A British physicist has developed a technology that could one day deliver your wireless broadband connection over any ordinary household lamp equipped with a “light emitting diode” (LED) light bulb.

Professor Harald Haas from Edinburgh University in the United Kingdom says he has developed a super-efficient, super-fast wireless broadband transmission system that uses light instead of radio waves.

Dubbed Light Fidelity, D-Light, or “Li-Fi” for short, Haas demonstrated his invention using an ordinary table lamp that successfully transmitted data at speeds exceeding 10Mbps using light waves from LED light bulbs to a computer located below the lamp.

To prove that the light bulb was the source of the data stream, he periodically blocked the beam of light, causing the connection to drop.

Haas says using light waves for data transmissions could revolutionize wireless communications and end the spectrum shortage plaguing today’s wireless industry.

“The way we transmit wireless data is inefficient electromagnetic waves, in particular radio waves which are limited, they are sparse, they are expensive and only have a certain range,” Professor Haas said. “It is this limitation which does not cope with wireless data, and we are running out of efficiency.”

Haas notes 95 percent of the energy used to transmit electromagnetic waves is wasted through heat dissipation.

Haas added that during today’s spectrum crunch, opening up light waves for wireless telecommunications would increase the amount of available spectrum by at least 10,000 percent, potentially transforming how we think about wireless communications technology.

“Light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Wouldn’t it be great to use it for wireless communications?”

Haas believes as we begin to replace energy inefficient traditional light bulbs for LED bulbs, which are becoming increasingly affordable, using them to piggyback data transmissions of all kinds could make staying “in range” of a wireless signal as simple as flicking on a light switch.

“For me the applications of it are beyond imagination,” Haas said.  “All we need to do is to fit a small microchip to every potential illumination device and this would combine illumination and data transmission, and this could solve the problems facing us in wireless communication.”

What if every light bulb in the world could also transmit data? At TEDGlobal, Harald Haas demonstrates, for the first time, a device that could do exactly that.  (13 minutes)

While the east coast contended with Hurricane Irene last weekend, hundreds of thousands of Time Warner Cable customers further west were dealing with widespread broadband and phone outages in Texas and California.

For Californians, the problems gradually increased early Sunday morning until eventually causing significant service disruptions starting just before 7am.  As the morning wore on, Time Warner’s call centers became so overwhelmed with calls, very few actually got to speak with a customer service representative, greeted instead with:

“Due to high call volume, all agents are currently busy.  Please try your call again later,” after which the call was disconnected.

By 1pm, engineers finally found the malfunctioning equipment responsible for outages in different parts of the country and started rerouting traffic around the problem.

Time Warner wouldn’t say where the troubles originated, but its impact illustrates Time Warner broadband customers can be affected by outages and malfunctions several states away.

Service was gradually restored as the afternoon progressed.

Time Warner Cable customers affected by the outage can receive a service credit for interrupted phone and broadband service, but only if they ask.  The company does not plan to issue automatic credits.

Southern Californians can use this Time Warner Online E-Mail form to request credits.  Texans can use this Time Warner Online E-Mail form to request credits.

Cable television service was not affected.

Hurricane Irene did its worst damage in inland areas of New England and Upstate New York

While hardly the “storm of the century,” damages from Hurricane Irene’s whirlwind tour up the east coast cannot yet be estimated because flood waters in the northeast are still rising this afternoon.

But while millions remain without electricity, some for up to several weeks, telecommunications infrastructure has fared better than expected in a number of areas hardest hit by the Category 1 hurricane.

A review of media reports finds the most substantial damage to cable TV and landline telephone service, mostly due to downed trees and flooding which brought down utility poles in a number of states.  The Federal Communications Commission also reported 1,400 cell sites along the coast were down, and several hundred were running on backup power.

North Carolina & Virginia

The most substantial wind-related damage impacted the states of North Carolina and Virginia where hundreds of thousands are still without electricity, cable, and landline telephone service.  Time Warner Cable, which dominates North Carolina, had 160,000 customers without service Saturday evening, primarily due to power outages and line damage.  As of this morning, 38,000 were still without service with the most damage in Wilmington, Newport, Morehead City, Jacksonville, Havelock, Elizabeth City, Murfreesboro and Ahoskie.  Outage information is available from 1-866-4TWCNOW (1-866-489-2669) for residential customers and 1-877-892-2220 for business customers.

Landline service outages are impacting more than 100,000 customers, and the wind damage has made the outages most severe in these two states.  CenturyLink, AT&T, and Verizon all report substantial damages to their respective networks in several areas.

