Telling Time Warner customers to get rid of the cable company’s phone service.

Best Buy employees in upstate New York are advising Time Warner Cable customers to dump Time Warner phone service and buy their own cable modem to completely avoid any additional monthly fees.

“We don’t have modems that will support Time Warner’s voice services, so basically any customer that has that bundle either has to make the decision to get rid of that service or deal with paying for that service every month,” said Syracuse Best Buy employee Drew Cacciola.

Cacciola told a Syracuse television station Time Warner’s supplied equipment is “old and refurbished” and that if customers purchase their own equipment, they will have the latest technology and won’t have to worry about ending up with another refurbished cable modem if the current modem fails.

“If [a new modem] breaks down you can get a new one you don’t have to send it back to them and you won’t get another refurbished one – you get a new one,” said Cacciola.

In fact, Time Warner phone customers do not have to cancel their phone service to avoid the modem fee, but they will be stuck with two pieces of equipment — a Time Warner-supplied eMTA that manages the phone service (with its Internet ports disabled) and the customer’s own purchased cable modem. For now, Time Warner is not charging customers for eMTA equipment used exclusively for its phone service.

Best Buy does not carry some of the models on Time Warner’s approved modem list, and the cheapest one WSYR reporters could find cost around $60, meaning it will take just over a year to recoup the cost of the modem.

Motorola cable modem

Time Warner Cable’s modem fee continues to create consternation for customers, especially when they learn the same piece of equipment used for both Internet and phone service costs $3.95 a month when used for broadband, but is free when used only for phone service.

Stop the Cap! reader Ben argued with a Time Warner representative trying to understand the reasoning.

“So, let me get this straight about the modem fee: If I have phone there is no fee but if I use the same modem to also get Internet, there is a fee?,” Ben asked.

Yes, came the answer. The explanation:

“About the modem fee: Our costs for Internet equipment keep increasing and unfortunately we could not continue to absorb the costs related to their purchase, maintenance and repair,” wrote a Time Warner employee named ‘Paul-E.’ “Leasing a modem ensures you have the most up to date and capable equipment to take advantage of our services as we offer faster speeds and additional functionality. These events sometimes require that we replace your current equipment to give you the best experience.”

Time Warner’s explanation for the new modem fee sounds plausible, but unfortunately for “Paul-E” (and the company),  much of it is demonstrably false.

Investors Business Daily reports the new $3.95 computer modem leasing fee could raise up to $500 million a year for the cable company.

“I would look at this as a price increase,” Bryan Kraft, an analyst at Evercore Partners, told IBD via email. “There are some questions that need to be answered before the impact on ARPU (average monthly revenue per user) can be reasonably estimated.”

Stop the Cap! took a look at Time Warner Cable’s financial reports and discovered the company’s capital expenses for its high speed Internet service (and cable modem equipment) have dropped for the third year in a row:

Time Warner Cable’s capital expenditures on customer premise equipment, including cable modems, has dropped for three years in a row.

Capital spending (as a whole) so far this year has decreased as a percentage of revenue to just 12% for residential customers. Time Warner has spent money primarily on extending service to potential business customers.

The need to charge you more for a cable modem is questionable when residential Internet service rate increases and customers gravitating to more expensive, higher speed services already deliver the company higher average revenue per customer without spiking their costs.

When the station relayed complaints about long hold times and busy signals for customers trying to activate their purchased cable modem, the response from Time Warner — don’t call on Monday or Friday or around morning or dinner time unless you are prepared to wait on hold.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Time Warner Cable modem charge 10-24-12.mp4[/flv]

WSYR in Syracuse covers the ongoing controversy with Time Warner Cable’s new modem fees, and a Best Buy employee tells Time Warner customers to get rid of the company’s phone service.  (3 minutes)

Time Warner Cable’s new $3.95 monthly cable modem fee applies to customers signed up for broadband service, but if you are a Time Warner “digital phone” customer and don’t subscribe to broadband, the fee does not apply even though the same equipment can sometimes be used for either service.

