Marilyn Castro decided she did not need her landline phone any longer.  The Virginia Beach resident learned her provider would be happy to oblige her request to disconnect service, but she is still required to pay her phone bill, even without the service, for at least the next 25 years.

Woodland Park, Virginia resident Allan Pineda got a similar story when he wanted out of Cox Cable’s landline service.  Yes, Cox will schedule a visit to disconnect service at his convenience, but he’ll still have to pay his cable bill, including landline charges, every month.

Frederic Martin, who lives at a Mid-America Apartment Communities-owned complex in Dallas, learned he was on the hook for cable-TV service, even though he has not owned a television set for more than a decade.

In Weston, Florida, some 15,000 homeowners pay for cable television whether they want it or not and if they don’t pay, their homes are at risk from foreclosure.

It’s all thanks to the concept of “bulk billing,” a practice growing in popularity that delivers mandatory cable, phone, and broadband service to renters and homeowners whether they want the services or not.  It’s a multi-million dollar racket, and thanks to the Federal Communications Commission, it may be coming to your community or apartment complex soon.

For almost five years, mandating cable service has become a growing problem in many parts of the country, especially in Florida and Virginia.  Most of the controversy comes when large housing management and homeowner associations, builders, and corporately-owned apartment complexes cut “discount deals” with a cable company to wire a community or complex for service.  Their mission is not always altruistic.  Many builders receive generous signing bonuses and ongoing kickbacks earned from condemning residents to mandatory cable service contracts that may not expire in their lifetime.

Some apartment complexes have added charges for cable-TV service to the rent. Many earn ongoing compensation from grateful cable companies who pay 3-5 percent of revenue back to the complex.  Even homeowner associations have gotten into the act, adding cable-TV costs to required association dues for upkeep and maintenance.  For those who can’t or won’t pay, liens and even foreclosure can soon follow.

LM Sandler of Virginia Beach, a Virginia builder, is a typical player.

Sandler has built entire neighborhoods of new homes across Virginia, most of which are covered by a “bulk billing” contract with Cox.  When residents buy or rent a Sandler-built property, a triple-play package of phone, cable, and Internet service comes along with the deal.  It’s not cheap, running $146 a month.  Even worse, your grandchildren could still be paying Cox Cable if they stayed in the family home, because Sandler’s contract with Cox runs up to 75 years.

Although residents are not required to take service from Cox, they are required to pay for it, in full, every month.

It gets worse for residents in Florida.  Most contracts with cable operators include provisions that can terminate service for entire communities if even a single homeowner is 60 days past due.  To keep that from happening, homeowner associations aggressively pursue slow-paying residents.  JMB Partners, who built much the residential housing in Weston, and the governing bodies in Weston committed residents to an agreement that has enormous implications if they miss a payment:

Between Jan. 1 and Dec. 17, 2004, the Town Foundation, Weston’s homeowner association, filed liens against more than 200 homes in the city. Most of these, according to Broward County court records, are for unpaid cable TV bills, which until 2003 were collected by the foundation. The city utilities department now handles that task.

One of the upset residents is Vincent Andreano, whose mother, Lita Andreano, was faced with the predicament of losing her Weston Country Club Home for a $109 cable bill that he said had been left outstanding by the previous owner.  The Andreanos said that when closing on the home about a year and a half ago, they came upon the outstanding debt and sent a check.

”No one ever contacted me or my mother afterwards to tell us they had not gotten the check or that the debt was still outstanding,” said Andreano, an attorney. “Then a year and a half later, they slap my mother with a foreclosure lawsuit. It’s legal brutality.”

Andreano said he tried to reason with Town Foundation attorney Douglas Gonzales, whose signature appears in the lawsuit paperwork, to no avail. He said he was told to pay the debt, plus legal fees billed at a little more than $200 per hour, in addition to court filing fees and other miscellaneous charges. The final tab: more than $1,500.

In the Tampa area, mandatory cable service bills for some neighborhoods and planned communities have increased by an eye-popping 44 percent because of the foreclosure crisis.  That’s because of mandatory payment clauses many have with providers like Bright House that demand full payment even when homes are unoccupied.  When a resident’s home is in foreclosure or a resident refuses to pay, all of the remaining area residents pick up the tab for unpaid cable bills.  This wreaks havoc with homeowner association budgets, who must find the money to pay the cable company, in full, every month.  Many have slashed security, road maintenance, refuse collection, landscaping, and other quality-of-life expenses just to keep the cable company happy.

