Several staff members working for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), the regulatory agency reviewing the proposed Frontier purchase of Verizon territories in Washington state, have reversed their opposition to the Frontier-Verizon deal because of concessions they believe will better serve consumers impacted by the deal.  But the provisions don’t come close to protecting consumer rights and do not sufficiently protect local telephone and broadband service.

The WUTC must be told that broadband expansion from a service provider that insists on a 5 gigabyte usage limit in its Acceptable Use Policy makes such expansion barely worth the effort.  The WUTC must insist on a permanent exemption from any usage limits for Washington state consumers, especially because many may find Frontier DSL to be their only broadband option for years to come.  To allow a company with such a paltry limit to be the monopoly provider of broadband puts Washington residents and small businesses at a serious economic disadvantage in the digital economy.

Would you choose to reside or locate your business in a community with one broadband provider offering a limit so low, your broadband usage will be limited to web page browsing and e-mail?

High Speed Internet Access Service

Customers may not resell High Speed Internet Access Service (“Service”) without a legal and written agency agreement with Frontier. Customers may not retransmit the Service or make the Service available to anyone outside the premises (i.e., wi-fi or other methods of networking). Customers may not use the Service to host any type of commercial server. Customers must comply with all Frontier network, bandwidth, data storage and usage limitations. Frontier may suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period. The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Frontier will be a part of the lives of almost 500,000 state residents, including those in Wenatchee and other parts of North Central Washington.  That covers a lot of rural residents with no hope of cable competition or other broadband options.  Verizon is the second-largest local telephone service provider in Washington, serving cities such as Redmond, Kirkland, Everett, Bothell, Woodinville, Kennewick, Pullman, Chelan, Richland, Naches, Westport, Lynden, Anacortes, Mount Vernon, Newport, Oakesdale, Republic and Camas-Washougal.  Currently, Verizon has approximately 1,300 employees in Washington, who would be transferred to Frontier once the deal is complete.

Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to assuring residents they can get the kind of broadband service they need in the 21st century, especially from a company that could easily find itself swamped in debt.  Let’s look at what Frontier has offered:

• Invest $40 million to expand high-speed Internet access in Washington.
• Submit quarterly financial reports to identify merger savings.
• Branding and transition costs to be paid by stockholders, not ratepayers.
• Increase financial incentives to prevent a decline in service quality.
• Adopt Verizon’s existing rates and contracts for at least three years.

Frontier would also be required to pay residential customers $35 for missed service repairs or installation appointments. That’s $10 more than Verizon now pays. Current Verizon customers would also have 90 days after the transition to choose another provider without incurring a $5 switching fee. Low-income customers who qualify through the Washington Telephone Assistance Program will also receive a one-time $75 credit if the company fails to offer appropriate discounts or deposit waivers.

Our take:

• Investing $40 million in low speed DSL service with a 5GB usage allowance saddles residents with yesterday’s technology with a usage allowance that rations the Internet.
• Customers don’t care about merger cost reductions because they’ll never enjoy those savings, but they’ll feel their impact if they include layoffs and reduction in investment.
• Consumers will be more concerned about what happens to their phone and broadband service when the “transition” results in service and billing problems.  Will stockholders pay inconvenienced customers?
• Vague promises of increased financial incentives for a company to do… its job, without declines in service quality, exposes just how unnecessary this deal is.  Why not offer incentives for Verizon to stay?
• Freezing rates for three years doesn’t prevent massive increases to make up the difference in year four and beyond.

The WUTC staff had it right the first time when it opposed the deal.  A healthy, financially secure Verizon is still a better deal than a smaller independent company saddled with debt.  Frontier seals the fate of Washington state residents from the benefits of fiber optics wired to the home, delivering high speed broadband for the future because Frontier doesn’t do fiber to the home on its own.  With a tiny usage allowance, just waiting for the company to decide to enforce it means you won’t be using your broadband account too much anyway.

The WUTC is accepting comments and you need to start calling and writing.  Make sure to tell the Commission it must secure a permanent exemption for Washington from any Internet Overcharging schemes like consumption/usage-based Internet billing and any usage limits Frontier defines in its Acceptable Use Policy.  Better yet, tell them Frontier’s concessions don’t come close to making you feel good about Verizon turning over your phone service to a company that is traveling the same road three other companies took all the way to bankruptcy.

Customers who would like to comment on the provisions can call toll-free: (888) 333-9882 or send e-mail to comments@utc.wa.gov. The deadline for comments is January 10th.

Cablevision serves communities surrounding the metropolitan New York region

Despite the tight economy for most Americans, executives at some of the nation’s largest cable players will enjoy millions from their contract extensions, bonuses, and eye-popping stock options that could net upwards of $10 million more for a select few.  And you thought your rate increase was due to “increased programming costs.”

Cablevision is where the real Money Party has just gotten started.  The top three executives alone could receive a combined $50,000,000 next year… that is fifty million dollars, just for running a regional cable company with just north of three million subscribers.

Here is the breakdown:

Dolan

Cablevision CEO James Dolan: Cablevision has always been under the control of the Dolan family, who own a controlling interest in the stock.  James Dolan gets a five-year extension in his contract, with a base salary of $1.5 million per year plus a bonus of up to four times that amount.  In 2010, Dolan is also entitled to an additional bonus package in cash and equity worth around $7 million.  He is also on track to get that same bonus each of the next five years, but only if the company does well.  Dolan is also CEO of Madison Square Garden/MSG/Radio City Music Hall.  For managing those assets, he’ll receive an extra $500,000 in salary, a bonus up to four times that amount, and an extra cash and equity bonus expected to be about $1.75 million per year.

