Comcast may be attempting to get around Federal Communications Commission regulations governing what cable companies can charge for cable equipment by recasting the monthly fee as a “service charge.”

The cable operator’s decision to start charging $1.99 a month for digital transport adapters (DTAs) — small boxes that can convert digital signals into analog for older televisions — has at least one Minnesota city up in arms.

Eagan city officials met with outraged residents Tuesday to discuss the fee hike and hear a number of complaints about how Comcast does business in the community.

“It really ran the gamut, from concerns about losing stations, to concerns about being bait and switched, to having gotten boxes for free and worried that you had to pay for them in the future,” Eagan Mayor Mike Maguire told WCCO-TV.

Comcast customers in Minnesota are receiving letters from the cable operator some call deceptive. The letter warns “digital equipment is needed on all your TVs to receive channels,” despite the fact many televisions manufactured after 2007 are equipped with QAM tuners that will receive the digital signals without extra equipment, at least for now.

Only in fine print at the bottom of the letter does Comcast admit QAM-equipped sets won’t need the equipment, saving $1.99 a month per set.

Letters have also been sent to customers who have used DTA equipment provided by Comcast at no charge… until now.

Comcast earlier announced it intends to collect $1.99 a month from each subscriber using DTA equipment, even if those customers previously had received the equipment for free.

But Comcast’s decision to charge $24 a year in perpetuity for a box with a wholesale cost of less than $50, depending on the model, may run afoul of Federal Communications Commission regulations that forbid cable operators from charging excessive amounts to lease cable equipment:

Cable operators may require their subscribers to use specific equipment, such as converters, to receive the basic service tier. They may include a separate charge on your bill to lease this equipment to you on a monthly basis. This monthly rate must be based on the operator’s actual costs of providing the equipment to you. Operators may also sell equipment to you, with or without a service contract. If an operator provides a choice between selling and leasing the equipment, the monthly leasing rate will be regulated but the sales price will be unregulated. If an operator only sells equipment and does not also lease equipment, then the sales price must be the actual cost of the equipment plus a reasonable profit, and any service contract should be based on the estimated cost to service the equipment. If the customer buys the equipment but does not purchase a service contract, the customer can be charged for repairs and maintenance. Cable operators may not prevent customers from using their own equipment if such equipment is technically compatible with the cable system.

Eagan Mayor Mike Maguire

In a possible attempt to avoid regulatory language regarding cable equipment, Comcast has declared its new $1.99 fee is actually an “additional outlet service charge,” not an equipment fee.

“The deployment of DTA technology allows us to bring more value to our customers through additional HD channels and faster Internet speeds, both of which are used by the majority of our customers,” said Mary Beth Schubert, vice president of corporate affairs. “These types of enhancements require significant investment, and we feel the nominal fee now being implemented for DTA additional outlet service on our digital tiers reflects the additional value of the service.”

“There is no charge for the first three DTA devices,” said Schubert. But she quickly added, “After the digital transition in March and April, those TVs will not have access to these channels unless they are paying the $1.99 DTA additional outlet service fee.”

Michael Bradley, an attorney representing 20 local communities, is investigating to see if Comcast’s language about its new fee violates FCC rules.

The new charge is expected to be lucrative for Comcast, earning the company at least $550 million annually in new revenue.

Comcast intends to boost that even further as it embarks on encrypting its digital lineup, making QAM-equipped televisions useless to receive scrambled cable channels.

“These customers will eventually need to connect a digital device to their QAM tuner equipment at a future date as we implement additional network security features,” warned Schubert. “Customers will be provided complete information well before any additional measures take place.”

The FCC previously negotiated an agreement with cable operators intending to encrypt their cable lineup to keep customers from experiencing bill shock from new, mandatory equipment fees:

But by recasting new fees as unregulated “additional outlet fees,” Comcast and other cable operators may have successfully outwitted the FCC’s good intentions, earning billions in new revenue annually as a result of a simple language change.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCCO Minneapolis Comcast Fee Causes Outrage in Minn 2-20-13.mp4[/flv]

WCCO reports the city of Eagan held an informational meeting Tuesday about Comcast’s newest fee for digital boxes required on older televisions. Comcast customers nationwide will soon pay the new $1.99 “DTA additional outlet service fee” for each television equipped with the digital set top DTA box “to offset increasing programming and operational costs.”  (2 minutes)

A handful of broadcasters in California, Michigan, Montana and New Mexico interrupted their regularly scheduled programs earlier this week to warn audiences that zombie attacks were underway and residents should avoid the undead at all costs.