At least 500 cell towers in North Carolina and Virginia are now operating on battery backup power, which guarantees cell phone outages will only grow worse as the hours progress.  Once battery power is exhausted, cell phone carriers either have to go without service or provision generators to deliver emergency power until normal electrical service can be restored, which is expected to take several days.  Physical damage to cell sites was reported to be minimal, however.  The biggest impact is loss of electricity.

AT&T released this video to the news media showing the company’s preparations for Hurricane Irene, including putting trucks containing temporary cell sites on the road from Atlanta heading into North Carolina to restore wireless service knocked out by the storm.  (3 minutes)

Downed poles in neighborhoods are responsible for most of the outages impacting cable and phone companies. (Courtesy: WNYC)

Maryland, Washington, DC, Delaware, Southern New Jersey

A mix of wind and water damage has left sections of this region without electrical service, but damages are reportedly less severe than in North Carolina and Virginia.  The biggest impact is loss of electrical service which has left cell phone towers on battery backup and cable systems offline.  The more urban areas have less infrastructure damage due to underground wiring, but flood waters have created outages on their own.  In southern New Jersey, water damage is still occurring because of slowly rising rivers continuing to flood their banks.

Pennsylania, Northern New Jersey, New York City & Long Island

Substantial damage from excessive rain and downed trees, especially on Long Island, will leave some customers on lengthy waiting lists for service restoration.  Verizon on Long Island is telling some customers it will be at least two weeks before service calls can be completed to restore phone or FiOS service. Substantial neighborhood outages are impacting Cablevision customers on Long Island as well, mostly from downed trees.  At least 700 trees fell in Oyster Bay alone.  In Pennsylvania, the worst damage was actually further inland.  Suburbs of Philadelphia were particularly hard hit.  Electric service repair has been given top priority.  Cable service restoration will probably take longer, especially where utility poles have been damaged.

Upstate New York & New England

The worst damage of all is expected to be in upstate New York and New England, particularly in western Massachusetts and Vermont, unequipped to deal with the floodwaters which have set records in several areas.  A resident of Prattsville, New York escaped with his life and managed to finally reach emergency responders to report the entire community had been washed away in unprecedented flooding.  A great deal of utility infrastructure has gone with it, and the damage for New England’s FairPoint Communications, particularly in Vermont, is still being assessed.  Some communities in the region have been told it may take up to a month restore electrical service, longer for telephone and cable service.  Because large sections of the region are rural, there are fewer cell towers to cope with power outages, but the impact is much more readily apparent.  In some areas, there is only one provider delivering any significant service, and when battery backups fail, no cell service will function.

Verizon and Time Warner Cable all report service problems in the region.

Communities or infrastructure positioned near rivers are most at risk, and flood waters are still rising in many locations.  The damage, according to emergency officials, is likely to become worse before it gets better.

Although winds only achieved tropical storm-force in the region, they came in unusual wind patterns.  The National Weather Service issued high wind warnings as far west as Rochester in western New York in part because trees are unaccustomed to strong northerly winds and were much more likely to be damaged or uprooted from them.  Nearly one million New Yorkers, mostly east of Syracuse, remain without electricity this afternoon.  Some will wait 1-2 weeks before service can be restored in the most difficult-to-reach areas.

Service Credits Are Yours, But Only If You Ask

Telecommunications providers are notorious for providing service credits only when customers ask for them.  If your service was interrupted by the storm, make a note of when the outage occurred and remember to contact your provider for a service credit after service is restored.  In virtually all cases, providers will not automatically reimburse you for lost service and you will lose the chance to request it 30 days after service is back up and running.

If you’ve been affected by a serious storm, consider tree removal Raleigh NC to clean up the debris.

Verizon Wireless encourages its customers to create a natural disaster response plan that includes the use of cell phones to stay in touch with loved ones and employers.  (4 minutes)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced more than $103 million in federal grants and loans to 16 states to help expand broadband, or high-speed, Internet access to unserved and underserved areas of rural America:

The providers involved offer a mix of technology, ranging from traditional cable companies like Inter Mountain Cable and Crystal Broadband Networks — to Wireless ISPs like Wichita Online, serving southwestern Oklahoma, to rural telephone company DSL provided by companies like Hemingford Cooperative Telephone and the Coleman County Telephone Cooperative.

What most rural providers have in common are much-higher prices for slower speed service over what urban customers pay, and a regular need for resources to update capacity and the number of potential customers served.  Most of these grants and loans are expected to cover some of those costs.

Ouch. Rural Americans pay substantially higher prices for broadband service than city-dwellers do. This is current pricing from Inter Mountain Cable, which serves parts of rural Kentucky.

