Some Time Warner customers think there is more up the cable company's sleeve than "subscriber convenience."

Time Warner Cable customers across the country have been coping with some dramatic channel realignments over the past year, in some cases finding as many as a half-dozen channels gone missing from their analog basic cable lineup when it’s all said and done.

Communities in South Carolina, Ohio, and Nebraska are the latest to find dozens of channels assuming new positions on the dial, some now requiring a $7-10 digital set top box rental to keep watching.

The reasons for the changes?  To make room for an increasing number of HD channels, upgrade to DOCSIS 3 technology to support faster broadband, and to simplify finding networks on a lineup with hundreds of choices.

In Lincoln, Neb., Time Warner Cable will be aligning all of their analog and digital standard definition channel numbers with their HD counterparts.  So if CNN occupies channel 120 on the standard definition cable lineup, CNN HD will be found on channel 1120.  Customers simply have to add a “1” in front of the three digit channel number to get the same network, when available, in HD.

Lincoln residents may appreciate the fact some channels will be easier to find, but many analog customers without a cable box are not happy several of those channels will be gone from their lineup altogether.  The “victims” of the analog to digital switcheroo are familiar to those who have already been through channel realignments — C-SPAN 2, ShopNBC, TruTV, Travel Channel, and Oxygen will be available only to those who have a digital cable box or CableCARD.

In the Myrtle Beach, S.C., area, Time Warner Cable also moved the Speed channel to a new digital-only home.  Brett Phillips who lives in Georgetown called that a hidden price increase, telling The Sun News Time Warner was effectively taking away a channel while not reducing his cable bill.

In Nebraska and Ohio, Time Warner is handing out “free” digital boxes for 12 months, but only to those who do not have one now.  Those with existing digital boxes cannot obtain a second one or get their existing box for free.  Some critics, including our Lincoln reader Marta says that is a ripoff.

“As a good customer who already pays for two digital boxes and spends almost $200 a month on my cable service, why am I paying for my digital boxes when those who want the lowest priced analog service get one for free,” Marta asks.  “Clearly this is a way to get those boxes into peoples’ homes so at the end of the year they will reluctantly pay for the $7 a month to keep renting it.”

Marta was turned down when she asked if she could get a free extra box for her kitchen television.

“No, Time Warner only gives these free boxes to people who never had them before,” she said.  “I understand the company needs to make room for new things, but they have got to get these box prices down — they could turn the whole system digital as far as I care -if- the boxes were free, or at least much cheaper.”

Some other subscribers have their own conspiracy theories about the channel realignments.

One Nebraska resident noted Time Warner Cable was moving Fox News Channel to channel 44 — an ominous turn of events for this individual:

“It seems that the liberal unionized TWC is putting Fox News on channel 44. Obama is the 44th President. [George] Soros is behind this I just know it.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WEWS KSHB Time Warner Channel Changes 4-6-11.flv[/flv]

WEWS-TV in Cleveland and KSHB-TV in Kansas City tell their respective viewers about the grand shuffle in their channel lineups.  (3 minutes)

Du Quoin, Ill.

Remember when your cable system delivered 60 basic cable channels with a handful of premium services, none in High Definition?  The people of Du Quoin, Ill. do — to this day.

They, along with several other small southern Illinois communities served by Comcast, are living a wired life free from HD programming, cable networks many take for granted, and a quality of service that has diminished as an aging cable system outlives its useful life.

Now the commissioner of Du Quoin has put Comcast’s franchise “on hold” until the cable company updates service for the town’s 6,500 residents.

Commissioner Rex Duncan told the city council last week he’s fed up with Comcast’s lack of interest in delivering even a handful of HD channels to subscribers, even as the company moves channels that used to be part of the basic cable lineup to a new tier that requires the rental of a digital converter box.

Until Comcast decides to invest in upgrades in the area, De Quoin joins the cities of Pinckneyville, Benton and Christopher and the villages of Tamaroa and Buckner in refusing franchise renewal requests from the cable operator.

Reviewing the lineup in Du Quoin shows subscribers confined to receiving the same number of channels most cities had more than 15 years ago.  Not a single HD channel is included.  Broadband customers can choose from two promoted packages, one promising “up to” 15Mbps and the other claiming 20Mbps with the PowerBoost feature.  But few residents actually see those speeds according to one of our readers.

Sid, a lifelong resident of De Quoin, says speeds approaching 7Mbps are more typical, except at night when they drop.

“I don’t think Comcast has changed a thing in southern Illnois in over a decade,” Sid shares.  “The company’s cable TV lineup still thinks it’s 1992 — we are lucky we even have broadband.”

Residents have complained regularly to local officials about Comcast’s performance in the region, especially when they compare the service they receive with what residents in nearby Carbondale, the self-styled “capital of southern Illinois” receive.

“I realize southern Illinois is between nothing and nowhere, with large cities like St. Louis and Evansville whole states away, but considering how many people depend on Comcast to get reasonable reception of local stations pretty far out, they do a good business here,” Sid says.

Sid does not expect many upgrades in the near future, either to his cable or broadband service.

“DOCSIS 3?  What is that?”

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn

Federal Communications Commissioner Mignon Clyburn thinks Time Warner Cable-sponsored legislation to regulate community-owned Internet Service Providers in North Carolina is a barrier to broadband improvement and could create economic harm across the state.

