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)

AT&T is buying newspaper ad space to publish a feel good message about Internet Openness that bears no reality to the company’s multi-million dollar lobbying effort to derail broadband reform, taking guarantees of a free and open Internet with it.

The advertisement’s appearance is remarkable, coming at the same time the company’s “government affairs” team of paid lobbyists and friends are browbeating elected officials and the Federal Communications Commission.  AT&T wants the right to allow preferential treatment of its selected content partners while dumping everyone else on the Internet slow lane.

The only opening AT&T supports is a new way to cash in even further on the Internet.  An “open network” to the phone giant means one that is totally deregulated and open to whatever AT&T wants to do with it.

AT&T’s “innovation” is to monetize the traffic that happens to cross their network on its way to AT&T customers.  By manipulating broadband traffic, AT&T will sell its “selected partners” priority access, shoving uncompensated traffic out of the way to make room for whatever AT&T’s special friends want you to see.  While that’s great news for companies that agree to pay AT&T’s tolls, it’s very bad news for everyone else, because the websites you choose to visit may or may not be available on the second rate “free lane.”  Given the choice between AT&T-backed video streaming or a third party provider like Netflix, guess what traffic will never get stuck “buffering” or face glitches.

Investors love the concept because AT&T can collect revenue just by sitting back and demanding tolls from content they neither produce nor host.  It’s not as if they haven’t been paid already — by their customers — to obtain access to that content.  AT&T wants another payday for their shareholders while sticking you with second-rate service.

The problem with AT&T’s world view is… AT&T’s world view.  Real innovation would mean delivering customers a world class broadband service the envy of anyone, delivered on America’s most advanced communications network, not re-purposed copper wire phone lines.  Then, “traffic management” on a mega-sized information highway wouldn’t have to squeeze the speed of some traffic to make room for “premium content.”  There would be plenty of room for one and all.

AT&T’s proposed answer for broadband reform is all about their interests, never yours.

America already experienced a corporate-sanitized online experience with preferred content partners. It was called Prodigy, and by 2000 it was fed to 77 million SBC (later AT&T) customers.

Some examples:

• Net Neutrality has been a part of AT&T’s corporate life for several years as a condition of its 2005 merger with SBC.  It didn’t harm their ability to provide all of the innovation, service, and speeds they could have, but never did.  Nothing about Net Neutrality protection harms AT&T’s ability to deliver broadband service to more of its customers. Giving AT&T whatever it wants won’t change that fact or deliver service to a single new customer;
• The freedom AT&T writes about is their idea of a Corporate Bill of Rights, which grants them the freedom to exchange their ideas and content, but says nothing about protecting your freedom of speech;
• A robust and secure network should exist regardless of Net Neutrality, considering the enormous amount of cash AT&T harvests from their Internet customers month after month.  AT&T is free to innovate all they like, on a level-playing-field, where customers can choose the best applications at the best prices, not the ones AT&T provides to them on a paid fast lane;
• AT&T’s record on competition is laughable when it spends its free cash on an army of lobbyists and “dollar-a-holler” interest groups.  Their mission?  To oppose potential competitors and enthusiastically support AT&T’s competition-busting mergers and acquisitions that further concentrate their market power;
• For AT&T’s customers, transparency alone is hardly the kind of consumer protection Internet users need.  Yes, it’s nice to be told when you are overpaying for broadband service that is “network managed.” Admitting AT&T seeks to throttle broadband speeds and potentially block websites in a monopoly/duopoly market doesn’t help much when customers can’t find another provider.  Disclosing the fact AT&T is sticking it to you is not the same thing as prohibiting them from trying in the first place.

AT&T has no interest in working with anyone that opposes their corporate interests.

The Internet should not be AT&T’s personal playground, ready and able to be “managed” out of its unique ability to deliver ideas equally — to be judged on their merit — not on the money backing them.

Americans have already experienced a corporate-sanitized online service for pre-approved ideas, products, and services.  It was called Prodigy, and by 2000 it was to become the Internet experience for 77 million SBC (later AT&T) customers. By the time the bottom fell out in 2001, SBC owned 100 percent of the service nobody wanted.  In 2005, SBC tried to sell the Prodigy brand in the United States.  There were no buyers.