'Hurricane Verizon' blows more money out of customers' pockets.

Verizon Communications customers who use the ISP’s personal storage space for running small personal websites have run into a problem: Verizon has banned customers using FTP to manage and update those pages.

Customers are being told the file transfer protocol has been suspended for “security reasons,” but those sobering concerns magically disappear if you agree to pay Verizon an additional $6-10 a month for a “pro hosting plan,” which restores FTP access.

Even more irritating, Verizon customers already pay the company $20 a year for 100MB of space that used to be manageable by FTP, but no more.

“Verizon claims they sent an e-mail notifying me they were shutting off FTP access on Aug. 21, but I never received it,” says Jim Elger, a Verizon DSL customer in Watertown, N.Y.  “I discovered this over the weekend when I couldn’t connect to their FTP server any longer.”

Elger thought Hurricane Irene might have been responsible, but now blames ‘Hurricane Verizon’ for trying to suck more money from his wallet.

“It’s bad enough we pay $20 for what many ISP’s include for free, but now that is rendered money blown out the door because the company wants you to pay for an ‘upgraded’ plan just to update your website,” Elger says.  “There are people in Verizon’s forums who can’t even capture what is already online to move their content somewhere else.”

Elger called Verizon and was also told the change was implemented for security reasons, an explanation he questions.

“How does the security problem go away when you hand over another six dollars a month?”

Residents in greater Philadelphia overpaid Comcast more than $875 million dollars, thanks to the cable company’s alleged anti-competitive practice of building regional cable clusters that scare would-be competitors away.

Those are the primary allegations in a 2003 class action case brought against the country’s largest cable operator — a lawsuit Comcast has appealed, so far unsuccessfully.  A three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit on Tuesday delivered the latest blow to the cable company, denying Comcast’s efforts to get the case thrown out.

At issue is the cable industry’s practice of acquiring and trading cable systems with each another to create regional “clusters,” — large geographic areas all served by the same cable provider — and what that practice does to cable pricing.  All the rage in the late 1990s and early 2000s, cable clustering largely put an end to multiple cable systems serving individual cities.  In the 1980s and 90s, it was not uncommon to find up to four different cable systems serving different sections of a community.  Philadelphia was no different, served by more than a half-dozen cable operators in the greater metropolitan region and surrounding counties.

In the late 1990s, the Court noted Comcast launched a major shopping spree to consolidate the entire area around one cable provider: Comcast.  The lawsuit claims subscribers have paid the price ever since.

Comcast’s Cable Swaps and Acquisitions

• April 1998: Comcast acquires 27,000 Marcus Cable customers in Harrington, Delaware, which is part of the Philadelphia Designated Market Area (DMA);
• June 1999: Comcast acquires 79,000 Greater Philadelphia Cablevision customers in the city of Philadelphia;
• January 2000: Comcast acquires 1.1 million Lenfest Communications customers in Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties in Pennsylvania, and New Castle County in Delaware;
• January 2000: Comcast acquires 212,000 Garden State Cablevision customers in Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, and Salem counties in New Jersey, which is part of the Philadelphia DMA;
• December 2000: Comcast acquires 770,000 AT&T Cable customers in Eastern Pennsylvania (Berks and Bucks counties) and New Jersey, in return for trading 700,000 Comcast customers in Chicago with AT&T (Comcast would later win them back by acquiring AT&T Cable itself);
• January 2001: Comcast acquires 464,000 subscribers in Philadelphia and nearby communities in New Jersey in a subscriber trade with Adelphia Communications Corp., wherein Comcast obtained cable systems and approximately 464,000 subscribers located primarily in the Philadelphia area and adjacent New Jersey areas.  In return, Comcast turns over its subscribers in Palm Beach, Florida and Los Angeles, California to Adelphia.
• April 2001: Comcast wins another 595,000 subscribers in the region in a trade with AT&T Cable;
• August 2006: Adelphia implodes and cable companies including Time Warner Cable and Comcast pick over what’s left.  Comcast manages to pick up another 41,000 former Adelphia customers that were originally headed to Time Warner in yet another subscriber swap;
• August 2007: Comcast acquires Patriot Media and its 81,000 New Jersey customers located within the Philadelphia DMA.

When the acquisitions and transfers were complete, Comcast managed to build a major empire in southeastern Pennsylvania.  In 1998, the company had just a 23.9 percent market share in the Philadelphia DMA.  Comcast managed to control 77.8 percent of the market by 2002.  Despite competition from satellite television and one struggling cable competitor — RCN, Comcast still controlled nearly 70 percent of the market as late as 2007.

