Spangler

While the mainstream media and some of AT&T’s apologists tell consumers AT&T’s 2 GB monthly usage limit will impact only a handful of “abusers,” the cable trade press is telling its readers the industry insider’s secret — consumers will blow right through those caps.

Todd Spangler, who is an Internet Overcharging advocate and columnist for Multichannel News, a cable industry trade magazine, writes the implications of AT&T’s usage cap couldn’t be clearer to him.

The new iPhone 4, introduced yesterday to the predictable media crush, provides 10 hours of battery life for playing video, among other features.

But now that AT&T has eliminated its all-you-can-eat plan for smartphones, you will blow through the maximum 3G usage for the entry-level 200 MB plan if you watched just 4 minutes of streaming video per day. That would include commercials.

Even AT&T’s more generous DataPro 2-GB plan would allow just 35 minutes per day of streaming video (assuming you used your iPhone for nothing else), according to the carrier’s online data calculator.

Like a stopped watch, at least he’s right twice a day.

Spangler celebrates the opportunity AT&T’s overcharging scheme provides the cable industry to “grease the skids” for data caps and overpriced consumption billing on cable modem service.

In Spangler’s “Cable companies pay my salary”-world-view, it wasn’t that Time Warner Cable did the wrong thing when it tried to triple broadband pricing — to $150 a month — for the exact same level of service customers previously enjoyed.  It was all about its execution.

Spangler characterizes Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt as a victim, burned over the company’s failed overcharging experiment in 2009.  When one plays with matches, is it any surprise there are consequences?

Consumers will respond to more overcharging schemes the same way they did a year before — with overwhelming condemnation and opposition.  It’s hard to convince consumers to pay a higher price for limits on usage while telling shareholders you’ve invested less to expand your network, charged more to access it, all while the costs to provide the service have dropped dramatically.  Consumers call that out for what it is: greed.

Make no mistake, consumers hate usage caps and overpriced consumption billing and Time Warner Cable has no justification to introduce either.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC ATT Cuts Unlimited Data 6-2-10.flv[/flv]

Normally business-friendly CNBC covers the introduction of the 2 GB usage cap on AT&T smartphone data usage.  Then the CNBC anchor got skeptical about AT&T’s claims this was good news for consumers, admitting she hates overcharging schemes that deliver a surprise on the bill at the end of the month.  Lance Ulanoff, editor of PC Magazine expressed some doubts himself.  (8 minutes)

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt told Wall Street the company is backing AT&T’s decision to cease unlimited access to its wireless data services.

“In most businesses when usage goes up, that’s a good thing because people pay more,” Glenn Britt, Time Warner Cable’s chief executive officer, said at a Sanford C. Bernstein Wall Street investor conference Friday in New York. “It’s going to get the industry better aligned with consumer behavior.”

But Britt also said AT&T’s decision was “more sensible than when we did it,” referring to the company’s April 2009 aborted experiment to charge customers up to three times as much for broadband service with a consumption billing scheme that got a hostile response from consumers.

Britt was speaking about the network capacity constraints that wireless data networks have that do not compare with the much wider pipeline available to wired provides like Time Warner Cable.  Britt cited AT&T’s still-exclusive iPhone as being the single most significant factor in AT&T’s decision.

Britt told Business Week that “at the time” consumption “pricing was needed to maintain the expense and expansion of the network.”

But consumer advocates suggested the company targeted its overcharging experiment in cities where customers didn’t have strong competitive alternatives.  That was particularly the case in Rochester, N.Y. and Greensboro, N.C., where alternative broadband meant significantly slower telephone company DSL service.  In the case of Rochester, that service included a monthly 5GB usage allowance in Frontier Communications’ Acceptable Use Policy.

Without equivalent competing alternatives, broadband consumers would be trapped in a broadband backwater with significantly worse service than neighboring cities.

Despite Britt’s acknowledgment that his company backed off because of strong consumer opposition, he’s still willing to talk about bringing the overcharging scheme back, telling Business Week, “Exactly how it works and what the PR around it will be is something we can talk about.”

[Note: We will have some audio up soon. — Editor]

Los Angeles County's cable franchise map dating back to 2005 shows the county divided between Adelphia, Comcast, and Time Warner. Today, Time Warner Cable controls most of the county's cable service but still relies on some legacy equipment in place from the days of Adelphia and Comcast. Calabasas was formerly served by Adelphia. (click to enlarge map)

Some southern California residents continue to express anger and frustration at some poor business and customer service practices provided by Charter Cable and Time Warner Cable, both of which provide service in the community of Calabasas.