Time Warner Cable claims the new modem fee was needed to cover the cost of repairing and replacing cable modems over time. But New York City customers have been asking why Internet customers have to buy their own modem to avoid the fee while those using the same modem only for telephone service do not.

The New York Times reached out to Time Warner Cable’s director of public relations Justin Venech, who had to acknowledge the logic disconnect between “digital phone” and Internet customers, but could only offer this weak explanation:

“The way we have decided to charge this fee is, we’re charging it for use of the Internet portion of the modem,” Venech explained. “It’s a business decision. It’s a matter of starting to treat this equipment the same way we treat our other equipment.”

That explanation did not seem to fly… with Time Warner Cable’s own customer service representatives.

When Manhattan resident Tom Arana-Wolfe demanded an explanation for the inconsistent fees, the representative put his call on hold to transfer him to a supervisor, but forgot to hit the mute button.

“She was discussing our conversation with a co-worker and said that they have to come up with something better, because ‘He has a valid point,’” Arana-Wolfe said.

Arana-Wolfe is considering starting a class action lawsuit against the cable operator relating to the modem fee, but is also considering switching his service to Verizon FiOS, which charges no modem fees.

Broadband’s perceived negative impact on print publications is not just a North American phenomena. In Great Britain, the legendary left-leaning national newspaper the Guardian is pondering its future as the UK heads towards a digital online future.

Leigh

David Leigh is the Guardian’s investigations executive editor:

Having survived more than 40 years at the coalface of British journalism (longer than a term of service in the ancient Roman army), I have been feeling a bit depressed lately by the insistent predictions of media pundits that the Internet is killing off quality newspapers. There are very few people in the trade who are prepared to bet that all our daily papers will still be publishing newsprint copies in five years’ time.

According to conventional wisdom, print is doomed. Circulations are collapsing because readers can get everything they want on the Internet. Not only do those readers dislike the idea of paying to read online, but the existence, among other sites, of the rival licence-fee-payer-funded BBC website guarantees that they will never actually need to pay for a supply of reliable day-to-day news. Paywalls will never really work in a UK context for that reason.

Yet when the day comes that the newspapers are forced to stop printing altogether, it will be a disaster for democracy. The lean pickings from web advertising on a free newspaper site will only pay for a fraction of the high-quality investigative journalism that commercial newspapers generate. We’ll just get the timid BBC on the one hand, and superficial junk on the other.

Leigh is convinced the British public will never pay for online news, but the newspaper industry might survive if broadband users are compelled to cough up, with a new surcharge on Internet access bills amounting to no more than £2 ($3.23US) a month, distributed to news providers in proportion to their UK online readership.

The new surcharge would raise at least £500 million annually — a “transformative” amount of money for the ailing print press, according to Leigh.

Those papers already behind an online paywall would receive substantially less from the fund — an incentive to keep online access to news free and open, albeit not monetarily free for UK readers.

Gannett has erected a paywall for its online newspaper editions

The openly self-interested Guardian Media Group would receive in the region of 20% of the cash – £100m a year from the proposed fund.

Leigh defends the new tax in the context of other European countries. Nordic newspapers, for example, receive a direct government subsidy to help keep the presses rolling.

Such a proposal in North America would likely cause a forest fire of controversy, but a large number of avid Guardian readers are having none of it either.

“You’ve got a cheek,” exclaims Elliot Mills. “What about people who don’t read newspapers online and yet would be paying money to the likes of [Rupert] Murdoch if this ridiculous idea came about.”

“A £2-a-month levy on automobiles could save our horse and cart business,” quips Roman David.

“This has got to be one of the most stupidly selfish articles I’ve read for a long time,” shared Mark. “And, for the Guardian, that takes some doing. Why on earth should the customers of a successful business be forced to subsidize a failing and outdated one?”

Even fellow journalists seem skeptical.