Who Pays for the Shopping Spree?  Comcast Customers, Say Plaintiffs

Six Comcast customers upset with the relentless rate increases that came with Comcast’s acquisitions joined forces and filed suit against Comcast in 2003.  The plaintiffs charged Comcast with anti-competitive business practices and violations of the Sherman Act for building a monopoly presence in the market that also helped keep competitors at bay.

One plaintiff’s expert was able to calculate what he called “a conservative estimate” of how much Comcast has effectively overcharged customers in Philadelphia by preventing effective competition: $875,576,662.

That figure was hotly disputed in Comcast’s court appeal, but last Tuesday the Court rejected Comcast’s arguments.  In fact, the Court found merit in the formula used to arrive at the amount of overcharging Comcast has allegedly engaged in — in Philadelphia alone.  Comcast’s argument that customers enjoy lower pricing through promotions and other special pricing arrangements fell apart when the Court learned at least 80 percent of Comcast subscribers pay regular “list prices” for service, and the expert who created the ‘wallet damage‘ formula had taken that special pricing into account.

The plaintiffs suggest that had Comcast not engaged in system clustering, one or more of the area’s cable systems might have decided to compete against the other cable systems.  In that scenario, customers might have been able to choose from Comcast, Lenfest Communications, Marcus Cable, and/or Patriot Cable for cable service, resulting in increased price competition.  While there have been instances of traditional cable operators overbuilding into each other’s territories, those instances have been rare — a point Comcast made in an effort to have the case tossed out.  Comcast’s case is that the majority of Americans are served by a single cable provider, but that’s not a problem because the industry faces increasing competition from satellite TV providers and, as of late, large phone companies.

But the Court found the reason for this lack of competition could be, as plaintiffs argue, the successful outcome of the alleged anti-competitive, cable system-clustering strategy.

As an example, a railway monopoly from 100 years ago could claim it isn’t economical for more than one railroad to serve a particular community, but that isn’t a problem because other forms of transportation exist to move goods and people.  That argument would be based on a market reality created by the railway industry, which routinely bought out the competition through withering price wars, cross-subsidized by higher prices in other monopoly markets. The end effect was a shrinking number of competitive markets, increasing profits (and prices), and a strong deterrent for would-be competitors to enter the business.

A similar case has been brought by the plaintiffs struggling with high cable bills.  In their eyes, cable customers paid for the Monopoly game board on which cable properties were traded or sold.  When the shopping spree was complete, higher rates were the result, indefinitely.

The Case of RCN — Programming Denied

Most traditional cable companies do not compete in areas already served by another cable company.  It’s a tradition some liken to a cartel, where companies carve up territories and enjoy the market benefits afforded by a lack of competition.  But this model is also considered standard operating procedure by Wall Street and other private investors, who fear all-0ut price wars cutting revenues and destroying value and profits.  But there are some companies whose entire mission is to challenge this economic model: the cable overbuilders.  The business plan of the cable overbuilder is to challenge the status quo and deliver service where cable TV already exists and do so profitably.

One such overbuilder is RCN Corporation, which delivers competitive cable service in Boston, Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, and parts of the Lehigh Valley.  RCN began operations in 1996 in Boston, just before the cable industry’s quest for clusters went into hyper-drive.  Their plans to compete have been challenged by the ever-increasing concentration in the cable-TV marketplace ever since, and the company has had a particularly tough time attracting subscribers in the Philadelphia area.  Much of RCN’s service area these days is limited to multi-dwelling units like high-rise condos and apartments, where wiring costs are lower.

One of the most effective ways to keep customers from switching to a competitor is to develop or maintain exclusive programming rights.  If a Comcast customer discovered his favorite sporting events could only be seen with a Comcast subscription, that could be a deal-breaker for signing up with RCN.  Before the 1992 Cable Act, the cable industry which owned and controlled a number of popular cable networks refused to sell those channels to would-be competitors (or charged unreasonable prices for access).

When this lawsuit was filed in 2003, RCN found itself locked out of Comcast’s SportsNet, just one of several regional sports networks that cable operators withheld from satellite and cable competitors.  That’s because the 1992 Cable Act included a loophole: it applied only to networks distributed on satellite.  Several regional sports channels were not on satellite, so they could, and were, legally withheld from competitors like RCN.  That loophole was finally closed by the FCC last summer.  But for more than a decade, RCN had to convince sports fans to sign up for a competing service that didn’t have one of the most popular sports channels on the lineup.