That should be the outcome of AT&T’s proposal for “an open Internet.”  No deal.

The dollar-a-holler crowd that takes “charitable” contributions from Comcast is enjoying an abundance of riches thanks to your cable bill payment and their corporate agenda to get the NBC-Comcast merger approved. Everyone is coming out to celebrate the deal — from the United Way in Denver to a Texas sheriff and a group opposing grave desecration.  Regular Stop the Cap! reader Bones sent word Comcast’s Money Party is just getting started.

The Wrap notes Comcast has donated $1.8 billion in cash and in-kind largess to non-profit organizations since 2001, many of which will helpfully throw 44 cents back in the form of supportive letters to the Federal Communications Commission telling them to do whatever America’s largest cable company wants.

It’s all a part of the dirty little game some non-profits play with corporate benefactors to work against your consumer interests.  Even worse, many of these same groups will also ask -you- for a donation as well.  If Comcast keeps raising its rates, perhaps the best option in response to those playing on Comcast’s side is to tell them you already sent a donation… to Comcast.

This year’s circus of money has generated a torrent of correspondence to the FCC that is often nothing less than absurd.

The Wrap found one letter from the president of the Washington, D.C.-based Cherry Blossom Festival.  Did you know cherry blossoms were deeply committed to seeing Comcast and NBC get married?

“Over the past few years, Comcast has generously donated services and sponsorship to our events,” Diana Mayhew, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Cherry Blossom Festival, wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in July. “I believe as Comcast teams up with NBC, it will continue to be a great partner for the Cherry Blossom Festival.”

But it gets much sillier.

Stop the Cap! has compiled just a sampler of comments from several interest groups all in a hurry to get their letters into the public record.  Most were bad, but we also include an example of a letter from a group that didn’t simply applaud the deal.  Our comments are in italics:

National Puerto Rican Coalition: “In our view, […] this joint venture will lead to valuable benefits and unprecedented advances in media diversity for Hispanics and other people of color.”

Do you think the fact NPRC also received valuable funding from the Comcast Foundation might have had something to do with their cheerleading letter?

Cuban American National Council
Hispanic Federation
League of United Latin American Citizens
National Council of La Raza
National Hispanic Media Coalition
SER-Jobs For Progress National, Inc.: “We strongly believe that the Memorandum of Understanding between Comcast and NBCU and the Hispanic Leadership organizations seeks to promote the goals of expanding economic opportunity for Hispanic families and preserving and enhancing programming for Hispanic audiences, and view these commitments as stepping stones to a more responsive and responsible corporate citizenry.”

These groups, many of which also receive direct funding from Comcast, went over the top cooking up a “Memorandum of Understanding” (or is it a shakedown agreement) to land positions on Comcast’s “Advisory Councils.”  These Latino groups managed to get their travel and other expenses paid for by Comcast to attend twice-yearly meetings to discuss diversity issues.  Their agreement also allows this coalition to empower itself, by getting Comcast to agree to call them when looking for “qualified” Latino law firms, suppliers and vendors, and even top management.  That provides these groups power and influence as interested candidates appeal to them to gain a spot on the “qualified” list.  But it goes even further — Comcast has to add several “qualified” (identified with the help of these groups) Latino-owned cable channels to the lineup whether subscribers want them or not.

This agreement was marked “confidential,” but you can read a copy right here.  By the way, it’s no surprise the League of United Latin American Citizens is on this list.  They’ll peddle themselves out to any Big Telecom company that comes with a check in hand, especially AT&T.

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (“GLAAD”): “Given the weight and significance of the Comcast/NBCU merger, GLAAD urges the FCC to ensure that the community of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans are not forgotten in its calculus of diversity, and that the stories and visibility of LGBT people and their families are held up as part of the valued diversity in its discussions, analysis and recommendations in this merger.