Dolan founded Cablevision in 1973.

Ratner

Cablevision Vice Chairman Hank Ratner: Ratner gets a base salary of $500,000 a year, an annual bonus up to four times that salary, $1.2 million annually for his role with MSG, and extra cash and equity around $1.4 million annually.  And just because he’s a great guy — a one-time stock award worth $1.75 million due on March 31, 2010.  But wait, there’s more.  He also deserves extra cash and equity as MSG’s chief, targeted at $5.4 million in 2010 and each year thereafter.

Ratner joined Cablevision in 1987.  Ratner helps to set corporate direction and strategy, and is the primary executive overseeing major business partnerships and transactions.  Prior to being appointed Cablevision vice chairman, he served as vice chairman of Rainbow Media Holdings, the company’s programming subsidiary.

Rutledge

Tom Rutledge, Cablevision’s chief operating officer: He’ll get $1.63 million annually in salary, plus an annual bonus up to four times that amount.  He’s a special guy, so he also gets a “special payment” of $7.75 million within ten days of putting his ‘John Hancock’ on the new contract.  Call it a signing bonus.  But he also gets extra cash and equity compensation aiming at $6.8 million in 2010.

Cablevision isn’t alone is spreading around the walking around money.

Liberty Media, one of those programmers that keeps upping the rates charged to cable and satellite providers, who in turn pass those increases on to you, have a reason for doing so.  Their salary costs keep going up for the special few on the top floor.

Maffei

Greg Maffei, prexy-CEO of the company, just got his own five year contract renewal taking effect January 1st.  He’ll earn a base salary of $1.5 million per year, with a guaranteed 5 percent raise every year and an annual bonus amounting around $3 million.  But he’ll also get more than 10 million options of Liberty’s three stocks, most in the high-tech Liberty Interactive, which is developing online applications and services.

What do you get?  A rate increase and programming you don’t want but have to pay for, and now you know why.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn

At least one FCC commissioner remains unconvinced that Verizon Wireless’ recent decision to double the fee consumers pay for service cancellation is justified.  Virtually every carrier offering discounts on handsets and other equipment tie those savings to a two year service contract, with a stinging early termination fee (ETF) if one decides to leave before the contract is up.

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn released a public statement Wednesday questioning Verizon’s logic in their explanation that doubling the cancel fee from $175 to $350 helped defray costs ranging from network expansion and marketing to paying to keep the lights on in Verizon Wireless retail stores.  Clyburn called Verizon’s answers unsatisfying at best, alarming at worst.

“I am concerned about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs. No longer is the claim that ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used to foot the bill for ‘advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.’ Consumers already pay high monthly fees for voice and data designed to cover the costs of doing business. So when they are assessed excessive penalties, especially when they are near the end of their contract term, it is hard for me to believe that the public interest is being well served,” Clyburn wrote in a public statement.

Verizon also continues to get heat over mysterious fees appearing on some Verizon Wireless customer bills.  As Stop the Cap! reported back in September, consumers with basic service plans occasionally find $1.99 “data charges” on their monthly bills, and several have obtained refunds from the carrier after pointing out they do not use data features on their phones.

The mystery was suggested solved when a purported, unnamed Verizon Wireless employee engaged in some whistleblowing at The New York Times:

“The phone is designed in such a way that you can almost never avoid getting $1.99 charge on the bill. Around the OK button on a typical flip phone are the up, down, left, right arrows. If you open the flip and accidentally press the up arrow key, you see that the phone starts to connect to the web. So you hit END right away. Well, too late. You will be charged $1.99 for that 0.02 kilobytes of data. NOT COOL. I’ve had phones for years, and I sometimes do that mistake to this day, as I’m sure you have. Legal, yes; ethical, NO.

“Every month, the 87 million customers will accidentally hit that key a few times a month! That’s over $300 million per month in data revenue off a simple mistake!

“Our marketing, billing, and technical departments are all aware of this. But they have failed to do anything about it—and why? Because if you get 87 million customers to pay $1.99, why stop this revenue? Customer Service might credit you if you call and complain, but this practice is just not right.

“Now, you can ask to have this feature blocked. But even then, if you one of those buttons by accident, your phone transmits data; you get a message that you cannot use the service because it’s blocked–BUT you just used 0.06 kilobytes of data to get that message, so you are now charged $1.99 again!

“They have started training us reps that too many data blocks are being put on accounts now; they’re actually making us take classes called Alternatives to Data Blocks. They do not want all the blocks, because 40% of Verizon’s revenue now comes from data use. I just know there are millions of people out there that don’t even notice this $1.99 on the bill.”

Verizon's new termination fee appears random and capricious, some company critics charge.

Verizon Wireless denies it charges consumers for accidental web usage that lands on their mobile phone home page, which they claim is exempt from charges.  But Clyburn isn’t buying that explanation either.

“I am also alarmed by the fact that many consumers have been charged phantom fees for inadvertently pressing a key on their phones thereby launching Verizon Wireless’s mobile Internet service. The company asserted in its response to the Bureau that it ‘does not charge users when the browser is launched,’ but recent press reports and consumer complaints strongly suggest otherwise,” Clyburn writes.

