Residents of these Virginia homes are required to pay $146 a month for Cox Cable, Broadband, and Phone service whether they want it or not.

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.

Castro

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.

The city of Weston collects cable payments from residents forced to pay for service from Advanced Cable Communications.

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.

New and improved Staples Mills?

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.

The Cowardly Lion is still working for the FCC.

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.

Martin's petition to stop mandatory cable service

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)

Time Warner Cable’s shares tumbled on news that the nation’s second largest cable operator is likely to report it is losing subscribers tired of high cable prices in a tough economy.  These challenges are fueling press speculation the company is exploring a “broad alliance” with Cox Cable to join forces in an effort to reduce programming costs.

Bloomberg reports growth has slowed across the board at Time Warner.  The cable company blamed the weak economy for most of its troubles, suggesting the lack of new housing developments and home purchasers is responsible for a lot of the negative growth.

“Overall, I would say that the subscriber environment is very, very weak,” Chief Financial Officer Rob Marcus told investors at a Bank of America Corp. conference in Newport Beach, California. “We’re being negatively affected by very high rates of unemployment, high vacancy rates, both at the rental and the owned home levels, and really anemic new home formation.”

Growth has slowed across all Time Warner Cable’s businesses and because of that the company may see a loss in total customers, or what it calls primary service units, Marcus said.

Last quarter, the U.S. pay-TV industry lost basic-cable subscribers for the first time ever, according to research firm SNL Kagan.

Despite subscriber losses, Marcus calmed Wall Street reminding them the company expects to meet expectations for 20 percent growth in adjusted operating income thanks to a series of revenue-enhancing rate increases underway this year and declining costs in some areas of the business.

Reuters reported this week that Time Warner Cable was in the early stages of a discussion about a potential system swap affecting southern California that could blossom into a “broad alliance” on programming negotiations and potentially even a Time Warner buyout of Cox’s cable systems nationwide.

The Cox systems rumored to be at issue serve Irvine and San Diego and smaller properties in Santa Barbara and Rancho Palos Verdes.  Light Reading speculated Time Warner Cable wants Cox’s Irvine system to increase the size of its footprint in Orange County and Cox would get Time Warner’s San Diego system.

Reuters speculated Time Warner Cable would also negotiate programming carriage contracts on behalf of Cox, just as they currently do with Bright House Networks.  A combination of all three systems could deliver programmers carriage commitments for more than 20 million subscribers across all three systems.  That is still a few million short of Comcast, but easily worth significant volume discounts on programming.

A few industry reports shared rumors Time Warner Cable would eventually buy out the Cox family, which privately owns Cox Cable, and combine those cable properties under the Time Warner Cable name.

But in today’s political climate, and concerns about market power and concentration, such a combination would likely face considerable scrutiny from regulators.

[Stop the Cap! will be closely following Google’s experimental gigabit fiber-optic broadband network. We’ll be bringing regular updates about the communities applying, the strategies they are using to attract Google’s attention, what the competition thinks, and the impact of the project on American broadband.  You can read our earlier community profiles, and news about the project here.]

Topeka wants Google’s fiber experiment so badly, it is willing to rename itself to Google, Kansas — at least for the month of March, anyway.

Mayor Bill Bunten signed a proclamation Monday rechristening the city “Google, Kansas — the capital city of fiber optics.”

It’s all part of a well-organized effort to bring Google’s fiber optics to 122,000 residents living and working in the capital city of Kansas.

Think Big Topeka, a local group started by three people just a few weeks ago, was launched to promote Topeka as a candidate city.  It includes links to e-mail elected officials, complete Google’s online nomination form, and coordinate upcoming events.

It has since collected more than 10,000 Facebook fans and has gotten a big push from most of the local broadcast and print media, which have run more than a dozen stories about the group and the petition to nominate Topeka.  Several stations even have prominent links back to Think Big Topeka’s website.  The city government is also an enthusiastic supporter of the experimental project.

Think Big Topeka knows how to get media attention.  The group recently started running “flash mobs” — events where hundreds of people silently promote the project by suddenly stripping off jackets to uncover T-shirts promoting the Think Big Topeka campaign.  Engineering events that are “made for television” guarantee plenty of attention on the evening news.

The Google “Think Big With a Gig” experiment has excited communities from coast to coast, convinced advanced fiber optic networks will bring new jobs, high technology business, and improved broadband service for both consumers and area businesses.  Many hope the competition will also finally lower prices.

Incumbent providers Cox Cable and AT&T are the largest local providers.

Cox currently offers three broadband tiers — Essential 3 Mbps/384 kbps ($29.99), Preferred 12/1.5 Mbps ($46.99), and Premier 25/2 Mbps ($61.99).

Cox Cable, when asked by KSNT-TV news what they thought about the project brought a response from Kelly Zega, a representative from Cox Communications: “We have always believed competition in the marketplace is a healthy thing, as it leads us all to improve and innovate in ways that ultimately benefit consumers.”

AT&T offers U-verse in selected areas of Topeka, but most areas are still served by AT&T’s traditional DSL service which offers considerably slower speeds — Basic 768/384 kbps ($19.95), Express 1.5 Mbps/384 kbps ($24.95), Pro 3 Mbps/512 kbps ($24.95), or Elite 6 Mbps/768 kbps ($24.95).  (Note the prices for Express, Pro, and Elite are identical — apparently which plan you get depends on what actual speeds AT&T is capable of delivering to your home.)

If Google can deliver faster speeds and lower prices, it’s no surprise thousands of Topekans are excited.

The Topeka Capital-Journal, the community’s daily newspaper, is also promoting the project on its editorial pages:

This excitement is being created by a lot of people who see opportunities to help the city grow and become an even better place to live, and are determined to do everything they can to make it happen.

