[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cox Ads 5-2012.flv[/flv]

Cox Cable has slammed its phone company competition in a series of new TV commercials that call out antiquated and slow DSL. But customers switching to Cox have to endure that company’s unjustified Internet Overcharging schemes.  Cox arbitrarily limits your Internet usage in an effort to maximize profits and reduce costs.  Watching the online video Cox advertises could put you perilously close to your monthly allowance. Exceed it once too often and you may find your account shut off.

Cox executives promise they’ll listen to customers and what they want. Stop the Cap! urges you to participate in our pushback against Cox usage caps. Tell the cable company it does no good selling their broadband service for online video when the company threatens to shut it down if you watch “too much.”  (2 minutes)

Joe Roget has one word for South Carolina’s Broadband Availability Map: “nuts.”

The 72 year old resident of a small town in South Carolina was excited to read a new statewide broadband availability map showed his street was currently getting DSL service from one of South Carolina’s largest phone companies.  But that was news to AT&T, who provides landline phone service.

“They said they had no idea what I was talking about and that whatever map data I was looking at was totally wrong,” Roget reports to Stop the Cap! “The operator was frank with me, saying it was highly unlikely I would ever receive DSL from AT&T and the company was really not expanding DSL access any longer.”

Karen, a Stop the Cap! reader near Denmark, S.C., reported a similar story.

“The broadband map Connect South Carolina has gotten a government grant to produce is total fiction in my area and is little more than cable and phone company wishful thinking,” Karen reports.

Karen says not only does her street show DSL as readily available, but cable broadband as well.  Karen and her neighbors can get neither.

“‘Never have, never will’ seems to be the attitude unless we pay $20,000 to the cable company to extend wiring down the street,” Karen says. “The phone company doesn’t have time to even consider that, but their call center is nowhere near South Carolina so those people don’t care.”

Roget wonders exactly how Connect South Carolina, a chapter of the industry-connected Connected Nation group, got their data.

The answer: it largely collects it from the data providers volunteer themselves.

“Did anyone ever bother to use some of the millions of taxpayer dollars this group got to actually verify what the cable and phone companies handed out to make sure it was real?” Roget asks.

Darryl Coffey, an engineering consultant for the group, says he spends countless hours trying to verify the data providers submit to the group.

In South Carolina, I verify each of these platforms by going out into the field with tools, test equipment and data.  We refer to this process as “provider validation.”

Provider validation involves driving hundreds of miles following telephone and cable lines, or testing wireless signals in neighborhoods as well as in remote areas.

“I have basic phone service at my home, and I don’t know how Mr. Coffey can follow a phone line to determine if it also can provide me with DSL,” Roget says. “I could tell him, or anyone else at Connected South Carolina, it most certainly does not — had they asked.”

Roget is also upset that South Carolina’s legislature is interested in preventing local communities from deploying their own broadband networks to fill in the gaps where large telecommunications companies refuse to provide service. Only he wonders exactly how legislators will know there is a broadband gap if the group drawing the maps, based on what providers tell them, shows there isn’t a problem.

“What a scam,” Roget concludes. “An industry-backed group draws maps of data volunteered by the providers themselves that legislators use to prove there is no broadband problem in South Carolina and no need for towns and cities to build their own service.”

Karen has virtually given up on South Carolina officials representing the interests of South Carolina’s citizens.

“They look out for the companies, not the people,” Karen says. “It seems if we want better broadband, we will have to move somewhere else, preferably someplace that isn’t dumb or corrupt enough to let the broadband industry control our broadband future.”

Verizon Communications will stop selling DSL broadband-only service to its customers May 6th in what the company is calling an effort to control costs “enabling us to continue providing competitively priced services to existing and new customers.”

Broadband Reports readers first reported receiving written notice of Verizon’s plans to discard “naked DSL” service, although existing customers who don’t move or make any changes to their account will be able to keep the broadband-only service for now.

Verizon provides the details:

Beginning May 6, 2012, we will no longer offer High Speed Internet without local voice service on the same account.

What does this mean for you?

• If you currently have High Speed Internet without local voice service on the same account, there is no action required on your part to continue enjoying your internet service. You will not experience any disruption of service.
• Prior to May 6, 2012, you can still make speed upgrades or downgrades to your existing service.
• Prior to May 6, 2012, you can receive bundle discounts by adding DIRECTV service or Verizon Wireless service to your current internet service.

What this means if you change or disconnect your High Speed Internet Service as of May 6, 2012 or after:

• You can make changes to and retain your Verizon High Speed Internet Service on or after the above date, by adding Verizon’s local voice service to the same account.
• If you are moving your service from one location to another on or after the above date, you may subscribe to internet service at your new location if you also subscribe to Verizon’s local voice service on the same account.
• If you choose to subscribe to additional Verizon services you could be eligible for a bundled discount when you also subscribe to Verizon’s local voice service on the same account.

There is speculation Verizon is eliminating its DSL-only service in an effort to boost revenue and push subscribers in FiOS-enabled areas to Verizon’s fiber optic network.  A decade earlier, many phone companies fought to avoid selling “broadband-only” DSL service without a voice landline because of revenue losses.  Landline customers continue to drop voice service from traditional phone companies at an alarming rate — choosing competing cable or Voice over IP service or a cell phone.  By requiring voice service, Verizon can boost average revenue from each customer, whether those customers want the service or not.