“These issues cannot be ignored. Wireless communications are an essential part of our lives, linking us to our places of business, our communities, and our loved ones. The bottom line is that wireless companies can truly earn their desired long-term commitments from consumers by focusing primarily on developing innovative products, maintaining affordable prices, and providing excellent customer service. I look forward to exploring this issue in greater depth with my colleagues in the New Year,” she adds.

Verizon Wireless is also the only carrier that has not responded to a campaign by a Times columnist to let customers get rid of the airtime-wasting 15 seconds of voicemail instructions people wait through when trying to leave messages, something the wireless industry admits is there precisely to use up airtime and maximize revenue.

Clyburn joined the Commission this year, appointed by incoming President Barack Obama.  Her father James is the third-ranking Democrat in the House behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WIVB Buffalo Best and Worst Cell Providers 12-7-09.flv

WIVB-TV Buffalo reviewed Consumer Reports’ findings regarding the nation’s best and worst cell phone providers.  Despite Verizon’s controversial fees, it remains top-rated by the magazine’s readers. (12/7/09 – 2 minutes)

Person County, North Carolina

For north-central North Carolina, it’s often not a matter of how many choices you have for broadband service — it’s whether you can obtain any service at all.

Person County, located just south of the Virginia border, is a good example.  The county’s 36,000 residents technically reside in North Carolina’s Research Triangle, a high-tech growth area.  You wouldn’t know it from the broadband options available in many parts of the county, however.

The dominant phone company, CenturyLink (formerly EMBARQ), offers DSL service in the larger communities in Person County, but wide areas remain without any service at all.

Randy King

A Roxboro-based computer store and Internet Service Provider decided that with CenturyLink unwilling to expand into low population density areas to supply service, they would, with the help of broadband stimulus funding available from the Obama Administration.

Randy King, president of Electronic Solutions, Inc. (ESI), planned to expand broadband into 26 previously unserved Person County areas, and filed a stimulus application requesting $3 million in funding to begin construction.

King believes wireless broadband is the most cost-effective way to reach parts of the 400 square mile county that are simply too rural to upgrade wired service.  Today, that’s nearly 40 percent of the county that still does not have access to broadband service. The Person County High Speed Internet Committee and the County Commissioners endorsed ESI’s proposal.

But CenturyLink would have none of it, despite the fact it was not willing to provide service to those unserved areas either.  The phone company filed an objection with the agency administering the stimulus program claiming ESI would be overbuilding a competing broadband provider in its service area:

CenturyLink can certify that its affiliates currently offer broadband service in some or all of the applicant’s proposed service areas. We attach a representative sample of areas where the application overlaps our existing broadband deployment. This data is not exhaustive; the application may include other areas also currently served with broadband by CenturyLink or other providers. We will provide additional information on request if that will further assist the agency’s review.

CenturyLink also provides data showing broadband availability in local telephone exchanges within the proposed service areas. This includes areas served by CenturyLink and/or other broadband providers. This data further shows the applicant would duplicate and overlap existing broadband services in the proposed service areas.

Connected North Carolina's map shows large areas in grey that suggest broadband service is already available. (click to enlarge)

Because the government will judge the merit of applications based, in part, on reaching the unserved, map data purporting to illustrate who does and who does not have access to broadband service is critically important to applicants.  Some providers have used map data produced by a politically well-connected group filled with telecom industry executives that has spent millions of taxpayer dollars and produced maps that are less than illustrative of the true nature of broadband service.  When a map from Connected Nation’s North Carolina chapter can show citizens have access to broadband, even when they do not, what’s a regulator to do but consider that stimulus grant application unnecessary.

Randy King, President of ESI, has responded to the CenturyLink opposition:

“We are extremely disappointed that CenturyLink has opposed the Person County project. The project would provide high speed Internet (broadband) in areas that currently do not have service in our county. CenturyLink as recently as April 2009 met with county officials and members of the public and stated that they did not intend to expand DSL in low density areas which do not make economical sense.  We are now aware that CenturyLink is not only not going to serve these areas but is attempting to block anyone else from serving these areas.”

ESI claims its wireless system could deliver more capacity to Person County’s rural unserved than CenturyLink provides its more urban counterparts.

“It should be noted that the wireless system will have at minimum 50-100Mbps capability at each tower site which far exceeds current DSL speed of 1-10Mbps. This allows customers to have sufficient bandwidth to have services such as VOIP, IPTV and streaming capabilities whereas DSL is not capable,” King writes.

King is also concerned that CenturyLink won’t provide true detailed maps of exactly what service it provides in what areas.

Person County and area residents have been requesting street level coverage maps from CenturyLink and Charter (the city’s cable company) for years without success. King wants the ability to review these maps, preferably in color with speed capabilities identified down to the 911 address location.  That way, he says, he can work on building capacity to areas not getting service at all.

Providers have traditionally been loathe to disclose this information to the public, and even government regulators, claiming it represents proprietary, competitive information.  That leaves everyone but providers guessing about what broadband service really looks like across America.