Back in 2008, when Florida first began a downward housing spiral, the impact was already being felt:

The Chapel Pines subdivision in Wesley Chapel found itself stuck in a cable contract that requires $15,000 a month payment to Bright House, and is seeing the strain of foreclosed homes no longer paying their fees. That payment represents nearly half their total association budget.

The South Fork 1 development in Riverview has a 15-year contract with Bright House that requires a $9,700 a month payment, roughly one-third of the neighborhood’s total budget.

“We still have to foot the bill whether people live in those homes or not,” said Fred Perez, the former president of the South Fork association. “You end up with a big, bad debt line item on the budget.”

With the problem worsening, that homeowner’s association even contemplated bankrupting itself just to free it from obligations to Bright House.

Other communities are levying “special assessments” on homeowners to cover cable bills in high foreclosure areas:

To cement a good deal, the community, South Bay Lakes in Gibsonton, years ago signed a bulk contract with Bright House Networks to provide cable TV in the neighborhood, in exchange for a regular fixed payment.

That arrangement worked out fine when the neighborhoods filled up and residents paid their association fees – and the association turned over the cable TV payments to Bright House. The problem occurs when neighbors go into foreclosure and stop paying their fees.

The South Bay Lakes homeowners association still must pay about $140,000 a year to Bright House, even though there’s less money coming in from homeowners.

Because about numerous homes in the 300-home development are in foreclosure, South Bay Lakes had to issue “special assessments” on residents.

Fees rose from $150 a quarter to $216, and that probably won’t cover the shortfall, according to association officials. The Bright House bill represents almost half of the association’s annual budget of $261,000.

To make matters tougher, the community is locked into that deal with Bright House until 2019, with cable rates that rise “from time to time” according to the contract.

Earlier this year, Stop the Cap! covered the story of residents in Tennessee and Texas who discovered the corporate owners of their apartment complexes were making cable-TV mandatory and adding the resulting charges to lease agreements.

Defenders of these bulk billing arrangements claim they deliver savings residential customers could not obtain on their own and ensure that complexes and planned living communities are fully wired for service.  Besides, they claim, there is no obligation to use the services provided and customers can obtain service from another provider.

But they still face paying for service they don’t use.  In some communities, it is service many don’t want to use.

John Carter, who lives in Weston, told the FCC as a senior on a fixed income he cannot afford to pay a second cable bill, even though his existing service is terrible.

“I am stuck with poor programming options, outages during stormy weather, slow Internet speeds of 15kbps and poor customer service,” he wrote the agency.

In other instances, sweetheart deals fuel incentives for builders to sign lucrative contracts with providers even before a homeowner’s association is formed.  In some cases, the provider turns out to be a family member or associate of the developer.  In many others, perpetual kickbacks through “royalties” and fees are paid to the builder or complex owner as long as the agreement remains in place, even long after the builder is no longer on scene.

For impacted residents like Castro stuck with landline service she didn’t want, it was time to fight back.  She launched Ban Bulk Billing, an online forum for those who oppose mandated cable-TV service. Castro asked consumers to join her in protesting the fees with the FCC.  But it’s hard to keep a movement going when giant corporate providers and other special interests have the resources to shout down consumers.

In March, the FCC collected its thoughts and submissions from property owners, apartment complex management companies, cable and phone companies, and consumers and rendered its decision — which threw consumers under the bus:

We conclude that the benefits of bulk billing outweigh its harms. A key consideration for us is that bulk billing, unlike building exclusivity, does not hinder significantly the entry into an MDU by a second MVPD and does not prevent consumers from choosing the new entrant. Indeed, many commenters indicate that second MVPD providers wire MDUs for video service even in the presence of bulk billing arrangements and that many consumers choose to subscribe to those second video services. We find it especially significant that Verizon, which more than any other commenter in the earlier proceedings argued that building exclusivity clauses deterred competition and other proconsumer effects, makes no claim in its filings herein that bulk billing hinders significantly or, as a practical matter, prevents it from introducing its service into MDUs. Bulk billing, accordingly, does not have nearly the harmful entry-barring or -hindering effect on consumers that exists in the case of building exclusivity.

In other words, because Verizon didn’t have a problem with these bulk billing arrangements, they’re fine by the FCC.  Verizon wants into this arrangement themselves, so it’s hardly a surprise they are not objecting.  The significance of Verizon’s change in position is hardly a mystery — the earlier barriers the FCC wrote about were designed to keep Verizon out of apartment complexes and condos.