“I’ve been a journalist for 38 years, and I have to tell you – this is a stupid idea,” writes Terry Collmann. “Why should the Internet-using public have to pay for newspaper managements’ failure to set up a workable economic model for the post-newsprint world? It’s like advocating a tax on cars to subsidize horse-drawn hackney cabs and omnibuses. If newspapers can’t make themselves pay, they don’t deserve to survive.”

In North America, many newspaper chains are erecting paywalls to promote new subscription models. Gannett newspapers, for example, provide a limited number of free articles before a reader is prompted to subscribe to the online edition. Print subscribers get free, unlimited access.

The question is whether readers confronted with a paywall will simply take their news reading elsewhere, or will they value the content sufficiently to subscribe to maintain access. Leigh’s proposal would avoid pondering that  altogether with a compulsory license fee similar to what UK residents already pay for the BBC.

Phillip “Tollbooths are not innovation” Dampier

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski last week wrote a guest editorial on TechCrunch espousing the benefits of faster broadband networks, but the advances he celebrates often come with innovation-killing usage caps and overlimit fees he continues to ignore.

We feel the need – the need for speed. As Tom Friedman and others have written, in this flat global economy a strategic bandwidth advantage will help keep the U.S. as the home and most desired destination for the world’s greatest innovators and entrepreneurs.

[…] But progress isn’t victory, particularly in this fast-moving sector. Challenges to U.S. leadership are real. This is a time to press harder on the gas pedal, not let up. The first challenge is the need for faster and more accessible broadband networks. We need to keep pushing because our global competitors aren’t slowing down. I’ve met with senior government officials and business leaders from every continent, and every one of them is focused on the broadband opportunity. If we in the U.S. don’t foster major investments to extend and expand our broadband infrastructure, somebody else will take the lead.

We need to keep pushing because innovators need next-generation bandwidth for next-generation innovations – genetic sequencing for cancer patients, immersive and creative software to help children learn, ways for small businesses to take advantage of Big Data, and speed- and capacity-heavy innovations we can’t yet imagine.

We need to remove bandwidth as a constraint on our innovators and entrepreneurs. In addition to steadily increasing broadband speed and capacity for consumers and businesses throughout the country, we need – as we said in our National Broadband Plan – “innovation hubs” with super-fast broadband, with speed measured in gigabits, not megabits.

[…]Some argue the private sector will solve these challenges itself, and that all government has to do is get out of the way. I disagree. The private sector must take the lead, but the public sector has a vital though limited role to play.

Among the policy levers government needs to use is the removal of barriers to broadband buildout, lowering the costs of infrastructure deployment with new policies like “Dig Once” that says you should lay fiber when you dig up roads. The President recently issued an Executive Order implementing this idea, suggested in our Broadband Plan. Government must promote competition, which drives innovation and network upgrades.

We must ensure the Internet remains an open platform that continues to enable innovation without permission.

Genachowski

Genachowski’s vision for faster broadband has the noble goal of maintaining competitiveness with the rest of the world and putting the United States back on top in broadband rankings and innovation. But while hobnobbing with his industry friends at recent industry conventions, he may have gotten too close to one of the biggest impediments holding us back — big cable and phone companies merrily working their magic to create a comfortable duopoly with pricing and service plans to match.

Back in the late 1990s, most cable operators thought of broadband as an ancillary service easy enough to operate, but probably hard to monetize. Just like digital cable radio services like Music Choice and DMX, “broadband” would likely appeal only to a tiny subset of customers.

“Back in the 1990s, Time Warner was primarily a TV company in a TV industry.  Broadband then was an innovating and radical thing, and a lot of people thought it was stupid and wouldn’t work,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said in April, 2009.

The launch of “Road Runner” was not the most auspicious marketing effort undertaken by the cable operator. In fact, the service was rarely targeted for price adjustments, hovering at around $40 a month for a decade.