The more credible e-NC mapping project shows large swaths of southern Person County without any broadband options at all. (click to enlarge)

Kevin McCarter, CenturyLink’s general manager for central North Carolina seems primarily concerned with potential government funding of his competition.  McCarter told The Courier-Times CenturyLink “interpreted that” the towers King proposed to place in order to provide wireless service “would cover 95 percent” of the entire county. King explained that his intent was not to cover the whole county with wireless access, but to place towers so that those living in areas of the county not currently served by DSL lines would have the option of wireless broadband. He said he never intended his service to replace the DSL lines CenturyLink has in place.

That ESI doesn’t seem intent on competing directly with CenturyLink may have resulted in a breakthrough this month.  The two companies met December 15th to discuss their respective broadband plans for Person County, and may have come to an agreement that could divide up the unserved and get them broadband service from one company or the other, but likely not both.

Jamie Averett Mitchell, spokesperson for CenturyLink, issued the following statement Monday:  “On Tuesday, Dec, 15, representatives from CenturyLink met with Randy King, president of Electronic Solutions, Inc., to review broadband coverage for Person County. Maps detailing both existing and planned coverage areas were presented and reviewed by both parties. Areas that were not covered on either company’s maps were discussed and both companies are aware of those sites. CenturyLink and ESI are working together to determine the most efficient way to provide 100 percent of the population in Person County with the best broadband coverage possible.”

So it seems that broadband applications that do not challenge incumbent providers are acceptable, but those that could expand the quality of service to those living with rural, slow speed DSL service are not.

Comcast has agreed to settle a $16 million dollar class action lawsuit filed on behalf of broadband customers who experienced slowed speeds while using peer to peer applications.  The original lawsuit, Hart v. Comcast, accused the company of advertising broadband speeds that were unavailable to customers when using certain applications the company allegedly impaired from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008.  As part of the proposed settlement, Comcast denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to modify its “network management” policies and feels further litigation over the matter would not be in the company’s best interests.

Customers are eligible for a settlement up to $16:

If you live in the United States or its Territories, have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account, and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use:

• The Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008; and/or
• Lotus Notes to send e-mail any time from March 26, 2007 to October 3, 2007.

Starting January 5, 2010 affected customers can file a claim online or by mail for their share of the settlement.  Additional information is available on the settlement website P2PCongestionSettlement.com.

BitTorrent's peer to peer protocol was impacted by Comcast's speed throttle

The Comcast throttling incident helped make the case for Net Neutrality proponents that broadband providers would, in certain instances, be willing to impede traffic it deemed undesirable or burdensome.  Peer to peer traffic has been blamed by several providers for creating congestion problems on their broadband networks, particularly those that share a limited amount of bandwidth among hundreds of customers.  Unlike typical file transfers, which originate in one location and deliver content to consumers, peer-to-peer relies on groups of people sharing individual pieces of files with one another until everyone obtains the complete file.  Because many peer to peer networks consider it good etiquette to share as much as one receives, upstream bandwidth is consumed at a much higher than average rate.

For consumers who leave file sharing applications running 24/7, the amount of traffic can build to considerable levels.  Many providers consider such traffic a nuisance that clogs their networks, and some have sought to artificially reduce the speed of such traffic.

Dick Armey, head of FreedomWorks, a notorious industry-backed astroturf group, was a big proponent of Wisconsin's "statewide video franchise" bill pushed by AT&T

Wisconsin residents, in 2007 you were promised more competition, lower prices, and better service from your pay television and broadband provider.  Two years later, two things are certain:

1. The Wisconsin Video Competition Act was didn’t exactly deliver what was promised to consumers by those pushing the legislation, but paid off handsomely for the one company lobbying the hardest for its passage — AT&T.
2. You had a lower bill in 2007 than you now have in 2009.

A new audit released by the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau exposes the truth AT&T’s astroturfing friends never wanted you to know: despite the passage of a new law in December 2007 that promised increased competition and lower rates, the average basic cable rate in Wisconsin actually increased an average of 21 percent over the past two years.

The Bureau analyzed ten providers’ monthly charges for basic and expanded basic service in 17 Wisconsin municipalities at two points in time—July 2007 and July 2009—using data reported to us by the providers. Over this two-year period, charges for basic service increased an average of 21.2 percent, and charges for expanded basic service increased an average of 11.5 percent. The reported data do not suggest that competition has had a substantial effect in reducing either basic or expanded basic video service charges or in slowing their rates of growth during the period we reviewed.

Wisconsin consumers were promised something very different.  So just how did Wisconsin get snookered into passing legislation that was supposed to help consumers, but in reality just helped AT&T?

Dick Armey, chairman of FreedomWorks, an industry-backed astroturf group that heavily promoted the bill, emphatically promised the Competition Act would bring prices down.  On November 19, 2007 Armey wrote:

The Wisconsin Video Competition Act would allow consumers to take advantage of new technologies by streamlining the franchise application process for potential providers. When companies compete to provide service, consumers win through more choices, lower prices and better service.

Unfortunately for consumers, the Video Competition Act was little more than a custom-written giveaway to AT&T.  From the bill’s earliest draft language crafted by lobbyists working with legislative aides, to the big budget sales job employing 15 lobbyists and a major media budget, AT&T ran the show from start to finish according to Madison’s Capital Times newspaper.