The incentives for providers earned from these bulk billing contracts are enormous:

• The cost of collections and billing are passed on to local government, homeowner associations, rental companies, or other agents.  The risk of non-payment by a homeowner’s association or city government is nearly non-existent;
• Marketing expenses and customer promotions can be slashed because customers already have the service when they move in;
• Competition is diminished, especially from capital-intensive wired competitors.  Would you contemplate wiring a community for competitive service knowing existing residents are held captive by mandatory cable contracts?;
• Innovation expenses can be curtailed because the customer is already captive to the existing level of service;
• Rate increases are built-in, allowing companies to raise rates and still keep all of their existing customers.

Residents of Staples Mills Townhomes in Richmond, Virginia understand this only too well.  When the new corporate owner, PRG Real Estate moved in a few years ago, they brought Comcast with them, mandating every resident pay for basic cable service as part of their rent.

PRG’s website highlights Staples Mills as an example of “an institutional equity partnership:” (underlining ours)

The PRG model for improvement is two-pronged — pay close attention to the details of management with a well thought out capital improvement plan. Imbedding [sic] PRG’s professional management structure would mean the implementation of aggressive PRG policies and procedures, taking virtually all contract services in-house to save the profit margin being captured by contractors. The upgrade to PRG-trained site personnel would particularly enhance the marketing effort. Although the property was 97% occupied we anticipated that, after the capital improvements, the same occupancy rate would be maintained with significantly higher rents.

[…]It was crucial that we succeed, not only in terms of return to our investor, but in terms of building our relationships and profile with other institutional investors. We needed to hit this one out of the ballpark.

Residents called a foul ball, one writing, “Residents were slapped in the face with the news that they will be forced to pay for mandatory cable (an extra $34 per month on the rent) from Comcast regardless if they don’t want it, already have satellite, or don’t even have a TV under the guise of ‘lowering cable rates.’ It’s called subsidizing the people who want it by juicing those who don’t.”

PRG may have succeeded in making their investors happy, but they alienated a number of tenants in the process, most of whom assumed Comcast was their only choice and wouldn’t contemplate paying another cable bill from a competitor.

The FCC’s decision recognized that competitors could enter a bulk-billed service area, but ignored the reality most won’t.

Indeed, the FCC itself recognized the impact of these bulk-billing arrangements on the competitive landscape in their own decision, quoting from a submission:

One bulk billing cable operator states that fewer than 5% of an MDU’s residents subscribe to another video provider. It estimates that if it lost its bulk billing contract, it would raise its prices substantially for the remaining 95% because of higher programming and labor costs per customer. The combined savings for 5% of the MDU’s residents would be dwarfed by the increased expenses for the 95%, making the MDU’s residents significantly worse off than they were before as a whole.

This proves two points:

1. The FCC still cowers in fear from threats issued by providers that any attempt to rein them in will do everything from raising prices to killing jobs and innovation, despite the fact only five percent of customers in the cited case took service from a competitor.  A five percent loss of customers would create conditions for a “substantial” rate hike only in their minds.  AT&T U-verse has captured far more than 5 percent of cable customers in markets where it competes with cable, yet somehow cable manages to keep the lights on and their doors open;
2. The FCC pretends that these agreements don’t impact the marketplace when the 95 percent “take rate” for service plainly indicates otherwise.  Do 95 percent of residents in non-bulk-billed neighborhoods also take cable service?  Of course not.

Despite the FCC’s industry-friendly ruling, many impacted consumers are not giving up.

Martin, the Dallas renter paying for cable-TV even though he doesn’t own a television, is taking the fight to state Attorneys General, hoping a group effort on the state level will dislodge at least some consumers from being forced to pay for something they don’t want or need.

Martin believes it’s manifestly unfair to deliver mandated “discounted service” to some on the backs of others who don’t want a cable bill at all.

“No one should have the right to force you to buy what you don’t want from someone you don’t like,” Martin says.

He points out under Mid-America’s terms, even blind and deaf residents are forced for pay for cable service.

The only thing cheaper than a discounted cable bill is no cable bill at all.  Now that represents real savings.

Martin’s vociferous objections and intervention from his Texas state representative eventually managed to get him off the hook with Mid-America’s mandatory cable bill.  His rent was lowered by an amount equal to the monthly cable fee, but the cable company is still getting paid on his behalf.

