AT&T and companies like it have spent millions in state and federal legislatures to secure precisely the “incentives” you wrote about — statewide franchising, deregulation, discarding universal service requirements… even printing a phone book. They’ve won those incentives repeatedly in several states where they provide service and consumers got the short end of the stick. Not only were the freed from service standard responsibilities, they also delivered “competition” at prices the same or even higher than the competition. In Wisconsin, nobody paid anything except higher prices when AT&T won statewide franchising for U-verse.

Another example is Verizon throwing rural communities overboard in favor of Frontier Communications. We’ve seen the results of prior deals — disaster for landline customers and bankruptcy for the buyer.

Fair incentives are one thing — I’m all for incentives that drive deployment of fiber optics and better broadband, for example, as long as the provider agrees to not redline neighborhoods and communities along the way.

I believe in rewarding companies that deliver good service, if only with my willingness to do business with them. AT&T doesn’t need many incentives to provide DSL service in many communities — they realize without it they’ll continue to lose landline customers. That was the driver of U-verse in the first place — a way to hold onto customers who consider landline service unnecessary.

But your solution seems to suggest the only penalty a bad actor should face is the potential loss of customers, something unlikely to happen in areas where those customers have no alternatives. That’s why oversight boards exist, to protect ratepayers from utilities that have few incentives to meet the service standards they agreed to.

Assuming Louisiana residents don’t like AT&T, and do have wireless options, show me which option a resident has for unlimited wireless mobile broadband service. There aren’t any serving rural Louisiana. Instead, if you’re lucky, you can secure 5GB of service for $60 a month from a player like Verizon or AT&T Mobility.

The telecom industry has always pulled out the old chestnut that any oversight and regulatory controls will “destroy investment” yet a highly regulated phone company provided profitable service for 75 years across the United States. Cable companies face some regulatory controls and they aren’t hurting either. Moderate degrees of regulatory reform have already been implemented in Louisiana, yet the problems persist. Further deregulation solves those problems how, exactly?

In your area, it sounds like you have several options for service. Where most of the complaints about AT&T are coming from are in northern, more rural areas of Louisiana where that competition barely exists, if at all. Most rural parts of the state have no cable alternative, and wireless cell service may or may not provide an alternative for voice calling.

What is clear from our coverage of this issue is that providers like AT&T and Verizon are moving to compete and deliver better service in urban areas, and allow rural areas to slide. And why not? Where are those customers going to go?

For a Commission that exists to oversee what is de facto monopoly service in many parts of the state to ignore its most effective tool to ensure compliance is a dereliction of their responsibility.

AT&T can continue to reap the benefits of operating in Louisiana fine-free by simply providing the kind of service you are enjoying. But it’s clear they are not doing that consistently, and even with the negative press, the complaints keep pouring in.

I think the system works best when there are checks and balances in place, especially where consumers don’t have a consistent competitive choice where they can exercise their option to leave a bad service provider.