TV4US counts AT&T among its corporate sponsors

TV4US (also known as WeWantChoice.com), an AT&T-supported astroturf group, ran television ads around Wisconsin promoting the bill.  In May 2007 the group sent every state legislator binders filled with what it claimed were the names of their constituents who wanted “an end to the cable monopoly” and competitive choice.  As The Center for Media & Democracy discovered, several people named, including two state lawmakers, didn’t support the bill and hadn’t given permission for their names to be included.

TV4US ran this ad across Wisconsin in 2007, promoting “cable competition.”

TV4US’ primary press contact Lizanne Sadlier just also happened to be employed by lobbying firm Fleishman-Hillard, which “has built its reputation by using strategic communications to deliver what its clients value most: meaningful, positive, and measurable impact on the performance of their organizations,” according to a press release from the group.

Fleishman-Hillard and AT&T are well acquainted with each other.  In fact, the PR firm was instrumental in rebranding the phone company as “the new AT&T” after the SBC-AT&T merger.  To this day, AT&T has several company bloggers actually employed by Fleishman-Hillard.

In March of 2007, the Wisconsin Merchants Federation turned up at a state hearing about the Competition Act. This struck several observers as odd, considering the WMF primarily concerns itself with retail store tax policies and strengthening retail theft laws. The WMF seemed well-prepared to articulate the proposed law’s benefits, which included, according to them:

• increased competition in the video entertainment business;
• creation of good-paying jobs;
• bring (literally) hundreds of millions of dollars in capital investment to our state.

PR Watch wanted to know exactly what prompted the WMF to not only testify about a non-issue for retail stores, but also who wanted the group to get involved, and who exactly belongs to the WMF.

WMF’s David Storey told PR Watch that his group sees AB 207 / SB 107 as an economic development issue. “Where consumers have choices, not only are the consumers served, but the economy in general is served. The economy is made stronger,” he explained. “And this is all about consumer choice in the video entertainment field.”

Storey said that no particular member had asked WMF to support AB 207 / SB 107, but that he was personally interested in the issue, as the former Deputy Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Commerce. Asked for a list of WMF members, Storey responded that one was not available, but that information would hopefully be added to the WMF website in the future.

One thing that is clear is that many of WMF’s partners in lobbying for AB 207 / SB 107 have ties to the telecom industry. The Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups, which is a member of the Wisconsin Video Choice Coalition, has received funding from AT&T and from SBC Wisconsin, which is now part of AT&T. The group also offers “discounts on assistive devices for the telephone such as volume amplifiers from the AT&T Special Needs Center.” Another Wisconsin Video Choice Coalition member, the Wisconsin Technology Council, lists AT&T among its major sponsors. Fellow coalition member Women Impacting Public Policy is a Washington DC based group that receives funding from AT&T and Verizon, among other corporate sponsors.

In August 2007, WMF turned up at a press event with other bill supporters to promote the results of a poll conducted by the Mellman Group, which isn’t a respected polling firm but rather a Washington, DC public relations firm that “develops effective communications strategies that lead people to choose our client’s product or service, join their organization, hold their opinion, or vote as we would like.” ^[1] (13 minutes, video begins at ten second mark)

In short, no matter where consumers turned during the push for the Wisconsin Video Competition Act, that big AT&T logo was always somewhere in sight.

Before the legislation was passed, some were warning Wisconsin the dog and pony astroturf show wasn’t actually working for the best interests of Wisconsin consumers, but were instead looking out for the best interests of AT&T.  Charles Uphoff is chair of the Fitchburg Broadband Telecommunications Commission, and wrote this back in 2007:

Lobbyists for telecommunications giant AT&T have been pressuring Wisconsin legislators to pass sweeping changes in the laws regulating cable TV with a million-dollar media campaign and behind the scenes arm-twisting that would make Karl Rove blush.

Under the guise of promoting increased consumer choice, lower cable rates and high-paying union jobs, AT&T is trying to steamroller bills that would prohibit any meaningful regulation of video service rates; eliminate funding for public access, educational and government channels; and effectively guarantee statewide franchises for the telecom giant in perpetuity.

Among the more astonishing features of this dubious legislation is a provision that specifically prohibits the state or local municipalities from reviewing franchise transfers. While initial applicants would have to establish their legal, financial and technical qualifications to obtain a statewide franchise, once granted, statewide franchises can be literally transferred to anyone — even politicians. Video franchise holders wouldn’t even have to inform the affected communities until 10 days after the transfer had been completed.

[...]

So how about the claim being made in the TV ads that cable rates have gone up 246 percent and the “Video Competition Act” would increase choice and save consumer millions? It sure sounds good, but these assertions are, at best, misleading. In the city of Fitchburg, for example, the basic cable rate has risen less than 6 percent over the past 10 years and is currently at $8.19 a month. Admittedly, premium packages have risen much more sharply, largely driven by the cost of content providers like the NFL Network, MTV and ESPN, but AT&T would be facing the same kind of costs if they want to include these offerings.

So if you are expecting whopping decreases in your cable TV bills if this legislation passes, don’t hold your breath. In fact, the ability of municipalities or the state to even regulate basic cable rates would be gone.

What’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t an isolated incident. Wholesale deregulation of the video services industry under the guise of fostering competition is being pushed in legislatures all across the country, backed by big money and conservative ideologues like former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a Texas Republican whose right-wing “think-tank” has been pushing this legislation since before it had a bill number. Weeks before most members of the Wisconsin Legislature had even seen the bill, Armey’s Freedom Works Foundation was trying to line up sponsors. Major contributors to Dick Armey’s cause include AT&T, Verizon and Exxon-Mobile.

