Time Warner Cable is back again for the third year offering $20,000 in “dollar-a-holler” money to write “research reports” that meet the cable operator’s wish-list of current topics of interest.  While the cable company raises rates on customers, some of the proceeds pay for the Time Warner Cable Research Program on Digital Communications, which they say “awards stipends designed to foster research dedicated to increasing understanding of the benefits and challenges facing digital technologies in the home, office, classroom and community.”

After tearing through some of the earlier “award-winning” reports and topics over the past three years, we find it more an exercise in wasted cheerleading money, particularly when some of the authors happen to work for PR astroturf operations and other industry-connected/funded “think-tanks” that take money for dubious research and public statements that amplify the paymaster’s agenda.

It’s not much of a stretch to figure out exactly what kind of submissions the cable company is looking for after reviewing the topic list.  It’s a safe bet nothing we’d have to say to Time Warner would get them to cut us a check for $20K.  In case there is any doubt, we’ve provided a helpful “between-the-lines” analysis of what they are really looking for, should you wish to put pen to paper:

(1) The end-user experience for broadband services
In an increasingly competitive marketplace, more attention is being paid to the consumer experience. For service providers, it is essential to make it simpler and easier for customers to enjoy the benefits of broadband any time, any place, on any device. Key questions include identifying service characteristics consumers consider in evaluating broadband performance, the role of accessibility in design and engineering, how best to encourage innovation in services and business models, the role of pricing and packaging of services, and how best to meet the needs of diverse communities.

(Between the lines: how can we justify Internet Overcharging customers with usage caps and usage billing and make it sound all-consumery and good-newsy?)

(3) Internet governance
Internet governance is still largely framed by the way the Internet existed when it first became a mass-market phenomenon in the late 1990s. But more users rely on advanced digital communications for a diverse set of uses today. Networks and devices are more varied and more powerful than expected, and the Internet now supports a vast range of business models and drives economic growth . In this environment, the role of government and other intermediaries in framing and addressing policy goals continues to change. Key questions include examining the need for new methods of collaboration in multi-stakeholder processes, examining the role of standard-setting, how to measure and assess the performance of the broadband Internet, developing metrics that are meaningful to a wide range of stakeholders (from industry and policymakers to consumers), how to develop new forms of governance that convene stakeholders to solve problems cooperatively, and how to develop guidelines that protect settled expectations as well as enable continuing entry and innovation.

(Between the lines: This whole “open platform” free-for-all network the Internet was originally envisioned to be is so yesterday.  How can we convert it into a corporate-controlled playground by convincing legislators our ‘investments’ in it should justify our ability to “coordinate” it ((a/k/a run, manage, and control)) as we see fit.)

(5) Video Convergence and Internet Video
Online video is growing rapidly, comprising an increasing proportion of Internet traffic even as workable business models continue to evolve. Internet video thus increasingly competes with more traditional video services, while at the same time placing extraordinary burdens on the broadband networks owned and operated by those competitors. This emerging development raises a host of issues for video competition and regulation as well as for broadband policy. Key questions include how to identify and respond to the challenges posed by Internet delivery of video, and identifying the marketplace, legal, and policy barriers that stand in the way of innovation in video service delivery.

(Between the lines: Since we can’t blame peer to peer traffic for the Internet ‘exaflood’ any longer, we’ve designated online video the new Frankenstein that threatens to run our broadband network into the ground.  How can we stop Internet video from cannibalizing our cable-TV service by limiting access (or charging a bountiful harvest of cash to those who dare to watch too much.) Bonus: Include tips on how we can obfuscate our tissue-paper-thin agenda to slap the caps on from being called out as an abuse of our market power.

Would-be customers of Time Warner Cable’s broadband service in Vienna, a small town in Oneida County, N.Y. are confused about why the cable company will not provide them with broadband service, even though cable company lines pass right over their respective driveways.

Pete Rauscher sees neighbors within a mile away happily using Time Warner’s Internet service, even though he cannot buy it for himself.

“I’d like to get the service…so do [my neighbors],” Rauscher told WSYR-TV in Syracuse. “It isn’t right that somebody within a mile of us has the same cable service, but we don’t.”

Rauscher and his neighbors are victims of a de-facto cable industry standard that says wiring fewer than 35 homes within a mile is not financially viable.  Rauscher might understand this, if a Time Warner-owned cable line didn’t pass straight over his driveway.

The cable company says it would cost at least $17,000 to provide Rauscher with broadband service, an installation fee way out of his budget.

Parts of Oneida County are still without any broadband service, except for those lucky (and wealthy enough) to receive and pay for a wireless 3/4G broadband connection from Verizon Wireless.  That company charges $80 a month for up to 10GB of usage, much more expensive than what Time Warner would charge.  DSL is not provided in that section of Vienna.

Time Warner says it regularly re-evaluates expansion into currently unserved sections of its service area.  Two sections of nearby Camden now receive cable service from the company, partly thanks to new housing developments in the rural region.  But for now, the cable company remains resolute in not serving customers who do not meet its population density test.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Fight for High Speed Internet 1-12-12.mp4[/flv]

WSYR-TV tells the story of rural Oneida County residents who cannot get Time Warner Cable broadband service, even though the cable company lines cross their driveways.  (2 minutes)

Time Warner Cable has opened up access to HBO GO and Max GO to all customers who subscribe to the premium movie channels.  A brief beta test for Time Warner’s super-premium Signature Home customers concluded earlier this week and the service is now available to all.