Unfortunately, city officials had their hands tied in resolving consumer complaints because California is one of several states that abandoned local cable franchising in favor of less accountable statewide cable franchises that carry few terms and conditions that protect California consumers.

The Calabasas Communications and Technology Commission dealt with several complaints raised by residents during its May meeting, often echoed by the commissioners themselves.

From the Calabasas Patch:

Resident Alvin Lindenauer spoke about his dissatisfaction with Charter.

“Charter has a long history of being less than competent in providing cable service,” he said.

Lindenauer’s complaints with Charter included misleading advertising, poor customer service and, most prominent, “improper billing practices.”

He said he received several erroneous notices of past due payments that resulted in forced late fees.

Lindenauer referred to Charter as “corrupt and deceptive” in its business practices.

He proposed that the commission hold Charter Cable more accountable for its service and reduce the city’s long-term contract with the company.

Charter Cable officials denied the company was either corrupt or deceptive, stating the company will work to address any customer service or billing complaints.

Cable commissions like those in Calabasas actually hold almost no power over incumbent cable or competing phone company video offerings.  The federal government deregulated the vast majority of cable operations as part of the 1996 Communications Act.  While many municipalities have cable boards or commissions, most are little more than venting stations for frustrated residents who feel their local provider is unresponsive.  Sometimes appeals like those by Lindenauer can get the attention of company executives and “guilt them” into intervening with intransigent customer service agents, especially when the media is watching.

Calabasas residents were also upset with Time Warner Cable — primarily because of its set-top boxes and a recent “upgrade” to its program guide software.

Customers are upset with the company’s legacy Motorola cable boxes still used on the part of the system originally owned by Adelphia.  Some residents inquired about why Time Warner doesn’t use the “more reliable” Scientific-Atlanta converters used in other parts of Los Angeles county.

Calabasas residents also complained Time Warner’s cable signals are intermittently plagued by “tiling,” an irritating digital artifact that appears like a series of small boxes that appear frozen or moving across a digital picture.  Company officials responded that the problems are in software, not in the set-top boxes, and they would work on them.

Time Warner’s Los Angeles county cable system is actually configured of several different cable systems acquired from Comcast and bankrupt Adelphia Cable a few years ago.  Those systems still have important differences in technology and channel lineups.  Despite those differences, Time Warner Cable collectively controls most of Los Angeles county’s cable systems.  Charter has most of the rest.

[You can watch the commission’s proceedings from their video archive.  Start watching at 17:35 to view Mr. Lindenauer’s complaint and follow-up.]

North Carolina Legislature

We collectively sighed last Wednesday when the Senate Finance Committee temporarily pulled S1209, but the victory is short-lived.  Sources tell us S1209 is scheduled to return this Tuesday, one day after the long Memorial Day weekend.

We are not happy with some of the rumors that have been circulating around the Legislative Building in Raleigh.  One suggests S1209 will be modified into a one year, renewable moratorium on municipal broadband while a joint task force ponders questions about financing of municipal broadband, broadband adoption and speed, and overall competition in North Carolina.  Without a clear sunset provision, the legislature can renew the moratorium indefinitely, assuring incumbent phone and cable companies of a continued easy ride into our wallets.

Much has also been said by Sen. Clodfelter regarding the legality of municipal broadband in North Carolina.  Some of his earlier comments suggest he’d be a proponent for a moratorium while the state legislature thrashes out the legal questions.

But the courts have already effectively dealt with this question and handed victory to municipalities.  Why bother with a moratorium when in 2005, Laurinburg, North Carolina won its court battle against big telecom companies.  The judge ruled:

“Laurinburg’s network is run over fiber optic “wires or cable,” providing a “system” for “transmit[ting]” and “receiv[ing]” electronic signals capable of being converted to “audio” and/or “video” streams of information. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-319(b). We believe this fits within a broad construction of the definition of a CTS. Therefore, we hold that Laurinburg is acting within its municipal authority to run its network, and was not acting ultra vires in contracting with School Link to provide the network’s ISP service.”

Doesn’t the legislature have better things to do than to spend all of this valuable time doing work for big phone and cable companies?

We need you to again write and call your legislators. We have been told by numerous sources that your input has been very effective in pushing back S1209.  The more North Carolina consumers speak out against this anti-consumer bill, the less likely it will ever become law.