GLAAD’s filing was an example of a respectable comment letter filed by a minority interest group.  They didn’t take a strong position for or against the merger.  Instead, they shined a light on the issues that concern the LGBT community and said the FCC should take a closer look.  That’s fair and appropriate.

Hmong New Life Radio Broadcasting
Hmong Women’s Heritage Association
Hmong Report At 7
Lao Family Community of Fresno
Sacramento Asian-American Minority, Inc.
National Hmong Grave Desecration Committee: “We believe Comcast’s sensitivity to our need for such programming speaks extremely well of them as a company. It is a clear indication that they will continue to exhibit their sense of the responsibility to underserved communities such as ours subsequent to a merger with NBC-Universal.”

These six groups must be new to the influence game because they each sent nearly identical (often word for word) letters to the FCC in support of the merger.  On the ludicrous scale, nothing beats the National Hmong Grave Desecration Committee finding itself compelled to write a formal letter to the FCC on a multi-billion dollar cable-broadcast merger.

Here's something to remember us by....

Mile High United Way: “Comcast has provided sizeable foundation grants for DRH projects and other meaningful financial donations to other United Way programs. In addition to philanthropy and volunteerism, the company has also provided us with top notch communications support. The company has helped us create video presentations for our key fundraising efforts; it has placed public service announcements on its cable stations in an attempt generate attention and attendance for our events; it has also provided time on its Comcast Newsmakers public service broadcast to publicize our events, our programs and our people.”

That’s all wonderful, but none of it justifies or even argues for a merger between a cable and television network.  This is nothing more than dollar-a-holler advocacy at work — United Way gets goodies from Comcast and now they are returning the favor.  What United Way won’t get from our family is another nickle.  After all, our contributions to United Way pay for this group’s time and effort peddling Comcast’s corporate agenda to the FCC.  And I thought the United Way was supposed to be a charitable organization, not a lobbyist advocating for Comcast.

Sheriff Adrian Garcia – Harris County (Tex.): “Comcast is not just a business operating in Harris County, it is a partner in our effort to be a better and safer community. I hope the FCC will keep all that Comcast does in mind and permit the NBC Universal partnership to move forward.”

Voters in Harris County might want to keep this letter in mind come election time.  This shockingly inappropriate involvement by a law enforcement agency willing to stick its nose in a corporate merger is inexcusable.  Perhaps Harris County needs a sheriff that will spend time fighting crime, not typing up letters to benefit the cable company.  Oh, and by the way Sheriff — Comcast really is just a business.

The National Zoo: “In sum, Comcast has proven to be a reliable partner that cares about our work here at the Zoo in promoting innovative science, educating children, and ultimately establishing a beautiful urban park offering families excitement as well as a welcome place to enjoy nature. We deeply care about our engagement with our local friends and families here in Washington, D.C. and appreciate the fact that Comcast shares our commitment to serving the local community.”

That’s grand, but has nothing to do with a corporate merger proposal.  Comcast’s subscribers are the ones who ultimately care about the Zoo.  It’s their money that paves the way for all those good works.

Center for the Homeless: “I hope you will consider this testimony in favor of Comcast and its strong sense of involvement in American communities and service to those who need it most. Comcast is a true partner in the important work that we do.”

Another group whose mission should be helping the homeless is devoting time and resources to sending love notes to the FCC on behalf of a giant cable company.  By the way, none of the clients your group serves can afford Comcast’s prices.

Partnership for a Drug Free New Jersey: “I look forward to our continued partnership with Comcast and am excited to welcome NBC onto their team. We will continue to reach teens all over New Jersey to help ensure that they remain drug-free and continue to bring the message of hope to so many of our state’s residents.”

The excitement is even greater when you recognize Comcast and the national umbrella group Partnership for a Drug Free America can’t thank each other enough.  The non-profit explained it all in a newsletter: “At the Partnership’s third annual Making A Difference gala held this winter in the Grand Ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, more than 850 guests gathered to honor Ralph J. Roberts, founder and chairman of the executive and finance committee for the Comcast Corporation, and his son, Brian L. Roberts, chairman & CEO of Comcast. Chairing the gala were Geraldine B. Laybourne, chairman & CEO of Oxygen Media and James B. Lee, Jr., vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase & Co. […] The evening generated over $2.1 million to support the Partnership’s programs for children, parents and families.”

