player will pop up in a separate window.  Be sure to disable any pop-up blockers in your browser.  If the player does not appear, or you are unsure how to disable your pop-up blocker, you can launch the C-SPAN 3 stream using Flash, Windows Media, or RealVideo format from this direct link.

If you miss any part of the hearing, we anticipate having an archived edition up later today.

Click logo to launch player

[Update 10:23am — The members of the Subcommittee are still making opening statements.  Generally, Democratic members are expressing concerns about the transaction, Republicans are either neutral or favorable towards the merger.  The ranking member, Rep. Stearns (R) from Florida read a statement that could have been drafted by Comcast and NBC.  Net Neutrality and copyright enforcement issues are also coming up.  Members from California, the home base for a lot in the entertainment industry, are the ones usually mentioning copyright.  Republicans who have brought up Net Neutrality are universally hostile to the policy, one warning the Committee the very concept may be overturned by the DC Court of Appeals.  Democrats are in favor.  Both Reps. Markey and Eshoo are on the panel — they co-introduced the Net Neutrality bill in Congress.

Based on the opening statements, it appears the question and answer session will likely bring hardball questions from most of the Democrats, softball questions from most of the Republicans.  But expect a handful of members to occasionally break the trend.  There will also be the usual grandstanding on both sides of the aisle from time to time.]

City by city, Comcast is continuing its quest to make the switch to digital cable for an increasing portion of  its cable programming lineup.  Although the majority of subscribers will encounter letters from Comcast switching only a portion of the analog cable lineup, it’s a safe bet Comcast is looking to an all-digital future sooner or later.

Coming less than a year after the switch to digital broadcast television, the march to digital cable is causing confusion for subscribers who don’t understand the difference.

Analog cable television has been around for more than 20 years in most American cities.  It’s the kind of cable television that doesn’t usually need a converter box on top of the TV.  Just plug the cable line into the back of your television set, let the TV find and map available channels, and you can use your standard TV remote to enjoy basic or enhanced basic cable television.  Of course, if you subscribe to premium channels like HBO or Showtime, a box is required to descramble the encrypted signal.

Cable operators began launching “digital cable” in the 1990s, expanding the lineup of programming with hundreds of new channels that are compressed into a digital format, with a half dozen or more digital channels fitting in the same space used by just one analog channel.  Space on the cable line is getting increasingly crowded as cable systems launch new HD channels, support telephone service, and expand broadband service and speeds.

To make room, several of those old school analog channels have to go… digital.  If you already have a set top cable box — you probably won’t even notice the changeover.  But if you don’t have one of those boxes in your home, and your television doesn’t support CableCARD technology, Comcast has some bad news for you.  Sooner or later, you’ll either have to get a set top box or lose an increasing number of channels on your cable dial.

Comcast's digital adapter doesn't support HD channels

Comcast’s digital cable expansion is their solution to the traffic jam on their cable lines.  Some other cable companies take a different approach.  Knowing that many customers hate cable boxes, they’ve left analog channels alone, instead transmitting digital channels only to those homes actually watching them.  If nobody in your neighborhood is watching Current or Fox Business News, why waste the space to send those signals down the line to… nobody.  Time Warner Cable doesn’t for many of their digital channels.  If one lives in an eclectic viewing neighborhood, there are problems with this approach.  Potentially, if enough homes want to watch these lesser-viewed networks, and Time Warner runs out of the space it sets aside to carry a certain number of these channels, the subscriber will see a video busy signal — a message stating the channel is temporarily not available, at least until someone nearby changes channels, making room for the network you want to watch.

Comcast's digital solution is a problem for those who hate "the box" for weaving a rat's nest of cables behind one's television.

In most communities, Comcast will provide up to three digital adapter boxes at no charge, if you install them yourself on each television in your home.  Additional boxes are usually $1.99 per month.  That’s fine if you are still using an older television set and don’t care about HDTV programming — the digital adapters Comcast provides don’t support HD.  If you do want HD channels, you’ll need Comcast’s traditional converter box, which runs about $7 a month per television, or a CableCARD, if your television supports it.  Comcast also has elaborate instructions for customers with multiple TV inputs to support both standard and high definition signals, some through the digital adapter, others not, but it requires a lot of cables.

Customers who loathe boxes and don’t want to pay for them are upset by all of the changes, and either must cope with the new box, or gradually lose more and more analog channels as the conversion continues.  Broadcast basic customers getting only local channels from Comcast are unaffected by all of this, at least for now.  Owners of modern HD television sets aren’t impressed either — their sets, capable of receiving QAM digital cable channels without a box are no help because Comcast encrypts its digital cable lineup in many areas.

But the company still thinks of the project as a service upgrade for its customers, even dubbing it Project Cavalry on their company blog. When one customer wondered why the new equipment wasn’t available in his area yet, a company blogger responded, “We will not be “cherry picking” … all our systems will get the benefits. The Comcast Cavalry just hasn’t swept through your area yet, stay tuned.”