For Martin, that’s just plain wrong.

“I am still subsidizing an industry of which I do not wholeheartedly approve,” he writes.

Martin is now coordinator for Tenants United for Fairness and has launched an online petition demanding an end to mandatory cable-TV charges.

He has gathered more than 100 signatures from 13 states so far, and the petition is open for everyone to sign, even if they are not currently impacted.

Martin says getting signatures has proved challenging in some cases.

“It has been very hard to get tenants to sign my petition because they’re in fear of the landlords,” Martin says. “Very few of those who have signed have gone further and contacted their elected officials or the FCC to complain.”

The impact of the March decision by the FCC has given providers a green light to expand mandatory service even further.  Some communities are now finding mandatory broadband service fees being added to cable-TV charges.

The FCC’s response?  “Consumers complaining about these latest new fees are sent an unsigned form letter from the FCC advising them to “talk to your landlord,'” says Martin.

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WVEC Virginia Beach Residents fight mandatory bundle agreement 3-16-10.mp4[/flv]

WVEC-TV in Virginia Beach covered the plight of residents struggling to understand why they should be forced to pay $146 a month to Cox for cable, broadband, and landline phone service.  (3/10/2010 — 4 minutes)

What is the last technology product you purchased that never declined in price after you bought it?  If you answered your broadband service, a new study proves you right.

Since there are no public data on what has happened to broadband prices over the last decade, Shane Greenstein, a professor of management and strategy at the Kellogg School of Management, and his co-author Ryan McDevitt, an assistant professor of economics and management at the University of Rochester and a graduate of Northwestern University, analyzed the contracts of 1,500 DSL and cable service providers from 2004 to 2009.

The results every broadband user already knows.

At best, prices have declined only slightly — typically between 3-10 percent, partly from a “quality adjustment” the authors included to account for gradually increased broadband speeds when measuring prices.

Greenstein blames a broadband duopoly for the stagnation in broadband pricing.

“So if you were in such a market as a supplier, why would you initiate a price war?” Greenstein asks. With no new entries on the market, suppliers can compete by slowly increasing quality but keeping prices the same. According to Greenstein, quality is where providers channel their competitive urges.

Meanwhile, once companies have installed the lines, their costs are far below prices. “At that point, it becomes pure profit,” Greenstein says. A company might spend around $100 per year to “maintain and service” the connection, but people are paying nearly that amount every other month. Greenstein says that it is not surprising that prices were high during the buildout phase in the early and mid-2000s, since the firms were trying to recover their costs. “However, we are approaching the end of the first buildout, so competitive pressures should have led to price drops by now, if there are any. Like many observers, I expected to see prices drop by now, and I am surprised they have not.”

The authors also confirm Stop the Cap!‘s long-standing contention that providers are enjoying dramatically reduced costs to deliver broadband to customers, yet are not spending some of those profits on important network upgrades.  That could lead to a broadband bottleneck, Greenstein contends, especially with the growth of online video.  We argue it is a recipe for Internet Overcharging — triggering increased pricing to “pay for upgrades” while limiting usage of broadband service, despite the mountain of profits available today to cope with usage growth.

Greenstein and McDevitt pored over 1,500 broadband contracts over several years, tracking pricing, service bundling, and speed improvements.  Pricing, adjusted for speed improvements, was generally flat.  Because the cable industry has delivered most of the speed growth Americans enjoy, the “quality adjustment” the authors used credited most of the modest price declines to the cable industry, especially for customers moving to bundled packages of services.  The authors found DSL and its providers almost completely stagnant — both in pricing and speed.

The most surprising discovery, Greenstein says, is that national decisions are being made without the type of data that he created in the consumer price index. “As an observer of communications policy in the U.S., I find it shocking sometimes how often government makes decisions by the seat of their pants,” he says. Without real data and statistics, decisions are based solely on who has better arguments—in essence, a debate. A better consumer price index will help produce better decisions for the future of the Internet and its users.

It may also serve as an effective challenge to telecommunications industry lobbyists who engineer their own statistics and claims about the performance of the nation’s phone and cable companies.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! readers Bones and Michael for sending along the story.

Australia’s planned National Broadband Network (NBN) delivering the country access to broadband speeds up to 1Gbps face many of the same criticisms American municipal providers hear when incumbent commercial providers face imminent competition from fiber broadband.