Sadly, the recent trend in video services and telecommunications has been toward increasing the concentration of ownership and control of the media, resulting in fewer consumer choices and less competition, not only in terms of price, but also in terms of ideas. The opinions expressed here are strictly my own, but it seems to me that in the arena where competition is most important to our democracy and our future, the competition of ideas, the net effect of these bills will be to decrease competition through the elimination of public access as a vehicle for information, dialogue and discussion of things that matter to our communities.

Despite playing fast and loose with the facts, the astroturf groups, aided by AT&T’s generous campaign contributions to Wisconsin state legislators helped grease the way towards passage of the Video Competition Act, which was signed into law in December 2007.

But rate increases for consumers aren’t the only problem impacting Wisconsin residents.  Collateral damage for those interested in public affairs television programming is now also becoming apparent.

One of the biggest opponents of the statewide video franchising law has been the Wisconsin Association of PEG Channels (WAPC).  “PEG” stands for public access, educational, and government access channels found on virtually every cable system in the country.  These non-profit channels are provided in the public interest to give subscribers access to customer-produced video programming, local government public meetings and hearings, and educational programming from local schools and universities.  They are traditionally financed by the cable system as part of their franchise agreement.  In return for tearing up local streets and yards, systems give something back to the community by making room for these public access channels, and often also provide equipment and training to assist in program production and distribution.

The Video Competition Act was no friend to PEG channels.  By moving to statewide video franchise agreements, local communities no longer had much say over their public access channels, and the bill’s passage quickly provided a convenient opportunity to bury PEG channels, kill their funding, or outright renege on local agreements.

AT&T’s U-verse doesn’t make it easy for video customers to find PEG channels.  In Wisconsin, the channels are housed on a website that appears on screen on channel 99, the equivalent of TV Channel Siberia for the remote control channel surfer.  From there, consumers have to navigate a series of menus on their remote control to find the right channel.  Mike Ryan, director of West Bend Community Television, discovers just how ponderous this procedure is, even for those dedicated to finding his channel.

In the case of Charter Cable, they’ve managed to go one step further and help destroy one city’s public access channels.

Funding for the Wausau Area Access Channels had been provided in part by the franchise agreement between the City of Wausau and local cable provider Charter Communications. While Wausau Access Channels served the greater Wausau area, only the City of Wausau franchise agreement provided any funding.

When the state passed the Competition Act replacing local franchise agreements with a standard state wide franchise, Wausau PEG support fees were eliminated after a three year sunset. That sunset would occur December 31, 2010. The City of Wausau has not received any PEG support fees from Charter Communication during the three year sunset period.

Apparently unwilling to meet even a three year commitment, Charter Cable’s non-payment led Wausau mayor Jim Tipple to announce Monday that the city would not continue to fund the station in 2010 because of budget constraints.

“We realize this is a tough decision, not only for the city of Wausau but for the entire community,” Tipple said.

The City of Wausau is pursuing legal remedies against Charter. PEG fee revenue had funded 60% of the station’s annual budget of $100,000.

“The City does not want the channels to go dark, but it can no longer fund them alone,” said John Jordan, Wausau Access Coordinator.

“We are stunned to hear about the closure of the Wausau community channels. It is hard to believe that residents of Wausau will no longer be able to see and participate in community television. We warned this could come with the passage of the Video Competition Act. We just didn’t expect it quite this soon,” said Mary Cardona, WAPC Executive Director.

On January 1, 2011, more stations will be in Wausau’s position. On that date, all dedicated PEG fees end as a result of the passage of the Video Competition Act.

WSAW & WAOW-TV, both in Wausau, Wisconsin headlined their newscasts with news that the community’s public access channels were on the chopping block. Loud Volume Alert (4 minutes)

The Cable Consumer Repair Bill (AB606) recently introduced by Representative Gary Hebl (D – Sun Prairie) could resolve serious problems with the Video Competition Act that took effect in January 2008. Since then, cable companies and AT&T have moved community channels to out of the way locations on the line-up, subjected the channels to interference problems, imposed transmission equipment costs, and withdrawn a commitment to provide dedicated revenue for public, education, and government access stations.

Of course, the industry players don’t like it one bit.  “Wired Wisconsin,” a non-profit group claiming to seek cutting edge broadband technology for Wisconsin, who unsurprisingly counts AT&T as a “partner,” thinks Hebl’s bill will gut the Competition Act.

“Even though the VCA was passed less than two years ago, we’ve already seen a great deal of progress under the bill.  It’s generated real competition, helped improve prices, created hundreds of new jobs, spurred millions in investment in infrastructure, improved customer service and expanded consumers’ access to new video providers, services and features all across the state,” said Wired Wisconsin’s executive director Thad Nation.

The state’s audit of cable pricing would seem to belie Nation’s views. That he holds them should come as no surprise.  After all, Nation is the former executive director of TV4US, the AT&T-backed astroturf effort that helped enact the law Nation seeks to defend.

“On balance, the law hasn’t been good for consumers but has been very good for the companies that wanted it. Two years from now, I don’t think you will be able to say that consumers saved a lot of money if any at all,” Barry Orton, a telecommunications professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Has the bill brought about any savings for Wisconsin consumers?