When asked why the devices don’t support HD channels, the response:

The DTA was designed as a low-end, basic device to do one thing and one thing only … convert digital signals back to analog for display on an analog TV. That’s all, no higher end outputs, no VOD, no HD, no interactive guide. Keeping the device simple as described is what kept the price down enough that we can provide so much free equipment to our customers. Also, the RF output makes it compatible with the absolute maximum number of TVs, which is critical to the program. As a digital device, however, it does offer dramatically-improved picture quality over analog even through the RF output.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast DTA Tutorial.flv[/flv]

Watch Comcast’s tutorial on installing their Digital Adapter. (4 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast Digital Migration.flv[/flv]

Watch a coast-to-coast series of news reports detailing the Comcast transition to digital, starting with the message customers see on their now-missing favorite channels. (15 minutes)

The elusive Dell 10v Netbook promised to new Comcast customers back in August is MIA for hundreds who took advantage of the promotion

Five months after Comcast ran a promotion for new customers including a free Dell 10v netbook, many customers across the country are still waiting to receive the computer.

Back in August, Comcast matched a Verizon FiOS promotion promising a netbook to new customers signing a two-year service contract for a $99 monthly “triple play” package of telephone, broadband, and cable programming.

Visitors to Comcast’s website were offered:

HD Starter Triple Play

NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Get a free Dell 10v Netbook with the HD Starter Triple Play for only $99 a month for 12 months and a 2-year minimum term agreement. Plus, you’ll continue the savings the following year with a price of just $10 more per month.

• Free HD – no HD access fees or equipment fees.
• Over 80 digital cable channels.
• Thousands of On Demand movies and shows.
• Internet downloads up to 15 Mbps, uploads up to 3 Mbps with PowerBoost®.
• Unlimited local and long-distance nationwide calling – rated #1 in call clarity.
• Voice Mail and 12 popular calling features including Caller ID, Call Waiting and more.

The campaign apparently shared something else in common with Verizon’s promotions — customers left high and dry wondering when the promised bonus will arrive.

Customer attempts to contact Comcast have met with a wall of excuses and broken promises, and often still no netbook.  Other customers were told they failed to “qualify” for the promotion for not precisely following the terms and conditions that were never explained to them.

Comcast representatives have told customers they lost out because:

• They failed to return a copy of the signed contract committing to two years’ of service, despite insistence from customers who claimed they had;
• Comcast had two promotions running at the same time that were nearly identical, though one offer did not include a netbook. Customers were told they were signed up for the promotion that didn’t include the netbook.
• Customers had to make three or four consistent payments for service, before the due date, or they would forfeit participation in the netbook promotion.
• The customer waited too long to complain about the missing netbook.
• The customer was now a TV customer, and therefore didn’t qualify for the promotion.
• Tri-Star/Checkmyrebate.com, the third party fulfillment center handling the promotion didn’t receive/rejected the customer’s promotion request.
• They lost the paperwork.

Although some customers began receiving the promised promotion more than 120 days after signing up for Comcast, hundreds more are still waiting, and complaining.  A few managed to obtain service credits up to $299 (the retail cost of the Dell 10v) and told to “go buy your own.”   One Seattle television station intervened to help a Kenmore resident finally secure one in January, despite hopes it would have arrived before Christmas for re-gifting.

Escalating the matter to executive customer service is usually the best way to cut through Comcast’s red tape and secure the promotion customers are entitled to receive.

Darren, a Comcast customer who waited months for the cable company to make good on their offer gave some advice:

I started posting on Facebook and Twitter and immediately received a twitter from @ComcastMelissa and @ComcastBonnie. They told me to email: [email protected] and provide my account information so they can get me my netbook. I received an email from Sherri Carson, ([email protected]) at the corporate office – national customer service. On January 7th, 2010 she said “This is going to take about 2 weeks at the most. Sorry, I know you should have received some follow up, but I’m on it.”

The kicker: I emailed her yesterday to say hey, two weeks is almost up and I haven’t heard anything. Here is her response: “You should be receiving your netbook no later than 2/19 at the latest. I will get you a tracking number as soon as I get one. You can check this site in about two weeks.

Just don’t get your hopes too high for a Dell netbook.  Many finally receiving their promotional gift report an Asus Eee PC arrived instead.  Comcast put that in the fine print as well  — it reserved the right to make substitutions.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KING Seattle Comcast called out in Triple Play promotion 1-7-10.mp4[/flv]

KING-TV Seattle helped this Kenmore, Washington viewer finally get her promised netbook after signing up for service in August, 2009.  A Comcast executive personally pleaded for her to stay with Comcast, despite the promotion problem, in this report.  (2 minutes)

DC Circuit Court

Once again, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is proving to be the best friend corporations have to unravel regulatory policy and consumer protection laws that might violate corporate free-speech or trade rights.  It has become a favored venue for telecommunications providers who want to be rid of pesky prohibitions or reasonable regulation.