But nobody can top the venomous spray of Exetel’s CEO John Linton, who called the entire concept of public broadband for the public good “a load of crap” and those behind it a mix of ‘thugs,’ ‘pretenders,’ and generally incompetent and stupid.

Linton’s Internet Service Provider delivers broadband to most of its customers over Telstra landlines, using DSL.  But the company has grudgingly agreed to participate in the NBN project, even while still despising it to the core.

Exetel’s pricing on NBN’s fiber network charges for speed and usage.  Much like cable broadband, Exetel delivers much faster downstream speeds (up t0 100Mbps), with upload speeds maxing out at 8Mbps. The higher the speed, the higher the monthly access fee.  Users receive no usage allowance, paying fees per gigabyte for all of their usage.  Exetel still reserves the right to throttle customer speeds for certain online applications, and “traffic shape” users based on their usage.

In Tasmania, Exetel has introduced a 25/2Mbps broadband plan with no usage allowance — but no monthly access fee either — charging a flat $2 per gigabyte of usage.

Exetel Fiber Pricing In Tasmania

Plan	Speed Down	Speed Up	Monthly Access	Download Charges	Upload Charges	Contract Length	Usage Allowance
A	25 mbps	2 mbps	$0.00	$2.00 per GB	Nil	12 Months	None
B	50 mbps	4 mbps	$25.00	$1.00 per GB	Nil	12 Months	None
C	100 mbps	8 mbps	$50.00	$0.75 per GB	Nil	12 Months	None

Linton spews most of his angry commentary on his personal blog, which he closed to non-Exetel customers unless they made a $20AUS contribution to the company’s endangered wildlife protection programs.  But he rarely pulls punches in public either.

A sampler:

With wireless broadband waiting in the wings, those excited by NBN’s 1Gbps speeds are “unthinking and just plain stupid, pretty much along the same lines as the stone age cargo cult dwellers in the jungles of New Guinea are excited about the next ‘goods drop’ from the strange colored bird.”

Australia’s aging population, “who don’t play computer games or get a surrogate sex life from pornography” have zero interest in getting terabyte broadband speeds, making the whole endeavor a giant waste of money.

“The number of people who want 100Mbps are almost none today and aren’t going to be very many in five years time.   Probably 40-50% of people today will never want to use a piece of fiber […] and they’re certainly not gamers playing, or those other things.  They’re the other half of Australia that has a life rather than a half life.”

On the results of the recent election and the decision to move forward with the NBN: “God help us all.”

On Communications Minister Stephen Conroy (Australia’s version of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski): “He was his usual mixture of bewilderment, ignorance and barely concealed thuggery, but I was amused at his reference to Exetel (not by name).” Linton wrote on his blog. “While I’m grateful for the ‘free plug’ I thought it was an obvious example of “straw clutching” if it wasn’t based on appallingly bad briefing, which I would doubt, because for him to have been aware of any actual pricing would have required some sort of briefing,” added Linton.

On NBN co-chief Mike Quigley, who will help manage NBN service: “Is [Mike Quigley] god? Can he reverse 100 years of telecommunications going one way and say, ‘Oh, I’m Mike Quigley, and I haven’t worked here in 30 years, I know nothing about running major networks, but someone has paid me $2 million a year so I can pretend I can’.  The only one who can do it is Telstra. It would do it cheaper than a bloody government.”

Linton blames all of the talk about a publicly-owned broadband network for the decrepit state of Australia’s commercial broadband market, claiming it dried up private investment in new ADSL products: “The situation as I see it is that the suppliers — Telstra, Optus, AAPT — are not really investing in anything new, especially when you’re referring to ADSL type broadband products. The current suppliers are holding on to the margins they have at the moment, and if anything they will seek to increase them rather than reduce them,” says Linton.

Since nearly every broadband user in Australia knows Linton hates fiber broadband, what technology does he believe represents Australia’s future?

3G wireless.

“Most people that I know, including me, put a much higher priority on mobility than they do on speed,” he told ZDNet. “The average person needs a 100Mbps internet connection about as much as they need to have their arms amputated.”

While mobility is important, his critics charge, there is no way 3G wireless can deliver Australia its broadband future.  Service is not ubiquitous across the country, speeds are far below even what DSL offers, streaming multimedia is challenging at best, and the usage fees and limits that accompany wireless service plans in the south Pacific would create an even greater divide between those who can afford wireless broadband, and those who cannot.