Customers who currently subscribe to broadband-only DSL service from Verizon are advised that virtually any account change of significance can disqualify them from continuing with the service.  That includes address changes and speed adjustments.  Stop the Cap! recommends customers make any changes prior to May 6th.

Large sections of Verizon’s service area are not FiOS-eligible,  so current DSL customers with no other broadband choices may find themselves stuck with adding voice service. Verizon sells Basic Home Telephone Service with no local calling allowance at prices ranging from $7 in some communities to $16 or higher in others, excluding the FCC-mandated line fee, which runs an extra $6.50 a month.

One thing Verizon’s higher bills will accomplish is making Verizon Wireless’ new 4G LTE Home Fusion wireless broadband service look slightly more price competitive.  If a Verizon landline customer has to pay for both voice and data service, paying $60 a month for 10GB of wireless broadband may not seem that expensive in comparison.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Living in a Smart City Chattanooga TN.flv[/flv]

The only one Gigabit broadband service currently available in the United States for residential and business customers is in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Meet people who live and work in one of the smartest cities in the country: what services do they embrace today, what is their vision for the future, and what kind of culture do they think makes this all possible.  New jobs are moving into Chattanooga every day, and existing companies are learning to take advantage of the new business opportunities gigabit broadband delivers.  You may be surprised to learn America’s best Internet access comes from a publicly-owned utility that works hard every day for its customers, not investors and banks living a thousand miles away.  (6 minutes)

Walden

When lawmakers talk about “unleashing” anything for “innovation,” it’s a safe bet we’re about to be treated to an anti-regulatory rant about how government rules are ruining everything for big business.  Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) does not disappoint.

Walden is chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an important place to be if you want to influence telecommunications policy in the United States.  Walden slammed the Federal Communications Commission this morning in an editorial piece in Politico, accusing the agency of regulating communications companies before they have a chance to engage in bad behavior:

Sometimes the FCC acts before thoroughly examining whether regulation is needed. It’s now time to stop putting the regulatory cart before the horse. That’s why this bill requires the FCC to survey the marketplace, identify a failure and conduct a cost-benefit analysis before imposing rules.

[…] When the FCC reviews a merger, it now often imposes unrelated conditions. These extraneous agreements may not correspond to any harm presented by the transaction, may not be justified industry-wide and, in some cases, are outside the commission’s jurisdiction.

Such bootstrapping is unfair to the singled-out parties. It also results in poor policy. Imposing extraneous conditions on a transaction that is not otherwise harmful is inappropriate. And if a transaction is harmful, imposing extraneous conditions cannot cure it. Merger conditions should be directly related to transaction-specific harms, and within the FCC’s general authority.

Walden’s concerns coincide with the corporate agendas of some of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies he oversees as chairman.  That may not be surprising, considering seven of the top 10 corporate contributors to his campaign fund are all telecommunications companies.

Walden's top campaign contributors (Source: Opensecrets.org)

Walden’s record on “innovation” is open to interpretation.  He is on record opposing Net Neutrality, has sought to “streamline” the FCC by hamstringing its authority, and has favored a variety of mergers and acquisitions that have effectively reduced competition for American consumers.

The FCC’s zeal for increased competition appears occasionally in its rulemakings, although the agency under Chairman Julius Genachowski can hardly be considered aggressive and out of control when it comes to some of the most contentious telecom issues that have arisen during the Obama Administration.  It only followed the Justice Department’s lead opposing the AT&T/T-Mobile USA merger.  It punted on Net Neutrality enforcement, doesn’t oppose Internet Overcharging, and has granted more mergers and acquisitions than it has sought to block.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has not always successfully stared down industry efforts to consolidate and deregulate.

Some examples of “unrelated conditions” the FCC has imposed on mergers include no price hikes for consumers for a limited time (Sirius-XM), a discounted Internet service for poor families (Comcast-NBC Universal), and spinoffs of acquired cellular network assets in barely competitive markets (Verizon Wireless-Alltel).

Sirius-XM mostly kept to their agreement, but promptly raised prices when it expired, Comcast followed the FCC’s agreement to the letter but found ways to limit the number of qualified families, and Verizon Wireless sold some of their acquired Alltel assets to AT&T, which at least provided improved AT&T reception in certain markets they largely ignored earlier.

Consumer advocates would argue the FCC should never have approved these transactions in the first place, and the conditions the FCC imposed were so mild, they faced little opposition from the companies involved. But apparently even that is too much for Walden, who we have a hard time seeing opposing any of these mergers.  Besides, some of the largest companies donating to Walden’s campaign fund are already adept at working around the FCC, suing their way past the regulations they oppose.

Walden advocates the FCC only perform its oversight functions after the industry is proven to have imposed unfair, anti-competitive, and discriminatory policies against consumers, not to act to prevent those abuses in the first place.  In short, he wants the FCC to regulate only after the damage has been done. That would be akin to calling the fire department after your house burned to the ground. Companies would be free to walk away with their ill-gotten gains with little threat the FCC would punish bad behavior and fine the bad actors.

If you are Comcast, that is innovation.  If you are a consumer, it’s something else.