The commissioner, who hails from the Carolinas, today issued a statement expressing serious concerns about H.129, Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) bill to hamper community-owned competition for large cable and phone companies in the state.

“I have serious concerns that as the Federal Communications Commission continues to address broadband deployment barriers outlined in the National Broadband Plan, new obstacles are being erected that are directly contrary to the Plan’s recommendations and goals,” Clyburn said.

Clyburn called out the legislation starting with the name of the bill – ‘Level Playing Field/Local Government Competition.’

“[…] Do not let the title fool you. This measure, if enacted, will not only fail to level the playing field; it will discourage municipal governments from addressing deployment in communities where the private sector has failed to meet broadband service needs,” Clyburn said. “In other words, it will be a significant barrier to broadband deployment and may impede local efforts to promote economic development.”

Clyburn noticed such legislation delivers benefits to major telecommunications corporations, but doesn’t deliver any improvement or competition in rural and small sized cities that suffer with low speed DSL, or no broadband service at all.  North Carolina currently ranks 41st out of 50 states in broadband delivery and quality.

Clyburn spent time in North Carolina last year defending community-owned broadband developments, commending them for bringing Internet access to communities either without service, or woefully underserved.

H.129 has passed the House of Representatives in the North Carolina legislature and is now pending in the Senate.

Read the entire statement here.

Each tiny light represents a single strand of optical fiber.

Verizon has achieved speeds of more than 1.5Tbps as part of a joint field trial with NEC Corporation of America.

The two companies conducted the trial across 2,212 miles of fiber in the Dallas area, successfully demonstrating three separate channels of data streams co-existing on just on a single strand of fiber.

“As we look to a future when data rates go beyond 100G, it’s important to begin examining how these technologies perform,” said Glenn Wellbrock, director of optical transport network architecture and design at Verizon. “This trial gives us a good first step toward analyzing the capabilities of future technologies.”

Verizon’s test placed three different high bit-rate data streams on a single strand of fiber.  Each respective “superchannel” ran at different speeds — 100Gbps, 450Gbps, and 1000Gbps — at the same time, with no significant degradation.

To put that in context, Google’s Fiber to the Home project in Kansas City, Kansas will operate at 1Gbps.  It would take more than 1,500 users fully saturating their Google Fiber connection to utilize the same amount of bandwidth Verizon demonstrated on just one fiber strand.  With most fiber projects bundling many strands of fiber into a single cable, near limitless capacity can bring a broadband experience untroubled by high traffic, high bandwidth multimedia applications.

Previously, Verizon had proven its fiber technology for high bit rate applications in a lab environment.  This was the first “in the field” trial over a functioning fiber network concurrently serving customers in Dallas.

Such technology demonstrates that as broadband traffic grows, so does the technology to support it.

Phillip Dampier

In response to one of our pieces today about AT&T, I replied to a reader’s question about why providers are not subject to oversight when it comes to their traffic meters.  The answer is, providers want all of the benefits their monopoly/duopoly status deliver, with none of the oversight and regulation that is supposed to come along with the deal.

When I am asked by reporters if our group would support the concept of usage-based billing if prices were lower, I know some education is in order before answering.

Frankly, what providers define as “usage-based billing” isn’t really usage-based at all.  It’s simply a double-tiered pricing scheme.  Consumers already pay for broadband service based on speed, which informally includes a usage limit of sorts — your maximum amount of consumption is governed by the speed of the connection you purchase.  Not satisfied with the enormous profits already earned selling broadband that way, some companies want to monetize Internet use by inserting usage limits or inserting a new tier of service based on usage allowances, which generally increase with higher-priced levels of service.

When broadband providers attempt to use the argument consumers already pay for usage of essential services like water, gas, and electricity, they are trying to conflate broadband traffic much the same way.  But apart from the fact broadband carries no generation costs and represents a limitless resource, the “fairness” argument falls apart when you consider the provider is effectively double-charging customers by implementing a use-based pricing scheme on top of a speed-based pricing model.

The equivalent would be charging you today’s prices for gas, electric, or water service, but then adding a surcharge or tax based on how fast or when you are using the service. Here’s the kicker: they are not lowering the price of their speed-based tiers, they are simply layering a use tax on top.  In short, it extra-bills customers for what they already paid for.

A true usage-based billing scheme would carry a monthly minimum charge for infrastructure costs (maintenance of the delivery system, meter measurements, etc.) and a traffic cost.  In a regulated utility environment, most providers are required to sell service at a price verified by regulators to cover costs and a small profit.  No gouging.  No provider dares sell service under these terms because it would dramatically slash the cost most consumers pay for the service.  Instead, they sell “usage tiers” that include arbitrary “allowances” that provide no rollover or discount for unused traffic.

Imagine what would happen if AT&T or Comcast sold broadband like electricity?

CartelCountry Broadband & TV

From coast to coast, we put the cartel in cable!

• Monthly Minimum Charge: $9.95
• Broadband traffic delivery $0.05/GB
• Amount consumed 20GB = $1.00

• Payment Due: $10.95

Thank you for your prior payment of $9.95. We hope you enjoyed your vacation. No broadband traffic consumed equals no broadband traffic charges.

That is why there is no such thing as true usage-based billing. Providers wouldn’t dare because they would lose the enormous income they earn from those “98 percent” of “light users” they keep suggesting are in the majority.

Even “heavy users” probably would not object to this kind of pricing. A 500GB per month user would pay $34.95 at these prices, and providers would STILL be making a profit.