This ‘War of the Worlds‘ scenario did not frighten radio and television audiences, but caught stations off-guard, because the Emergency Alert System messages received over the Internet were programmed to broadcast live over the air with no intervention on the part of the living.

“Local authorities in your area have reported the bodies of the dead are rising from their graves and attacking the living,” said one message, which went out as both a scrolling text message and a voice alert. “Do not attempt to approach or apprehend these bodies as they are considered extremely dangerous.”

The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday warned the nation’s broadcasters to lock down the equipment that monitors for EAS warnings and rebroadcasts them to the public.

The zombie reports managed to find their way to the airwaves in Los Angeles and Michigan Monday. On Tuesday, the messages were delivered across New Mexico on several of the state’s PBS stations.

How are the hackers getting in?

“Before a year or two ago, the EAS systems were hooked up through phone lines, now they’re hooked up to the Internet,” said Karole White, president-CEO of the Michigan Broadcaster’s Association. “We feel fortunate they were not able to get into the entire Emergency Alert System – that’s the good news. The bad news is they got in at all.”

An equipment vendor suspects affected stations never changed the default password supplied with the equipment that inserts warning messages into broadcasts. The FCC agreed, warning broadcasters:

EAS Participants must change all passwords on their CAP EAS equipment from default factory settings, including administrator and user accounts.
EAS Participants are also urged to ensure that their firewalls and other solutions are properly configured and up-to-date.

The hacker or hackers have not yet been found by federal authorities. If convicted, the person(s) responsible face hefty federal fines.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KRQE Albuquerque Zombie attack announced on local TV 2-13-13.mp4[/flv]

KRQE in Albuquerque reports a hacker attack on the state’s largest public broadcaster delivered fake zombie warnings over the Emergency Alert System earlier this week. (3 minutes)

Residents in mountainous western North Carolina have been frustrated by broadband availability maps from the Federal Communications Commission that suggest broadband service is plentiful and fast. But on the ground, customers trying to sign up for Internet access the FCC says is readily available is anything but.

The FCC’s National Broadband Map has been repeatedly criticized by broadband advocates for relying on voluntary data supplied by Internet Service Providers — data that has often proved incomplete, exaggerated, or just plain inaccurate.

Wally Bowen, executive director of Asheville’s Mountain Area Information Network (MAIN), wants to show the FCC its broadband map is out of touch with the real world. MAIN has announced a new website that will let western North Carolina residents test and report the real broadband speeds they are getting from providers to the FCC. If no broadband service is available at all, residents can report that as well.

“Based on our experience, we believe the FCC is underestimating the scope of this problem,” said Bowen, an advocate for Internet access in rural areas. “The FCC’s estimate is based primarily on data provided by the cable and telephone companies.”

With a growing amount of federal money available to wire unserved areas, phone and cable companies may have a vested interest exaggerating their coverage areas and Internet speeds to stop would-be competitors from entering their territories and building new networks. New providers could find a very enthusiastic customer base of more than 48,000 aggravated residents in 16 counties in western North Carolina that have no broadband options at all.

“This new website empowers citizens to compare their real-life experience with the FCC data, but more importantly, it dissects the broadband problem, provides ideas for solving it, and shows citizens how to add their voices to the policy debate,” said Bowen.

Bowen believes profit-minded private companies are unlikely to ever be enthusiastic about wiring rural communities when larger profits can be earned in larger cities.

“Solving this problem isn’t rocket science,” said Bowen. “We’ve seen this movie before. Seventy-five years ago, for-profit electric utilities left rural America in the dark, so Congress passed the Rural Electrification Act and allowed local communities to solve the problem themselves by creating nonprofit electric cooperatives.”

But federal funds are off-limits if another provider already claims to offer service in an area, no matter how poorly they deliver it. Many large cable and phone companies have also worked to ban community-owned broadband networks from ever getting off the ground with the passage of corporate-sponsored bills passed by state legislatures. That leaves rural residents waiting endlessly for the telephone company to get around to providing some level of broadband service.