“We haven’t seen it. I think the short answer is ‘no,’ ” said Curt Witynski, assistant director of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, which represents 582 local governments.

“I think the public relations effort of AT&T and others was remarkable in convincing state legislators that this law would bring about all kinds of competition, and that consumers would benefit from it. But that hasn’t been the case,” Witynski added.

Indeed, with additional rate increases announced this week by AT&T’s U-verse, the much-heralded savings promised by AT&T and its various astroturf elements have become only more elusive for the hard-hit consumer struggling through ongoing economic challenges.  Those challenges aren’t exactly the same for AT&T, which increased its dividend payment to stockholders and has plenty left over to continue astroturfing its way to statewide video franchises in other states it serves.

Broadband Reports has obtained documents accidentally publicly posted outlining some significant changes to how Verizon markets and prices its fiber optic to the home FiOS service.

Most customers can “look forward to” price hikes of $10-20 for their FiOS bundled service package January 17th, if the leaked documents are accurate.  The company will also replace its “TV Essentials” package and bring back symmetrical broadband service options (same upload and download speeds), according to Broadband Reports.

More concerning is the introduction of a uniform $360 early termination fee for customers who sign up for broadband or television service from Verizon and decide to switch providers.  Although the fee will not apply if customers agree to stay with Verizon for their home phone service, the justification for such a high charge will be open for debate.  The company promises to pro-rate the fee for every month a customer does stay with FiOS, but according to the report will impose it against a consumer that finds themselves having to relocate to a non-Verizon service area.  For someone in western New York between Buffalo and Rochester, a move just down the street into Frontier Communications territory could result in a final Verizon bill several hundred dollars more than expected.

Currently, Verizon charges broadband customers on an annual contract a $99 early termination fee.  Television customers pay a $179 fee if they cancel before the year is up.

Some customers reacting to the cancellation fee suggest opting for the month-to-month service plan for an additional $20 a month if a move is imminent or if a customer isn’t sure they’ll keep the service.

Early termination fees are designed to capture and hold customers in place and are common in competitive markets where consumers bounce back and forth between new customer promotions.  Locking a customer in with a multi-year service agreement makes promotion-bouncing expensive, and gets customers to think twice before switching providers.

Verizon’s pricey exit charge could also reflect the company’s desire to recoup wiring expenses to bring fiber to and inside customer homes.

Most Verizon FiOS promotions we’ve seen lately expire January 16th.  That would suggest promotions starting the 17th will carry higher pricing.

A late December 2009 Verizon promotion. Note the expiration date.

Karl Bode notes the price hikes come even though costs are declining for major providers.

Keep in mind of course that these broadband hikes come as the cost of wholesale bandwidth and network hardware continues to drop. The television hikes, meanwhile, come despite the fact that Verizon and AT&T lobbied state lawmakers in dozens of states promising lower TV prices — if they were willing to reconfigure the video franchise system to make life easier on the baby bells.

It also appears that Verizon will be further expanding their free Wi-Fi offer to include customers on 15 Mbps tiers. The service previously was restricted to FiOS customers that subscribed to 20 Mbps service or faster. Like speed? It looks like Verizon’s symmetrical 35 Mbps tier, which is only available in select markets, will be showing up in all Verizon markets next year. The company’s 25/15 Mbps tier will officially become 25/25 (most customers report those speeds already).

AT&T last week announced it has increased its quarterly dividend by 2.40% to 42 cents per share, the 26th year the company has increased dividends quarter after quarter.

On February 1st, something else will increase by up to 10 percent: their U-verse rates.

Depending on the package selected, rates will increase $3-5 dollars a month for most cable-TV packages, $5 for many slower speed broadband products, and $5 a month for its unlimited calling package.  New customers will find some savings to offset the increases if they opt for faster broadband products: Max (12 Mbps) and Max Plus (18 Mbps) both decrease $10 per month, to $45 and $55 respectively, and the new 24Mbps Max Turbo service drops from $75 to $65.  Existing customers will not see price increases on broadband service, but they won’t enjoy any price decreases either.

Standard retail pricing as of February 1, 2010 will be: U-Basic- $19/mo., U-family-$54/mo., U-100-$54/mo., U200-$67/mo., U200 Latino-$77/mo., U300-$82/mo., U450-$112/mo.

New U-verse TV customers will now face a one-time service activation fee of $29.

AT&T said that the “modest price adjustments that we’re making are far outweighed by the additional value we’ve added to U-verse TV in the last year alone.”

Customers have expressed mixed reactions to the price increases and decreases on AT&T’s U-verse forums.  A far bigger problem for many of them are the company’s “bait and switch” tactics, alleged by several angry customers.  From rate quotes $30 less than what actually shows up on customer bills to referral rewards that never materialize to rebate nightmares, AT&T customers in several parts of the country report ongoing problems getting what they were promised.

Fox has returned fire on Time Warner Cable’s Roll Over or Get Tough campaign, saying the cable company isn’t playing fair and viewers in several major cities could lose access to Fox programming because of it.

Fox-owned television stations have already begun warning viewers if Time Warner Cable doesn’t reach an agreement with the stations by December 31st, they could be removed from the cable lineup.  Fox issued this statement regarding their ongoing negotiations with Time Warner Cable:

For the past nine months, Fox has attempted to negotiate in good faith with Time Warner Cable. Our position in these negotiations is entirely reasonable – we are simply asking for fair compensation for the impressive value our Fox programming offers.