When the Great Recession hit the United States, something unexpected happened. Cable operators discovered people were willing to cancel their cable and phone services, but not their broadband. In fact, as high bandwidth online video became an increasing part of our lives, the cable industry realized they were in the catbird seat to deliver the best broadband experience, and be well-paid for it. With little competition, increasing prices brought little risk and, thanks to the insatiable drive to boost revenue and reduce costs, implementing usage caps to control “excess” usage and costs were within their grasp.

In 2008, when Stop the Cap! launched, only a handful of ISPs had usage caps. Now most providers, with the exception of Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Cablevision, and a handful of others, all have usage allowances and overlimit fee Internet Overcharging schemes to further pad their bottom lines.

Innovation: Rationing Your Internet Experience — Stick to e-mail and web pages.

Genachowski has completely ignored the growing pervasiveness of usage caps, and even excused them as an experiment in marketplace innovation. But limits on broadband usage will also limit the broadband innovation revolution he wants, especially when most Americans have just one or two realistic choices for broadband service:

1. Usage caps are the product of artificial scarcity. Rationing Internet usage, even with now-pervasive cost-effective upgrades like DOCSIS 3, simply does not make sense (but it will make dollars). Cable operators are switching off analog television service to free up bandwidth to provider faster Internet speed and fatten the pipeline that delivers it. They have plenty of capacity, but continue to proclaim they must limit usage for “fairness” reasons, without providing a single shred of evidence to prove the need for usage caps. Consumers will self-ration just to avoid the prospect of being cut off or handed a bill with overlimit fees.
2. Usage caps make faster speeds irrelevant. Selling customers premium-priced, super fast broadband speed is hardly compelling when accompanied by usage caps that constrain the benefits of buying. Why pay $20-50 more for faster speeds when customers cannot take practical advantage of them. Customers using their Internet service to browse web pages and read e-mail have no interest in upgrading to 30+Mbps. Customers streaming video or moving large files do.
3. Usage caps retard innovation. Google’s new 1Gbps fiber optic network was built on the premise that usage caps were unnecessary on a fiber-based network and would retard innovation. Developing the next generation of innovative apps that Genachowski celebrates will never happen if developers are discouraged by Internet usage toll booths and stop signs. The cost to provide the service is not largely dependent on customer usage. It is the initial price of last mile infrastructure that really matters. Both cable and phone companies have reduced their investments to upgrade their networks, and AT&T and Verizon both contemplate getting rid of their rural landlines. Most cable operators paid off their networks years ago.
4. Usage caps create a whole new digital divide.  Time Warner Cable’s discounted Internet Essentials program delivers only a $5 discount with a harsh 5GB usage cap. For an income-challenged home compelled to switch to a provider’s budget plan, the result is a different Internet experience than the rest of us enjoy. Imagine if your home broadband account was limited to 5GB a month. What online services would you have to avoid to stay under the provider’s limit? Traditionally, operators sell the lowest speed tiers with the lowest usage allowances. Slower speeds already offer a disincentive to use high bandwidth services, but many providers typically drive that disincentive home even harder with a paltry allowance that will cost plenty to exceed.
5. Usage caps harm our broadband standing. While Genachowski celebrates increasing broadband speeds, he ignores the fact the rest of the world is moving away from usage caps even as the United States moves towards them. Both Australia and New Zealand elected to construct their own national fiber networks in large part because the heavily usage-capped experience was holding both countries back. Usage caps are a product of a barely competitive market.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bandwidth Caps 7-2011.flv[/flv]

Tech News Today debunks providers’ claims that usage caps are fair and control those who “overuse” their networks, noting the same phone companies (AT&T) pushing for usage caps are also moving voice calling to unlimited service plans. (August, 2011) (4 minutes)

A homeless man’s mattress fire under a bridge in Massachusetts was enough to create the biggest telecommunications disaster for Verizon since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The fire melted fiber and damaged copper cables that represented the backbone of Verizon’s landline network in the region, disrupting phone, cable, and broadband service for thousands of Verizon’s customers in northeastern Massachusetts in late August. Now that service has been restored, the damages from the outage and its ripple effects are still being calculated as questions are being raised about how the company handles its communications network.

