John informs us of the following:

Charter High-Speed Internet service customers in the greater Worcester area, and other parts of the country, recently got a letter from Joe Stackhouse, Senior Vice President, Customer Operations. It announces an "enhancement" coming soon to customers' web browsing experience. This "enhancement" will change the ads displayed on web sites to "better reflect the interests you express through your web-surfing activities". This means that Charter will monitor and record all your web surfing activity. After tracking you, Charter will replace the ads on web sites you visit with ads Charter wants you to see.

You can't stop Charter from monitoring and recording all your web surfing. They do offer an opt out to this service "enhancement" - all that will do is tell Charter you don't want them replace the ads on web sites you visit. To opt out you need to visit a Charter web page and provide Charter with your name and address - yet another way for Charter to watch you and your internet activities. The opt out web page states "... if you delete your cookies or cache files, use a different computer, buy a new computer, or use a different web browser from the one you are using at this time, you will have to opt-out again. It is also important to remember that opting out does not mean that you will no longer receive Internet advertisements, it simply means you will no longer receive ads that are tailored to your Web preferences, usage patterns and commercial interests."

The letter closes out by saying "Charter is committed to offering the highest quality service to our customers". Is tracking customers internet activity and providing ads Charter want customers to see "the highest quality service" Charter has to offer?

Just what we need, less privacy and more ads thrown at us.Thanks John.

[Editor's notes: A reader sends in this December article from the Wall Street Journal about CenturyTel, "Watching What You See on the Web." Also relevant Slashdot threads from last June and this February. And here's Worcester's cable contract (PDF).]]

I would like to share my comments which I recently submitted in an online discussion about Telecom space.

Public Access centers are much more than the content that comes through them. Telecom space is what it is. Telecom space is space that is controlled by and to serve the interest of the telecom industry.

In my city WCCA TV, our Public Access Center, serves one interest and that is the interest of the people our communities throughout our city.

It is the public access center, particularly the non-profit facilitated access centers that have been the first to really experiment and played a lead role in the development of IP TV and video content driven websites. PEG offers more than packet files of video however. In a Public Access Centers, such as ours, you will find thousands of content producers participating in a community contributing to cable presentations, up and down loading video content, creating community interactive websites, sharing information, conducting workshops and classes, youth media groups, forming outreach partnerships, providing connections for those in need including valuable outreach for millions of non-profits around the nation and so much more. Our Public Access Center, like many others, give back millions of dollars of media, public service to benefit our citizens local economy every year.
The truth is, Public Access centers have been the first to introduce, provide experiential learning opportunities, and promote video applications via the Internet. Furthermore, Public Access centers have introduced and continue to offer, on a daily basis, hands on training, access to media production tools, computers, and personal consulting and assistance to meet the electronic needs of their communities. The result has been a increase of content up and down loading, as well as an increase of interactive media. This deserves to be celebrated as democratic and free speech media/television at its best. Not the static television paradigm that commercial media tends to produce.
It may be true that some examples of cable companies and local governments are seen as stonewalling, or cordoning off public access video presentations. People aren’t aware of the programming because many cable operators refuse to include PEG channels on their program guides. Political whim, ignorance and corruption, and or the failure of local government often play a role in diminishing the capacity of a public access center. Cable companies and government entities rarely, if ever, prioritize public access programming. Most non-profit public access centers however, at the center of their mission, place the public/community voices (content) as a first priority and in addition, work hard to promote it make the public aware of it. Non-profit Public access centers also give control to content producers to post videos online, present their shows on cable. In addition most public access centers provide professional staff assistance to train, and to ensure content producers can reach their vision. Our access center also is the paramount beacon, in our city, to advocate for community voices and free speech electronic platforms. In our city 91% of those surveyed find our public access channel important.
Interest in local content exists because of our public access PEG channels. I suggest that what needs to be done is to increase legislative mandates to further support Public Access channels and to ensure non-profit facilitated centers are encouraged to continue to move forward to carry their missions on all modes of transmission be it fiber, broadband, wireless, satellite, and whatever will next be invented. Perhaps mandates should also be enacted to assure every city and town must carry a fully functional public access center. The one problem we face, at least locally, at the moment, is a city that may fail to include public access on its new telecommunication infrastructure. This challenges us to find ways to reach beyond the limitations of one cable operator. However, in spite of the lack of city or government in this area we do manage to be seen around the world through our stream or download offerings. It is not without difficulty. I imagine that if we, as a funded public access center are financially challenged to maintain such service how would poorer individuals participate at all in a PEG .20 venue without totally free equipment, connection and access? There are many great public access centers. Check out what WCCA TV has been doing to celebrate and enfranchise citizens, engage and share stories, culture and heritage, through locally produced content. I invite you to visit http://www.wccatv.com . Thank you for taking the time to read this and for your support.
Mauro DePasquale, WCCA TV 13, “The People’s Channel”