After a series of arguments, universally considered disastrous for the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to regulate broadband, the cable operator may want to send flowers to the Court… a lot of them.

Earlier this month, attorneys for the FCC defended their right to tell Comcast it cannot throttle its customers’ broadband speeds.  The FCC maintains it has regulatory authority over broadband service, claiming such power could be inferred from Title I, Section 230(b) of the Communications Act, which states that it is the policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet” and “to promote the continued development of the Internet.”  From that the FCC wrote a policy statement stating it was, “necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner.”  That was the basis for their crackdown against Comcast’s speed throttle.

After the arguments between Comcast and the FCC concluded, court-watchers believe the Commission’s days of broadband oversight are numbered.

Ars-Technica’s Matthew Lasar documented the probable train wreck for those who seek to rein in provider abuses.

At issue is whether the FCC has been granted direct legal authority for Internet regulation by Congress. Comcast, and as it turned out many on the Court, believe the FCC is relying on policy statements, not written law, for their regulatory authority over Internet Service Providers.  The Court transcript says it all:

Randolph

“In looking this over I found a good many situations in which Congress has instructed the FCC to study the Internet,” said Justice A. Raymond Randolph, [appointed to the Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990], “and taxation of transit sales transactions on the Internet, and this, and that, and the other thing. But what I don’t find is any congressional directive to the FCC to regulate the Internet.”

It wasn’t hard for [Comcast attorney Helgi G.] Walker to summon a response to this observation. “That’s right,” she declared.

And with that, Comcast had won. Even before the FCC’s attorney got to the bench, the judges were doing Walker’s job, swatting aside arguments on behalf of the agency’s Order sanctioning the ISP. Pro-FCC briefs to the court had noted that the Supreme Court recognized the Commission’s ancillary authority in its Brand X decision, a crucial ISP access case. Randolph threw this bullet point into the trash icon, referring to the “offhand statement” in Brand X. “And the Supreme Court has moved so far away from that kind of an analysis in today’s modern jurisprudence,” he added, “it seems antiquated.”

By the time Commission lawyer Austin C. Schlick began his rebuttal, Randolph moved in for the kill.

“May it please the Court,” Schlick began. “Ms. Walker hasn’t attempted to defend the actual network practices that were employed here, and so I won’t spend time just… ”

Sentelle

[Justice David] Sentelle cut him off. “Well, her position is that she doesn’t have to,” he tersely noted. “She’s here to say that you don’t have any business inquiring into those practices, ergo we don’t either.”

That’s true, Schlick conceded. “Right,” Sentelle warned. “So you may want to move on to something that’s at issue then, Counsel.”

And that was largely that.  The Court is very likely to hand down a ruling that strips the FCC of its ability to regulate or oversee broadband service in the United States.  Even Schlick knew what has forthcoming:

By the end of the discussion Schlick was bargaining with the judges. “If I’m going to lose I would like to lose more narrowly,” he confided. “But above all, we want guidance from this Court so that when we do this rule-making, if we decide rules are appropriate we’d like to know what we need to do to establish jurisdiction.”

“We don’t give guidance,” Randolph grumbled, “we decide cases.”

Comcast should have bought lunch for everyone.

So now public policy groups and advocates of FCC oversight over broadband, particularly as it relates to Net Neutrality, are scrambling to figure out what to do next.

It comes down to four possible outcomes:

1. One of the parties appeals the case;
2. Corporate control of broadband without oversight is assured, as the FCC is stripped of any regulatory authority;
3. The FCC manages to find some other wording from laws Congress passed that justifies lawmakers wanted the agency to oversee and regulate broadband services;
4. Congress passes new laws specifically enacting broadband regulatory authority for the FCC.

Of course, today’s bland authority over broadband comes as a result of legislative compromise from the great regulatory battles over telecommunications during the Clinton Administration.  Providers argued less is more, and have grudgingly accepted limited FCC authority over some of their services, except when a challenge threatens to cost them control or a lot of money.

With a hostile reception at the Court, and the FCC’s “surrender first, fight later” legal argument, an appeal may only delay the inevitable.  The FCC does have plenty of Congressional directives to review which may permit it to enact Net Neutrality protection, but another provider lawsuit opposing Net Neutrality is inevitable.  In fact, without the passage of a clear, concise federal law providing the Commission with explicit broadband regulatory authority enacting Net Neutrality and other protections, the aptly-numbered “2” is the likely outcome for consumers.

Thankfully, Rep. Edward Markey’s (D-MA) Internet Freedom Preservation Act would solve much of this problem, by forbidding Internet service providers from doing anything to “block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade” access to any lawful content from any lawful application or device.

Getting it passed in a Congress mired in division is another matter.  The best way to overcome that is a strong showing of support for Markey’s legislation in calls and letters to your members of Congress, and that you are carefully watching their votes on this issue.