The accolades should have stopped at a “thank you” card, not with the unseemly way this group returns the favor by advocating for a merger deal involving one of their benefactors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new report published by the Federal Communications Commission this week finds Americans are being ripped off by their broadband providers who promise speeds 50 percent faster than they actually receive.

In a generically named report, “Broadband Performance,” the FCC finds Americans love spending increasing amounts of time on the Internet, but face providers making bogus marketing claims for speeds they’ll never actually receive.

In 2009, average […] advertised download speeds were 7–8 Mbps, across technologies. However, FCC analysis shows that the median actual speed consumers experienced in the first half of 2009 was roughly 3 Mbps, while the average (mean) actual speed was approximately 4 Mbps. Therefore actual download speeds experienced by U.S. consumers appear to lag advertised speeds by roughly 50%.

[…] The “up to” speed, however, does not provide an accurate measure of likely end-user broadband experience. That experience depends on multiple factors, including the actual speed that consumers realize, taking into account the impact of network congestion; and other metrics like the availability of the network, latency, jitter and packet loss. In other words, consumers need a better, publicly agreed upon measure of broadband performance that reflects the network operation and end-user experience.

No surprises here - the FCC found fiber delivered the fastest broadband speeds with wireless and satellite service delivering the slowest

Providers in several countries have been called to account for marketing claims that never seem to be realized by customers.

For years, providers have relied on the weasel words “up to” to escape charges of outright misrepresentation of their products.  The FCC doesn’t believe the status quo properly informs consumers about true broadband speeds, especially when comparison shopping.

Some of the widest gaps between advertised and actually delivered speeds came from telephone company DSL service.  Many phone companies define their maximum speeds based on theoretical maximums, not the actual average speeds encountered by customers.  While some providers claimed up to 10Mbps service, they only actually delivered up to 3Mbps to many customers.

The report recommends new disclosures, including average actual speeds delivered to customers, what kind of speeds customers can expect during peak usage times, and what speeds consumers will encounter while using certain online applications.

Speeds can make all the difference for certain classes of broadband users, also defined in the FCC report:

➤ Advanced. These consumers use large amounts of data and tend to use the highest quality voice, video, and other cutting-edge applications.

➤ Full media. These consumers are moderately heavy users of broadband and mobile applications, seeking to access high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video communications but, typically not in the most cutting-edge forms.

➤ Emerging multimedia. These consumers utilize some video and graphical content but still see the Internet primarily as a way to communicate and access news and entertainment in a richer format than found in offline content.

➤ Utility. These consumers are largely content to access the Internet for basic news, communication, and basic entertainment.

The New America Foundation thinks the gulf between promises and reality has grown so large, it’s time to bring “The Schumer Box” to broadband.  Named after Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the “Schumer Box” was made a part of every credit card application and cardholder agreement.  It breaks out in large print fact-based disclosures to consumers about what kind of service and pricing to expect.  The Foundation wants consumers to have truth-in-labeling introduced for Internet users who will be able to comparison shop providers more effectively.

One consumer group wants a credit card-style disclosure of broadband speeds and policies

While the FCC’s findings may not reach the level of credit card-style disclosures, the agency does recognize there is a significant problem with providers misrepresenting their broadband speeds.

The report also found consumers are increasing their amount of monthly usage, often correlated to the speeds they receive.  Those with the fastest broadband accounts consume the most (and typically also pay the most for service).  Those with slower speeds consume less.

That finding supports the contention among many consumer groups that today’s speed-based broadband tiers fairly compensate providers for customer usage.  Those who use the most pay the most for the fastest speeds. Those who use the least pay lower prices for lower speed tiers.

The agency also rated fiber to the home America’s fastest broadband technology, followed by cable broadband, then DSL service, and finally wireless/satellite-delivered service.