A report released yesterday by the Bureau of Statistics shows Australians are downloading more data than ever before, increasing more than 50 percent in the second quarter compared to the same period last year. The amount of data downloaded every three months is now 11 times higher than March 2005 and 126 times higher than March 2002.

Australia’s National Broadband Network is open to all Internet Service providers that wish to participate, reselling their broadband plans using NBN’s infrastructure.

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)

Charter Cable is literally passing the buck onto its cable TV subscribers.

Effective this October, Charter Cable customers will pay about a dollar more per month thanks to a new junk fee the company is adding to subscribers’ bills.

Federal law allows local U.S. broadcast television stations (i.e., affiliates of networks such as CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc.) to negotiate with cable and satellite providers in order to obtain “consent” to carry their broadcast signals (Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992).

As a direct result of local broadcast, or “network-affiliated,” TV stations increasing the rates to Charter to distribute their signals to our customers, we will be passing those charges on as a Broadcast TV Surcharge, in the Taxes and Fees section of the billing statement. These local TV signals were historically made available to Charter at no cost, or low cost. However, in recent years the prices demanded by local broadcast TV stations have necessitated that we pass these costs on to customers.

For most customers, the fee will average $0.94 per month, but in some areas it will be as high as $1.31 per month.  Charter argues the fee is not arbitrary. claiming it represents the average price the company pays – per subscriber – for local broadcast stations in the communities it serves.

Stop the Cap! contacted Charter this morning and learned the company intends to impose this new fee even on customers with Charter’s Price Guarantee Package, which is supposed to guarantee customers no change in pricing for up to two years (see notes at the end of the article for an update).  A Charter representative we contacted claimed the company will impose the fee on all customers, including those on contract, because of a clause in the terms and conditions which says, “The guaranteed price does not include the cost of installation and equipment, any applicable franchise fees, taxes or late fees, or costs for other ancillary services that you may order.”

Of course, the new fee is completely arbitrary and is neither a franchise fee or tax, nor is it for an “ancillary service.”  We predict a closer review of Charter Cable’s thinking on this matter by state regulatory agencies and Attorneys General.

Charter’s FAQ seeks to pass the blame for the new fee to the federal government and local broadcasters:

Federal law treats [cable networks and over-the-air TV stations] differently. Unlike cable TV networks, local broadcast TV stations distribute their signals over the air, using free spectrum granted to them by the federal government. In effect, taxpayers are subsidizing the distribution of broadcast TV signals. These same broadcast TV stations are then allowed by the government to charge for their signals — and if we don’t agree to pay, broadcasters can force us to drop their channels, thereby adversely impacting our customers.

“Given cable’s well-documented history of raising rates 4-6 times the annual rate of inflation, it seems rather disingenuous for them to now claim their rate hikes are coming as a result of broadcast TV stations, which provide the highest-rated entertainment and local news programming on the cable line-up,” National Association of Broadcasters Executive VP Dennis Wharton told Multichannel News in response to Charter’s move.

The new Broadcast TV Surcharge will appear in the Taxes and Fees section of your bill, joined by other junk fees Charter has invented to pass along the ordinary costs of doing business to cable subscribers while claiming they are not increasing rates:

Charter’s “It’s Someone Else’s Fault We Charge These” Junk Fees

• TV and Internet Late Payment Fee — A late fee will be assessed for past due unpaid Charter TV and Internet charges.
  
• Phone Processing Fee — This fee is assessed when Charter does not receive payment for the full balance of your phone charges.
• Regulatory Cost Fee — The cost of doing paperwork and whatever else the company deems.
• State Telephone Relay Charge — Funds a Telecommunications Relay Service for hearing impaired/speech disabled residents.
  
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Fee — The FCC charges an annual regulatory fee for cable operators.
  
• Franchise Fee — Local communities collect a percentage of revenue from cable operators in return for doing business in the community.
  
• Public Education and Government Channels (PEG) Fee — Many cable franchise agreements ask cable operators to help fund the operations of these channels.
  
• Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Fee — Some states ask regulated providers to defray the costs of utility commissions that oversee providers on the state level.
• County 911 Charge (9-1-1 fee) — Some counties ask telephone providers to help pay to administer emergency 911 service.
  
• Telephone Right Of Way Fee (Municipal right-of-way fee) — A fee used to compensate municipalities for the use of their rights-of-way.
• E911 Equalization Surcharge (9-1-1 equalization fee) — A fee charged in wealthier, urban areas to help subsidize the costs of 911 service provision in rural and poor areas.