For more on this subject

FYI--As reported by State House News Service--

HOUSE CHAIRS ON MA VERIZON BILL: NOT THIS YEAR | Legislation easing regulations for telecommunications companies looking to break into cable TV markets, which has the backing of Senate Ways and Means chairman Steven Panagiotakos, is unlikely to pass this session, two House committee chairs said yesterday. Reps. Daniel Bosley, House chair of the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, and Brian Dempsey, House chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, said yesterday outside a leadership meeting in House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi’s office that the bill’s prospects this year are dim. “I don’t think it’s going to be worked out this year,” Bosley said. Dempsey pointed to timing concerns expressed by Verizon and other firms looking to expand into cable and broadband as understandable, but said he doubted any quick action on that front either. Verizon claims passage of the bill will give consumers more choices and quicken the pace of broadband buildout. Critics say local licensing officials are the best consumer advocates.

EDITORIAL
AS I SEE IT
The Telegram and Gazette does not allow the I SEE IT editorial section to be a debate forum. They will allow, however, anyone to submit a traditional editorial of not more than 250 words, to address or rebut an AS I SEE IT editorial. I have not had a chance to edit my rebuttal down to 250 words so here is the full version. When I have time I will edit this down to 250 words and submit it. ENJOY

This is in response to what I perceive as Verizons corporate propaganda “Competition for cable TV not as remote”, published March 7, written by Mat Hussey. Readers should know that Mr. Hussey worked more than eight years in the telecommunications industry, most recently for Verizon Communications before his present position at the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC is a corporately funded free market think tank that writes special interest legislation that only benefits it funders and not consumers or municipalities.

The present local franchise system does not discourage competition or consumer choice. This twenty-five year old system has worked very well and for many communities in eastern MA there has been competition between RCN and Comcast for some ten years. Also, throughout all municipalities in the state there are two other competitors in the form of Satellite TV providers—Dish Network and Direct TV. In many communities Verizon is the Fifth provider of Multi-Channel Video Services, as defined by the FCC.

Presently, if new competitors want to enter into a city franchise they merely have to match the incumbent license terms. This is the level and fair playing field. But it appears Verizon simply wants to avoid being subject to local franchise terms. It appears that they want to move regulatory authority as far away as possible from our local cities and towns. So, when you have a complaint about customer service, or when you are not allowed access to their high speed internet or digital phone or TV service in your low income neighborhood that has been “redlined” by Verizon, you may have to go to the FCC in Washington or to the DTE in Boston to get satisfaction. Yeah, like that’s going to happen.

Are we all supposed to believe that statewide franchising will address Worcester’s specific needs? The present Verizon proposal for telecommunication reform in this state will harm our PEG channels, leave local Institutional Networks (I-Nets), which provide towns and cities with low cost telecommunication services, to wither and die after incumbent license expire. In exchange such so-called reform, there is no guarantee of statewide competition or lower prices for the long term. As of now, Verizon has only announced plans to seek licenses in 67 of the 351 towns and cities in MA, which means they will serve only 16% of the states municipalities. So, why do they need special interest statewide licensing?

Local franchise controls are necessary. The people have a right to get something back in return for the corporate use of the Public Rights of Way. Municipalities have a fiduciary responsibility to manage the PROW to our benefit and “We the People” are entitled to receive PEG services in exchange for giving these companies use of these Rights of Way.

Verizon already has licenses and is providing video content services in 48 communities in Massachusetts. They currently comply with local franchise terms and conditions in those cities and towns. The current franchise system didn’t stop them in those places and won’t in Worcester. But as of now, there is no guarantee Verizon has an interest in providing services in Worcester since they are not currently interested in urban or rural communities but only in the “495 Donut” around Boston with Boston as the hole.

What caused the cable TV bill to “skyrocket was not local franchise fees or PEG Access, but corporate profits, increased programming costs and the need to rebuild the cable networks to compete with the Satellite providers. Can the process be quicker? Of course it can! Worcester has for over 20 years set the template. During the 2006 ascertainment process for renewal negotiations with Charter, it has become very clear what Worcester’s community needs and interest are. Cable and phone companies merely have to engage in good faith negotiation. There is no reason why these negations can not be executed in a timely manner.

For over twenty-five years, cable companies have launched increasingly profitable operations in Massachusetts and given fair compensation to municipalities for the use of the public rights of way. Should Verizon now be allowed to do any less?

Submitted by
Mauro DePasquale, WCCA TV 13, “The People’s Channel”