Stop the Cap! tested the HBO GO service earlier today and can report the service is up and running for Time Warner customers.

The most cumbersome part of both services is the authentication process.  Graceful it is not.  Customers have to start their journey at either the HBO or Cinemax “TV Everywhere” portal, select their cable operator, and then get prompted to authenticate their cable TV service.  Time Warner’s authentication process makes this especially confusing by notifying customers not to use their bill payment service account username and password.  Instead, customers are told to use login credentials for the cable company’s customer information and authentication portal — My Services.  It is easy to get confused which username and password to use.  If you do not have a “My Services” account, the registration process is even more tedious, because you have to wait for confirmation e-mail messages and hunt down a current cable bill, if you receive one in the mail at all.

Having registered for other TV Everywhere services from Time Warner Cable before, it was more than a little annoying going through the same process all over again for HBO.  HBO and Max GO also require the subscriber to choose a username and password on those sites as well, which means yet another account and password to remember.  After about 10 minutes of the irritating multi-step process, access was finally granted.

HBO Go currently has 230 movies available for instant viewing, a large number of which are hardly recent.  The 1953 version of Titanic, for example.  Really?  Oh, God with George Burns and John Denver, the 1979 please-edit-me snoozefest Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and all three Back to the Future movies seemed like a lot of dated filler material for a $15 a month premium movie channel.  Better offerings were found under the series, specials, and comedy categories which delivered a full library of a number of HBO productions, as well as current events shows like Real Time with Bill Maher.  (The latter only included a handful of episodes from the current season and some earlier editions.)

Our biggest trouble came when we tried playing from the menu of titles.  This is no Netflix.  We found picture quality often lacking, with plainly visible screen anomalies, and the stream was interrupted several times for buffering.  Either pent-up demand for HBO Go is causing Time Warner customers to pound the service during the business day, or HBO needs to beef up its server capacity. We did several speed tests and found our connection stable at 30/5Mbps, so this was not a Time Warner Cable broadband problem.

The best part about HBO and Cinemax GO is that it comes free with subscriptions to one or both channels.  We’d have a hard time justifying paying extra for the current online viewing experience.  It also remains ironic that Time Warner Cable executives continue to foster a desire to implement Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and/or consumption billing while encouraging customers to consume more bandwidth with online video services such as these.

Time Warner Cable partner Bright House Networks is anticipated to launch both services themselves shortly.

Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell is questioning whether Comcast misled the federal agency when the cable company acquired wireless spectrum it now says it had no intention of ever using.

McDowell was reacting to Comcast chief financial officer Michael Angelakis, who admitted this week his company really never had any interest in competing in the wireless space.

“Were they purchased under false pretenses?” McDowell asked.

Comcast has since sold their acquired spectrum to Verizon Wireless, which in Angelakis’ view makes sense.

“We never really intended to build that spectrum, so therefore it’s a really good use of that spectrum,” Angelakis said.

That admission puts Comcast in a difficult position, because FCC rules mandate that companies acquiring scarce wireless spectrum make a good faith effort to use it.  In McDowell’s view, had Comcast never intended to put the frequencies to use, the FCC probably would have disallowed the acquisition.

Verizon Wireless also plans to pick up unused spectrum originally acquired by Time Warner Cable in a deal that would let both companies cross-promote cable and wireless products and avoid head-on competition.

Both Comcast and Time Warner Cable have warehoused unused spectrum for several years.  Neither company appeared serious about building competing wireless networks, and with the spectrum off the market, would-be competitors couldn’t launch service either.

Verizon agreed to pay $3.6 billion to acquire the cable industry-owned spectrum, which it intends to use to bolster its LTE 4G network.

The FCC is now seeking public input on whether it should approve the spectrum sale. The Justice Department is also considering its antitrust implications.

When Massena, N.Y. town supervisor Joseph D. Gray balked at Time Warner Cable’s demands for a 15-year franchise renewal agreement, especially after the cable company never bothered to show up at a hearing on the subject, he thought he could send a message by supporting a renewal expiring after just one year.

But there was a reason Time Warner never bothered to show up to defend their performance in northern New York State over the last decade of increasing rates and unwanted channels shoveled at subscribers — they did really have to answer to local officials.

Gray assumed playing some hardball with the cable company might get their attention and bring them to the table to discuss the demands of local Massena residents he hears from all the time.  At the top of the list is a-la-carte cable — paying only for channels you want.

No deal.

Mr. Gray has since admitted in conversations with the Watertown Daily Times he is frustrated by the town’s inability to effect “any real change.”

This despite the state cable franchise law which declares communities have the right to establish and negotiate “cable-related community needs” as part of the final contract with cable operators.

In fact, the cable industry has spent millions lobbying federal and state governments to deregulate their operations, even though most communities are served by just one cable operator.  While phone companies have made limited progress competing in larger urban areas, most of upstate New York is left choosing between a satellite provider or a cable company — usually Time Warner Cable.

That lobbying paid off in the 1990s when the federal government swept away considerable government oversight of cable operations.  While municipalities technically still control the basic franchising process, those dissatisfied with service from an existing provider rarely find other companies willing to take over.  That leaves Massena stuck with Time Warner Cable, who isn’t giving an inch on how they package their programming.

“We can make some gains for the community. Can we get free service for a couple of municipal buildings? Probably,” Mr. Gray told the newspaper. “They continue to say there’s nothing they can do about programming, there’s nothing they can do about bundling.  That’s from the programmer.  Until we get … a la carte, where people get the channels they want, we’re never going to satisfy people.”