Here are the points you need to raise in your next letter or phone call:

1. Why is the legislature still spending time on this unnecessary, anti-consumer legislation?  S1209 is wanted by large phone and cable companies.  You want your town or city to have every option open to deliver better service if a consensus is reached for it in your community.  The current system already provides effective checks and balances.  We don’t need S1209.
2. Studying broadband issues is fine, but placing a moratorium on municipal broadband projects in the meantime is completely unacceptable.
3. Corning’s plant in Hickory, North Carolina produces 40 percent of the world’s supply of fiber optic cable.  Passing S1209 impedes fiber projects in North Carolina, hurting our own workers and state economy.
4. North Carolina needs all the broadband expansion it can get.  We are ranked 41st out of 50 states.  Passing S1209 preserves mediocre broadband service in our state indefinitely.

For some of you, this will be your third or fourth call or e-mail.  Perhaps it’s time to remind legislators you are becoming increasingly concerned that measures like S1209 continue to be debated.  While Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink/Embarq’s legislative priorities continue to get plenty of time and attention in Raleigh, they don’t get a vote in the next election.  Remind them you do, and your continued support hinges on whether you can feel confident members represents your interests, not those of big cable and phone companies.

Remember the three rules when contacting your legislators:

• Be polite.
• Be persuasive.
• Be persistent.

Well-informed constituents who can defeat industry talking points represents the nuclear option against bad telecommunications legislation.

Now get on the phones and e-mail and get busy.  Remember — one e-mail message per address.  No carbon copies!

Here is the list:

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY)

Rep. Dan Maffei (D-New York) has begun to worry broadband consumers in his western and central New York district.

In April 2009, when Time Warner Cable’s announced Internet Overcharging experiment was upsetting customers in Rochester, Maffei claimed he was concerned about limiting broadband usage for customers in the area.  But when former Rep. Eric Massa introduced legislation to ban unjustified usage caps and consumption billing, Maffei told his constituents he wasn’t interested in Massa’s approach:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2902, the Broadband Internet Fairness Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act was introduced by Representative Eric Massa (NY-29) on June 16, 2009, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill would authorize the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review volume usage service plans of major broadband internet service providers to ensure that such plans are fairly based on cost.

When Time Warner Cable announced in April that Rochester would be used as a test market for charging Internet users based upon consumption usage, I, along with Representative Massa, opposed this policy. We helped persuade Time Warner to abandon the plan in the area. At that time, Representative Massa also introduced the Broadband Internet Fairness Act.

Other utilities, like water or electricity, charge customers based on usage, but Internet users have traditionally been charged a flat fee for unlimited access to the web. The Broadband Internet Fairness Act would require Internet Service Providers that want to implement usage-based pricing plans to go through several traditional regulatory hurdles. While I share many of the goals of Representative Massa’s legislation, I do not believe passing this stand-alone bill is the right approach at this time.

Of course broadband is nothing like water or electric utilities.  In fact, Maffei’s inclusion of that reference is a classic talking point of the telecom industry.  Notice they, and Maffei, didn’t mention telephone service — the one utility that provides flat rate calling for most Americans.  It also happens to be the utility most comparable to broadband service!

New York's 25th Congressional District

But Maffei made a bad situation worse when he joined 72 other House Democrats co-signing a letter from Rep. Gene Green (D-AT&T), urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to fight a court decision overturning the agency’s ability to conduct broadband oversight.

The letter represented one giant talking point — the false premise that enforcing a fair, free, and open Internet with Net Neutrality would somehow stifle investment in broadband expansion.  Yet AT&T was required to honor the very same principles when it merged with SBC, and managed to remain a multi-billion dollar powerhouse well positioned to expand broadband service to additional customers in its ever-growing service areas.

The fact the broadband industry is a duopoly for most Americans — one that can threaten to pull back on service if it doesn’t get its way in Washington — is just one more reason the industry requires more oversight, not less.

Yet Rep. Maffei stood alone as the only member of the western New York Congressional delegation to sign his name to the agenda of big cable and phone companies.

Perhaps the congressman has forgotten these facts which trouble broadband consumers across western and central New York:

• Rochester, NY was the only city in the northeast where Time Warner sought to conduct an Internet Overcharging experiment, made possible because of limited competition in the Rochester market;
• Rochester’s other broadband provider, Frontier Communications, insists on a monthly usage allowance of just 5GB per month in its Acceptable Use Policy;
• Verizon FiOS has suspended expansion indefinitely and the service will never be available in most of the 585 area code where Frontier operates, and it will take years for most of the rest of his Syracuse district to see the service reach those areas;
• Time Warner Cable increased its broadband rates in 2010, as did Verizon;

Green’s letter dances around the real issue — telecommunications companies are spending millions to oppose pro-consumer reforms and stop a return of oversight authority the FCC lost after a recent court decision.  Without this authority, the FCC cannot implement the National Broadband Plan’s insistence that American providers not block or impede network traffic.  These Net Neutral policies preserve net freedom.  The FCC cannot even require that providers tell the truth about broadband speeds and include the company’s terms of service in plain English.