(Those fees in blue represent completely optional “junk fees” that hide revenue enhancements.)

(Those charges in red are fees mandated by government entities, but traditionally deemed “the cost of doing business.”  Nobody requires these fees be billed directly to subscribers on a line-by-line basis, and most cable operators used to include them in the monthly price for service.  But in a quest for increased revenue, cable companies began breaking them out of cable package pricing, charging for them independently.  That effectively raises your total bill without changing the price of the programming package.  It’s comparable to an airline charging for your airline ticket, but then padding the price with a Seat Rental Fee, a Boarding Fee to enter and exit the plane, an FAA Cost Recovery Fee to pay the Federal Aviation Administration for its services, a Flight Plan Filing Surcharge to cover the costs of filing a flight plan, and a Control Tower Charge to defray the expense of dealing with air traffic controllers.  Snacks and soft drinks are extra.)

Charter Cable has been notifying subscribers about the new fee in mailings sent to subscribers.  The company’s argument that broadcasters and the federal government conspired to make subscribers pay more may have some merit, but nobody forced Charter Cable’s hand to add a new junk fee to customer bills.

Local broadcasters are in an enviable position because federal government rules have given them all the cards to charge whatever they want for cable carriage.  Government policy forbids most cable systems from taking their business elsewhere — perhaps to a station in a nearby city or network affiliate delivered via satellite that is willing to accept less than what local stations demand.  Network-affiliated stations need not compete for cable carriage because they can demand cable systems not go outside of the area for an alternative.

Broadcasters do not enjoy “free spectrum granted by the federal government.”  Television stations pay license fees and taxes just like other spectrum users and are mandated by the federal government to meet certain minimum programming standards and decency rules.  Unlike other private license holders, broadcasters are supposed to serve the public interest, although what exactly defines that has evolved and eroded over the years.  Cable programming is not regulated.

Charter Cable’s claim that “taxpayers are subsidizing the distribution of broadcast TV signals” is dubious at best.  Broadcast radio and television preceded the paid television industry by decades, and was created to deliver unique “local service” to communities where stations were licensed in the public interest.  Should Charter argue that broadcasters should bid for auctioned spectrum, they’d have much more to complain about when those costs are passed on in considerably higher broadcast carriage fees.

As usual, regardless of who wins the spat over local broadcast carriage fees, it’s Charter’s subscribers who will lose thanks to the higher bills that follow.  But not our readers.

If you follow our advice, you can save far more than a dollar a month.

Stop the Cap! has been in touch with several Charter subscribers who successfully argued their way to considerably lower monthly bills, often by $20 or more a month.  Here’s how you can let the bully boys argue over someone else’s money:

Gather Information

Get out a copy of your latest Charter Cable bill showing your packages, programming fees and the taxes and surcharges piled on at the end of the bill.  Then, visit DISH Network or DirecTV’s website and gather pricing information for a comparable video package using their promotional pricing for new customers.  Also visit your local phone company website for pricing for their phone and broadband services, taking note of any new customer promotional pricing and gifts.

On a sheet of paper, list the costs for Charter’s services on one side and the prices you would pay with their competitor(s) on the other and determine how much you would save with the competition.

Armed with this information, you’re now ready to sit down, call Charter, and talk business.

Sit Down And Make the Call

When you call Charter, select the option to cancel service or just say the word “cancel.”  This will transfer you to Charter’s “customer retention” department.  This group of customer service representatives have been specially trained to talk you out of dropping your service.

Explain that you are calling to cancel your Charter service after you received word of the latest fee increase.  Tell them it was the last straw after years of rate increases and that you’ve been comparison shopping.

A Sample Conversation

You: “My husband/wife and I carefully considered an offer we received from [competitor] last night and decided it was time to make a change.  It’s really all about the pricing.  This economy has been killing us and we simply cannot handle a higher bill.  When we looked at [competitor’s] offer, we discovered we could be saving $20 (insert amount applicable to you) or more a month over your own pricing.  But I’ve been a Charter subscriber for a long time and I decided I should call and see if there was any way we could stay as a customer, if we could only negotiate a lower bill.”

Charter: “I see you have been a customer for a long time.  Did you know that Charter delivers… (expect a comparison about the differences between satellite and phone company competition and Charter at this point.  Your goal is to patiently wait until they finish and then stick to your guns that it’s really all about the monthly cost).