While negotiations are ongoing, we have a responsibility to prepare our viewers for the very likely possibility that Time Warner Cable may choose to no longer carry Fox Broadcasting, Fox Cable and Fox regional sports programming. Toward that end, today we launched a marketing campaign notifying Time Warner Cable subscribers that they may lose access to American Idol, 24, House and some of the best live event sports programming on TV (including most BCS Bowl games and NFL on Fox). The campaign consists of print advertising, TV spots, a call-in number (1-866-KEEP-FOX), and a website, keepfoxon.com.

Going forward, we will continue actively negotiating with Time Warner Cable in hopes of reaching a fair agreement and will attempt to keep our viewers informed of the situation every step of the way.

Fox has also launched a hard-hitting ad airing on several affected Fox stations:

Fox is running this ad in many cities where retransmission consent agreements with Time Warner Cable are set to expire December 31st.

Fox stations in New York, Los Angeles, Austin, Dallas, Detroit, Orlando and Tampa are at risk of removal from Time Warner Cable lineups if an agreement is not reached before year’s end.

A new report from Frost & Sullivan (pricey subscription required) warns wireless broadband providers may have to implement limits on the amount of data consumed by customers, a surprising result considering the vast majority of carriers already do.

The business research and consulting firm says some wireless carriers are struggling to balance the consumption they encouraged with the physical capacity of their networks.  Citing AT&T’s iPhone and its data-rich App Store, which lets consumers download data applications to run on their phone, the research shows data consumption has increased dramatically as consumers integrate smartphones into their daily lives.

“We all knew as an industry that mobile data would grow, and we saw these growth curves that were a 45-degree angle upward,” said James Brehm, senior consultant at Frost & Sullivan. “But the true growth of the iPhone, when you chart it, looks more like a hockey stick.”

The demand for data is pressuring the industry to invest additional money for upgrades, and Wall Street isn’t happy with a trend that guarantees expensive upgrades will be required to meet customer demand — upgrades that would come straight out of revenue, unless a dramatic shift takes place towards consumption-based billing.

“You’re going to see some push back from consumers, but AT&T’s not going to be the only one that’s going to have to do this,” Brehm said. “Every service provider out there is going to ultimately change the way mobile data is consumed and priced over the next few years.”

The argument essentially comes down to how much revenue wireless carriers will be forced to invest in their networks, and how much noise they will hear from investors for doing so.  Wall Street prefers customers pay the costs for upgrades by increasing prices for data service, which would assure revenue expectations remain stable.  Customers demand wireless carriers invest some of their profits back into their networks to improve service and in return enjoy customer loyalty and any revenue earned from selling additional services.

Some carriers are choosing to stay out of the fight, claiming they already have sufficient capacity to serve customers.  Besides, most of them already have usage limits on their services, traditionally set at a maximum of 5GB of consumption per month.

T-Mobile believes it already has enough capacity to meet the growing demand from data-hungry smartphones.  It has invested in new technology that claims to triple current 3G speeds and works with current 3G phones,  meaning customers don’t have to buy a new phone to enjoy the faster speeds.

Sprint is constructing its 4G network and already sells service in several cities through Clearwire.  Sprint claims unlike some of its competitors, it intends to stay ahead of the growth curve by investing now in additional spectrum and technology to manage its networks.  Sprint claims it has plenty of room to expand capacity.

Verizon Wireless says it has more consistently upgraded its network over the past decade than any other carrier, and is well prepared to accommodate even the iPhone.

“We have put things in place already,” Verizon Wireless Chief Technology Officer Anthony Melone tells Business Week. “We are prepared to support that traffic.”  Next year, the nation’s largest wireless carrier will be rolling out 4G upgrades in America’s 30 largest cities, although primarily for mobile broadband service accessed through a mobile broadband dongle.

Verizon already limits consumption on its wireless plans to a maximum of 5GB per month, with overlimit penalties for those that exceed it.

Most of the attention remains focused on AT&T and the iPhone, because the data plan provided for iPhone customers does not carry a specified limit.

Vipin Jain, chief executive of Retrevo, a consumer electronics shopping Web site told the Chicago Tribune, “As soon as you put a cap (on data usage), there’s going to be a backlash.”

So what keeps wireless providers from upgrading their networks and keeping consumption billing and usage caps away?

In addition to pressure from Wall Street, another Frost & Sullivan report points to an unsettled marketplace.  The progression towards 4G has been stalled because of the economic downturn, the report says.

Frost & Sullivan ICT Program Manager Luke Thomas says carriers are still waiting for consensus on several issues, including support for voice and SMS and a harmonized frequency band for 4G traffic.  Thomas also says many cell towers have limited capacity to support additional traffic.  A tower can deliver only as much data as its connection back to the provider’s network can handle.  Once the “backhaul” link is saturated, calls start to drop and data speed slows.  Many still rely on dedicated, relatively slow copper wire circuits, although fiber optic links are becoming increasingly common.

Thomas also believes carriers will need additional spectrum, a minimum of 20MHz, to make 4G upgrades worthwhile.

Without all of these factors, Thomas believes the potential return on investment won’t be high enough to justify moving forward any time soon.