The damage went far beyond an inconvenience for Verizon customers:

• Area businesses were ripe for plundering with Verizon-dependent alarm systems out of service;
• Cell towers went down if they were connected by Verizon’s fiber optic network;
• Local law enforcement communication systems ceased to function in areas where Verizon provided the vital link between the dispatch center and transmitting facilities miles away;
• Banks and other local businesses closed down because Verizon-based connectivity was inoperable. That left ATMs throughout the region out of service and credit card transactions often impossible to manage;
• 911 systems in several communities had to transfer emergency calls to other 911 centers miles away;
• Even the Registry of Motor Vehicles locked their doors and shut down while the outage persisted over several days.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NECN Verizon telecommunications outage causes problems 8-31-12.flv[/flv]
NECN News reports on Verizon’s enormous Massachusetts service outage and how it impacted the lives of affected customers. (3 minutes)

Verizon’s landline network ultimately failed its Massachusetts customers on a scale the company admits it has not seen in a long time.

“It’s the biggest problem we’ve faced, nationally, other than 9-11,” Bill Wilson, area manager for Verizon, told the Eagle-Tribune. “This is the biggest problem we’ve had in 20 years.”

At the heart of the problem is Verizon’s lack of redundancy in its landline network. With fiber optic cables managing a larger share of broadband traffic, phone calls, and even Verizon’s television service, the loss of even a single fiber cable can disrupt service for hundreds or thousands of customers, many more than would be affected by a damaged copper cable.

State Sen. Barry Finegold (D-Andover) is questioning Verizon’s decision not to have a backup plan in place.

“So if there’s a fire there’s a redundant system in place so if one fails there’s another to back it up,” Finegold said.

Customers, particular those working from home, wholeheartedly agreed.

“I am appalled,” Shela Horvitz, a Verizon FIOS customer who lost her phone, Internet and TV service for days as a result of the fire, told the newspaper. “Can you say, ‘Single Point of Failure?’”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380”]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Eagle Tribune Verizon Talks to Media About Outage 9-2-12.flv[/flv]

Verizon officials show reporters what the fire did to their network and how they are going to restore service after a fire on Lawrence Central Bridge caused mass outages in the region. From the Eagle-Tribune. (4 minutes)

Verizon blames the entire affair on homeless people, who they say should not have been sleeping on top of their wires. The idea of network redundancy for Verizon’s landline network? “Cost prohibitive,” say company officials.

Joseph Zukowski, vice president for government affairs for the phone company, said the problem was so rare, it was comparable to a 100-year storm. He compared the outage with a natural disaster.

“We have extensive security measures to make the network as secure as possible,” Zukowski said. “We restrict building access and access to our cables. Nowhere on the list is a homeless guy lighting a match on a mattress. We’re not laying blame, but the best thing would have been not to have the tent city there.”

Local police acknowledge the bridge where the cables cross the Merrimack River is a popular spot for the local homeless to congregate, and they have attempted to control the problem. But nobody ever told them Verizon’s vital regional communications network infrastructure was at ground zero of the mattress fire.

“Going forward, if the stuff that’s there is so important, it really needs to be secured so nobody can get access to it,” said police chief John Romero.

Verizon has promised refunds for all affected customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Lawrence MA Bridge Fire Verizon Restoration 2012 9-1-12.flv[/flv]

A Verizon-produced video illustrates how the company is repairing its damaged network. The heat from the fire on August 27th melted and fused both fiber and copper cables, and the protective casings that house the cables.

Verizon: “The work to restore service is complex, given that technicians are splicing thousands of individual copper and fiber-optic connections in a very confined area under the bridge. The conduit structure that holds the cables, which was protected by a metal cage, was destroyed and needs to be replaced. Verizon crews have been working in 24-hour shifts since the fire to restore service for customers and will continue to do so until every customer is back in service.”  (2 minutes)