Western New York is a hotbed of consumer activism on broadband issues, particularly because we are actual victims of provider abuse.  No one knows more than we how critical 21st century broadband is to the transformation of this region’s perennially challenged economy.

Rep. Maffei needs a reminder this is a hot button issue for consumers from Irondequoit to Manlius.  Perhaps he just doesn’t fully understand what’s at stake here.  You need to remind him.

We’ve included a suggested letter you can use to help write your own.  For maximum effectiveness, include some of your own personal stories, challenges, and frustrations with your local broadband provider.  Feel free to share yours in the Comments section.

Dear Rep. Maffei:

I was extremely disappointed to discover you signed your name on a letter written by Rep. Gene Green urging FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski not to restore oversight authority over broadband.  While Rep. Green’s letter illustrates he’s mostly concerned about the well being of AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Comcast, as a consumer I am more concerned about the broadband duopoly that exists in Rochester & Syracuse.

If the FCC does not regain its ability to oversee broadband by reclassifying it under Title II — as a telecommunications service (which it very clearly is), the FCC can effectively do nothing to stop broadband provider abuses, such as Comcast’s notorious speed throttle on customers using certain Internet websites and services. It took an FCC investigation to finally get the cable company to admit the truth — it was interfering with customers’ broadband speeds.  The oversight power the agency had was just what was needed to convince Comcast to stop.

Unfortunately, a DC Circuit Court recently disagreed it had that authority and effectively stripped it away.  Chairman Genachowski is simply seeking a return to the status quo before that court decision was handed down.  He’s not asking to regulate broadband anything like telephone service.  In fact, he’s insisted on a “light touch.”  That’s better than today’s court-imposed total-hands-off reality.

By signing Rep. Green’s letter, you effectively tell us you don’t support Net Neutrality protections that guarantee providers cannot censor or impede web traffic.  You also do nothing to protect consumers from other provider abuses.  Considering what residents of Rochester went through last year fighting a Time Warner Cable scheme that would have tripled broadband prices for the same level of service, I’m shocked you of all people would be a supporter of big telecom’s agenda.

Telecom companies are claiming that if regulations enforcing Net Neutrality are enacted, investment will suffer and broadband expansion will be slowed.  Yet AT&T was required, as part of its merger with SBC, to respect Net Neutrality for several years.  The company flourished, broadband was offered to more customers than ever, and investors liked what they saw.

The record in western New York is clear — Time Warner Cable was willing to limit its customers access to broadband service, Frontier already does in its terms and conditions, and Verizon FiOS deployment has been suspended indefinitely.  For too many of us, there are too few choices.  In fact, the only thing we can be assured of is higher pricing and a strengthened duopoly.

I strongly urge you to remove your signature from Rep. Green’s letter and get on board with consumers like myself in your district who believe deregulation and oversight failures have given us nothing but nightmares — from Wall Street to BP’s oil spill.  Let’s not make another mistake in handing cable and phone companies unfettered permission to abuse their customers.

Please get back in touch with me as soon as possible on this important matter.

Rep. Dan Maffei told constituents he was concerned about Time Warner Cable’s Internet Overcharging scheme proposed in April 2009.  At a town hall meeting in Irondequoit, New York, he admitted Time Warner Cable held near-monopoly power over consumers in Rochester.  What changed his tune when he signed on to Rep. Gene Green’s anti-consumer letter to the FCC? (April 9, 2009 — 2 minutes)

Rep. Dan Maffei’s Contact Information

Washington, D.C. Office
1630 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3701
Fax: (202) 225-4042

Syracuse Office
P.O. Box 7306,
1340 Federal Building
Syracuse, NY 13261
Phone: (315) 423-5657
Fax: (315) 423-5669

Irondequoit/Rochester Office
1280 Titus Avenue
Rochester, NY 14617
Phone: (585) 336-7291
Fax: (585) 336-7274

[Update: 11:30pm EDT: Free Press reports Rep. Maffei accepted $29,000 in contributions from telecom companies, including Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T.]