Evidence of their enthusiasm and dedication was on display Thursday evening when about 500 of them gathered at the Ramada Hotel and Convention Center to talk about plans to revitalize downtown Topeka. Granted, the audience consisted of two different groups, but each had visions that, if fulfilled, would mean great things for our city.

We’ve written recently in support of Think Big Topeka, a group trying to convince Google that Topeka is the place to test an ultrafast Internet connection that promises to provide Internet service about 100 times faster than anything we are working with now. The effort has attracted about 7,875 supporters in a very short time and some of them turned out for Thursday’s meeting, sponsored by Heartland Visioning, to encourage others to jump on the bandwagon.

Supporters of the Google project and those interested in revitalizing downtown meshed during the evening as the discussion flowed between both issues.

Such a confluence of people and organizations with visions, dreams or plans — call them what you will — is a healthy, and welcome, development itself that bodes well for the city’s future. Most good things start with someone’s vision or dream, and they aren’t to be scoffed at or dismissed out of hand.

Think Big Topeka has more than 10,000 fans on its Facebook page

Dreams can come true… if a city actually applies.  The city of Topeka will.

“The city of Topeka welcomes the opportunity to participate in this unique technological experiment, if selected as Google trial community, to benefit our citizens in providing all opportunities to access Internet technologies,” city officials wrote on the city’s Facebook page.

The city’s information technology department has been tasked with working on what they characterized as a very long and detailed application.  Mark Biswell, IT director for Topeka city government, said his department has been hard at work on the application from the moment Google announced the project.

Shawnee county, which includes Topeka, is conducting an online  survey running until Saturday asking residents about their interest in the Google fiber project.  They are seeking input on what kinds of broadband speeds residents actually obtain, instead of relying on marketing promises made by the incumbent providers.  They also want to learn how satisfied residents are with Cox and AT&T.

For Topeka, a city coincidentally working on its own revitalization plan for downtown development, the prospect of Google gigabit fiber could be the crown jewel of a complete city makeover.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTKA Topeka Google Fiber 3-1-2010.mp4[/flv]

KTKA Topeka aired three reports about the Google fiber experiment, including an interview with one of the founders of the Think Big Topeka group. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WIBW Topeka Group Wants Google’s Blazingly-Fast Internet To Come To Topeka 2-17-10.flv[/flv]

WIBW Topeka has these two reports featuring the Think Big Topeka group and how the city government is involved in the project.  (4 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSNT Topeka City Renames Itself Google for March 3-1-10.flv[/flv]

KSNT Topeka has several reports about the organizing effort, a “flash mob” and Topeka city government’s strong belief in the project.  (6 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Think Big Topeka.flv[/flv]

Finally, Think Big Topeka has some of its own videos on offer, answering residents’ questions and cheerleading the effort to bring better broadband to Topeka.  (3 minutes)

Cox has a Facebook page devoted to asking customers what they think would be fair in wireless products and pricing.

The cable industry’s definition of “fair” doesn’t always seem to connect with average consumers, who too often discover what sounds like a good deal to the local cable company isn’t a good deal for them.  Despite the skepticism, Cox Communications thinks it has a deal for you… an “unbelievably fair deal” for consumers looking for wireless service.

Cox already has a website up and running, unbelievablyfair.com where Cox Cable customers can register with their e-mail address and get updates on service availability.  They also get a free OnDemand movie coupon.

If you’re wondering what Cox is up to, here’s the scoop.

Back in 2006, Cox and several other cable companies bid for and won several frequency blocks suitable to support wireless services.  Those frequencies, along with a partnership with Sprint Nextel, are expected to serve Cox’s entry into the wireless business.  Initially launching in Hampton Roads, Virginia, Omaha, Nebraska, and Orange County, California, Cox will use Sprint’s CDMA 3G network to support its wireless service at the outset.

The company hasn’t revealed exactly how “unbelievably fair” their pricing actually is, but based on the company’s advertising campaign, it’s a safe bet it will be free from the tricks, traps, and gotchas bigger players in the market stick to their customers.  Minute plans would likely provide “rollover” of unused minutes, if not kicking the minutes bucket right out of the equation with flat rate service.  Hidden extra fees and surcharges are also unlikely to be a part of Cox Wireless’ service plans.  That could ultimately mean a plan priced competitively with Boost Mobile or Tracfone Wireless’ Straight Talk.

Cox will eventually enhance Cox Wireless and provide it in other Cox Cable service areas, as well as building out its own wireless network.

“Our research found that value and transparency are very important to consumers when choosing a wireless service plan, but they are not finding these qualities in the wireless plans offered today,” said Stephen Bye, vice president of wireless. “Total loss of unused minutes as well as unforeseen overage charges on bills are just two examples of what our customers have told us is just unfair.”

Customers have been following Cox’s invitation to join in a discussion about wireless pricing fairness on the company’s Facebook page (click the logo above to access).  From a quick review of comments, customers want lower pricing, more bundled discounts, a better handset selection, better speed, and our personal favorite – no Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and limits on their data network.

Cox is rolling out a major marketing campaign to promote Cox Wireless, including advertising and discussions on company-produced programs airing on Cox Cable systems in the communities where service will arrive this spring.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cox Wireless Advertising Campaign.flv[/flv]

Cox Wireless’ marketing campaign includes three ad spots and a website intro. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cox Connections 1-2010.flv[/flv]

Cox Cable in Hampton Roads, Virginia briefly mentions Cox Wireless in ‘Cox Connections,’ a company-produced program airing on Cox Cable.  (6 minutes)