Problems with Frontier Communications’ DSL in the region tells the story:

Paul Manogue lives in an area considered “served” by Frontier Communications. The phone company sold him 3Mbps service, but after installation, Manogue found Frontier locked down his DSL modem to 1.5Mbps, the fastest speed his telephone line could comfortably handle. Today, Manogue pays $60.98 for 1.5Mbps service that has since further degraded. Today his top speed is 1Mbps or less, even though his monthly bill remains the same. His broadband connection does not come close to the 4/1Mbps minimum speed the FCC expects from today’s rural broadband networks.

“We have been bluntly told [by Frontier] that the level of service we receive is what we pay for,” Manogue told MAIN. Manogue has no other options.

Bill Duffell of Burningtown thinks Frontier broke its promise to deliver broadband where Verizon, his old provider, refused. He is still waiting, along with a number of other residents, for even basic DSL.

“Frontier promised to bring high-speed Internet access to remote areas of western North Carolina within three years,” he said. “They have not done this and now tell me there are no plans to bring high-speed Internet to the area. Internet access via satellite costs me $129.99 per month with Exede/WildBlue and is weather dependent.”

Allen in Madison County says Frontier delivered tolerable service until six months ago, when his speeds began to drop.

“The breaking point was when I was going to upload a 30 minutes video and found out it was going to take over 13 hours to upload.” Allen says. “I called Frontier and they [told me I was] ‘in a high volume area.'”

Anyone considering launching a competitive broadband service to improve the online experience of Manogue, Duffell, Allen and others will not qualify for any federal assistance because Frontier, the incumbent provider, already provides DSL broadband. Frontier also receives significant aid from the Connect America Fund — up to $775 to extend broadband to each individual home or business it earlier deemed unprofitable to serve. Each additional connection risks slowing down every other connection in the immediate area if Frontier does not maintain regular upgrades.

Two of the largest phone companies in the country — AT&T and Verizon — have both refused CAF money altogether. AT&T sees a bigger financial opportunity disbanding their wired telecommunications networks in rural America and forcing customers to switch to more costly (and much more profitable) wireless data services.

“The refusal of Connect America funding by the big carriers, plus their plans to abandon their wired networks in rural areas, is a policy earthquake that’s been ignored by corporate media,” Bowen said.

A handful of Georgia state legislators have introduced a bill to ban community-owned broadband anywhere Internet service is available at speeds of at least 1.5Mbps — so slow it does not even meet the FCC’s new definition of “broadband.”

The so-called “Municipal Broadband Investment Act,” introduced Feb. 8 is just the latest in a series of anti-competition, corporate welfare bills designed to protect existing telecom monopolies and duopolies from facing any additional competition.

Introduced and co-sponsored by Reps. Mark Hamilton (R-Cumming), Don Parsons (R-Marietta), Ron Stephens (R-Savannah), Jay Roberts (R-Ocilla), Ben Harbin (R-Evans), and Jon Burns (R-Newington), H.B. 282 would only allow community providers to offer service where broadband is not available within a census block, a requirement that makes virtually all public broadband efforts untenable because of the patchwork of DSL service throughout the state.

Hamilton

Remarkably, the legislation also includes a penalty clause that will leave community providers liable for damages payable to corporate-owned Internet Service Providers if they dare compete with the state’s largest phone and cable companies. Local communities could even be on the hook for attorney fees paid by companies like Comcast, Windstream, and AT&T to make sure publicly owned ISPs never get off the ground.

Phone companies like Windstream are seeking federal funding from the FCC Connect America Fund that will defray up to $775 per home for new broadband hookups delivering at least 4/1Mbps service. But Georgia’s legislation will set a new standard for minimum broadband at a much slower 1.5Mbps, benefiting telephone companies like AT&T, CenturyLink and Windstream. All can claim their existing 1.5Mbps DSL lines are good enough for Georgia to consider an area “served” by broadband. That certification would make it impossible for a publicly owned provider to establish far faster service.

Stop the Cap! strongly urges Georgia residents to contact their state representative and ask that he or she vote no on H.B. 282, which is nothing more than another corporate-written and backed protectionism bill that will guarantee rural Georgia remains mired in a slow speed broadband swamp. The best way corporate ISPs can guarantee no community will rise up to compete is by providing 21st century broadband speeds and service to local residents.

The proposed bill is scheduled for its first hearing tomorrow afternoon at 4pm.

A big 40oz can of Hype from the Washington Post.