You: “I understand all that but you have to understand the only reason we are calling to cancel service is because of your prices.  I am really giving you a last chance to see if we could stay and pay a lower price.”

Charter: “Let’s review your bill and see if we can drop any services you may not be using or perhaps sign you up for a different tier of broadband service.”

You: “The thing is, with [competitor’s] service, I don’t have to drop anything and I will still get a much lower price.  Let me suggest an alternative idea.  You could save our family as a customer if you could sign me up for the same kind of package pricing new customers pay.”

Charter: “I’m sorry, but those prices are only for new customers.  But perhaps if we credited your account for a year’s worth of the fee you are upset about, that would help?”

You: “No, not really.  Not after I saw what we could be paying by switching.  Again, we’ve really already decided on making this change, but I decided it would be fair to give Charter a last chance to come closer to the prices I would be paying with your competitor.  Isn’t there anything you could do to sign me up to a new customer promotion?”

Charter: “Well, let me put you on hold and talk to my supervisor.”

At this point, you may or may not get your request granted.  Sometimes the representative will try and negotiate dollar amounts, try to sell you a bundled package of services to deliver “more savings,” or offer you a lower discount.  Stick to your guns, but always remain polite.  Sometimes their counteroffer may not deliver new customer pricing, but will still leave you saving far more than when you started, and keeps you off a term contract.  If you are uncomfortable with the progress of the negotiations, or find an unsatisfactory outcome, politely end the call telling the representative you would like some time to think about it.  It’s your chance to call back and speak with someone else.

In general, the more seriously they sense you are ready to commit to the competition, the better the offers will get to stay.  Feel free to let them know you’ve already scheduled an installation with the “other guy” or would like information about where to drop off your cable equipment.  If you are queasy about playing hardball, blame it on your spouse, letting Charter know “he/she will never go for that.”  Stay friendly with the representative at all times — try to make them your advocate by encouraging them to find an even better deal for you and that you appreciate the time they are spending working with you.  It’s a lot easier to get a better offer when you are not screaming at the representative that can’t wait to get off the phone with you.

If you find stubborn resistance to discounting your bill, consider showing up at the local cable office with your equipment and try negotiating one last time.

Charter Cable allows customers to cancel service and, after 30 days, sign up under a new customer promotion, so asking them to waive the 30 day requirement when it will save them money to reinstall service may be something they’ll consider.  You could also re-establish “new service” under a spouse’s name for an even faster turnaround.

As Charter has taught their subscribers, it’s all about business with them.  Turnabout is fair play, so give them the business about their pricing and demand savings.

[Updated 9:42pm ET — A Charter subscriber e-mailed Broadband Reports a copy of their latest Charter Cable bill saying the fee would -not- be applied to customers under a current Price Guarantee contract, in direct contradiction to what a Charter representative told us this morning.  This is not much of a surprise, considering it took eight calls to Time Warner Cable last week to get the straight story about their DVR price hike in upstate New York.

Perhaps we should start calling cable companies not less than five times for answers to basic questions and then average the responses we get.  As we said last week, we’ll believe the bill over what company representatives say any day.

Thanks to our reader Gabe and Broadband Reports for for alerting us to this development and helping clarify matters.]

[Update #2: 10:52am ET 9/16 — A Charter customer on Broadband Reports shared an online chat he had with Charter that shows I’m not the only one getting inaccurate information about this fee:

Scott: I heard that charter decided to add a new fee to user bills for “broadcast tv surcharge” even for customers that have locked in rates.

TTD Straissan : Yes. That is correct. The locked rates are for the services that are included on the locked promotion. Taxes and fees are not part of the locked promotion we have.

TTD Straissan : Broadcast TV Surcharge
Federal law allows local U.S. broadcast television stations (i.e., affiliates of networks such as CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc.) to negotiate with cable and satellite providers in order to obtain “consent” to carry their broadcast signals (Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992).

As a direct result of local broadcast, or “network-affiliated,” TV stations increasing the rates to Charter to distribute their signals to our customers, we will be passing those charges on as a Broadcast TV Surcharge, in the Taxes and Fees section of the billing statement. These local TV signals were historically made available to Charter at no cost, or low cost. However, in recent years the prices demanded by local broadcast TV stations have necessitated that we pass these costs on to customers.

This surcharge displays in the Taxes and Fees section of the bill statement.

Scott: when will this be on my bill?

TTD Straissan : Expected increase will be around October 1, 2010 on some areas.]