Conservative bloggers are calling it socialized “Obama-Wi-Fi,” broadband advocates claim it represents salvation from high-priced wireless service plans, and the media echo chamber is amplifying reports that the federal government in on the verge of launching a nationwide free Wi-Fi network.

Sorry folks, it is not to be.

An article in Sunday’s Washington Post originally titled, “FCC Proposes Large Public WiFi Networks” got the ball rolling, and almost 3,000 reader comments later, a full-scale debate about the merits of government-supplied Wi-Fi Internet access is underway.

Cecilia Kang and her headline writer mislead readers with statements like these:

The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet without paying a cellphone bill every month.

[…] If all goes as planned, free access to the Web would be available in just about every metropolitan area and in many rural areas.

There is nothing new about the FCC’s effort to set aside unlicensed spectrum for so-called “white space” Wi-Fi. As the spectrum wars continue, wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T are pushing proposals to further shrink the number of channels on the UHF television band and repurpose them for expanded cellular data networks. That newly available spectrum would be secured through an FCC auction. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski wants to set aside some of that available spectrum for unlicensed use, including the next generation of Wi-Fi, which will greatly extend its range and speed.

There is no proposal on the table for the government to fund or create a free, national Wi-Fi network as an alternative to paid commercial services. At issue is simply how 120MHz of newly-available television spectrum would be made available to new users. Republicans and large wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T are demanding the vast majority of that spectrum be auctioned off. AT&T and Verizon would like to expand their spectrum holdings, and a straight “highest bidder wins” auction guarantees the vast majority of it will be divided by those two companies. Many Democrats and broadband advocates want a portion of that spectrum set aside to sell to AT&T and Verizon’s competitors — current and future — to promote competition. They also support set-asides that make frequencies available for unlicensed uses like Wi-Fi.

Genachowski’s proposal could potentially spur private companies or communities to build community-wide Wi-Fi networks operated on unlicensed frequencies. With more robust signals, such high speed wireless networks could be less costly to construct and serve a much wider geographic area.

The potential for competition from the public or private sector is what bothers companies like AT&T and Verizon. Both argue that since they had to pay for their spectrum, allowing other users access to free spectrum would be unfair, both to themselves and to the government’s effort to earn as much as possible from the auction. AT&T has been the more aggressive of the two companies, repeatedly attempting to insert language into legislation curtailing the FCC’s ability to set aside a significant amount of spectrum for unlicensed use. While AT&T’s lobbyists do not go as far as to advocate banning such networks, the technical conditions they demand would make them untenable. AT&T and others also demand the FCC must close down unlicensed networks if they create “harmful interference,” which is open to interpretation.

Helping the wireless companies in the campaign against the next generation of Wi-Fi are hardware manufacturers like Cisco, which has been trying to deep six the proposal for at least two years. Why? Because Cisco’s vision of wireless networking, and the products it has manufactured to date, are not in sync with the kind of longer distance Wi-Fi networks the FCC envisions. Cisco faces overhauling products that were designed under the premise Wi-Fi would remain a limited-range, mostly indoor service for consumers and businesses.

The threat to incumbent Internet Service Providers is clear enough. If a new version of Wi-Fi launched that could blanket entire neighborhoods, communities, non-profits, or even loosely-knit groups of altruistic individuals could launch free Wi-Fi services sharing their Internet connection with others. If the technology allowed users to seamlessly hand off wireless connections from one free Wi-Fi hotspot to another, much like cell sites do today, customers might downgrade their wireless data plans with big telecom companies. Machine-to-machine networking could also rely on Wi-Fi instead of commercial wireless data plans. It could threaten billions in potential revenue.

Stopping these networks is a priority for corporate interests with profits at stake. But one thing they do not have to worry about, at least for now, is the federal government getting into the wireless Internet business.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Washington Post FCC offers path to free Internet access 2-4-13.flv[/flv]

After the original story ran in the Post, Cecilia Kang participated in this interview which clarified what the FCC is actually proposing. This video explains what spectrum allocation and unlicensed spectrum is all about. Kang clarifies her article, explaining private companies and/or communities will have to decide what to do with the unlicensed spectrum. The federal government is only facilitating the space and has no plans to run a national network itself. (5 minutes)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/tech-telecom-giants-take-sides-as-fcc-proposes-large-public-wifi-networks/2013/02/03/eb27d3e0-698b-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story.html