Satellite competitors DirecTV and DISH Network were in the same boat, and the legal case recognizes the impact: satellite TV competition in Philadelphia has a below-average percentage of the market, when compared to other cities.

Plaintiffs argued RCN never had fair access to programming, leaving them to compete with one hand tied behind their back.  Even worse, they allege Comcast compelled local contractors into non-compete contracts agreeing not to work for any Comcast competitor, and signing customers up to unusually long contract terms with hefty cancellation penalties in RCN service areas.

All of these accusations were deemed credible by the Court, much to the objection of Comcast, which argued RCN was in serious financial distress and would never be a strongly viable competitor in Philadelphia.  Last week’s Court decision found that ironic, accepting that RCN’s present condition could be, as plaintiffs allege, the result of the anti-competitive, unfair business practices Comcast is charged with.

The evidence on the record “demonstrates that Comcast’s alleged clustering conduct indeed could have reduced competition, raised barriers to market entry [by other competitors] … and resulted in higher cable prices to all of its subscribers in the Philadelphia Designated Market Area,” the court ruled.

Comcast: A Competitive Marketplace Begins And Ends Only at Home

One of the most-disputed elements in the case is determining how much, if any, damage was done to consumers in the greater Philadelphia area.  Much of the plaintiffs’ case rests on pricing anomalies found in the Philadelphia region, where customers are alleged to be paying significantly higher prices for cable service and not enjoying a significant amount of competition.  To build that case, lawyers measured cable rates and available competitors in the various counties in and around the city of Philadelphia.

This is also critical for determining the size of the “class” in the class action lawsuit.  The larger the class, the greater risk of significant damages if the court rules against the cable company (or if the case reaches a settlement.)  Plaintiffs claim their case should include all cable television customers who subscribe or subscribed at any time since December 1, 1999, to the present to video programming services (other than solely to basic cable services) from Comcast, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates in Comcast‘s Philadelphia cluster.

They specifically defined the cluster as “areas covered by Comcast‘s cable franchises, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, located in the following counties: Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Kent and New Castle, Delaware; and Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer and Salem, New Jersey.”

Comcast counters the geographic market is exactly the size of one, single household.  They argue that subscribers can only choose among video providers serving that customer’s specific home, so what cable competition exists in other counties or communities isn’t relevant.

The side effect of such an argument would be the end of a class action case, since the class size would be reduced from a number in the millions to just one, requiring every impacted consumer to file their own case.

The three judge panel was wholly unimpressed with Comcast’s argument, throwing it out and allowing the case to proceed.

While AT&T and Verizon invest billions in their increasingly profitable wireless services, their landline networks have languished across the country.  While that can inconvenience customers who may wait days or longer for service to be restored, one New York family is blaming Verizon for the death of their mother, after the company left their all-important phone line unrepaired for days, even after being notified of its critical need for medical reasons.  Now the family is asking, what does it take to get Verizon to repair basic phone service these days?  WABC has this exclusive report of one family’s anguish.  (4 minutes)

Thanks to a divided 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, customers trying to seek relief from unilateral fees and surcharges suddenly showing up on their Verizon cell phone bills will have to pursue individual arbitration claims with the cell phone company instead of joining forces in a class arbitration claim.

That Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, is turning out to benefit Verizon Wireless as much as AT&T, because the Supreme Court found merit in contracts obligating customers to seek individual arbitration to settle differences while forbidding customers from pursuing organized legal action.

Now the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has reversed an earlier ruling, reinstating a 2008 decision by U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson that delivered victory to Verizon Wireless.

At issue was Verizon’s decision in October 2005 to unilaterally impose an “administrative fee” of $0.40 and/or $0.70, as part of the monthly charges for each Verizon cell phone line.  Customers upset with the new fees felt they violated the principle that, as part of their two year contracts, Verizon would deliver a fixed-price service.  The cell phone company has since implemented a variety of fees and surcharges on customers that are pocketed by Verizon, regardless of the contract price.

All Verizon Wireless customers are obligated by contract to challenge any terms and conditions they disagree with through an arbitrator of Verizon’s choosing, at a place also chosen by the company.  That means Verizon could place an arbitrator on retention in a city potentially thousands of miles away, and demand the customer make their case there, to an arbitrator whose livelihood ultimately depends on retainer fees paid by the company.  Few consumers would make such a journey to protest a fee that amounts to less than $10 a year per line.

Lawyers Keith Litman and Robert Wachtel, representing Verizon customers, decided to try a different approach — a class action arbitration.  The two attorneys would represent potentially millions of impacted customers themselves, making any travel cost concerns incidental, and providing a seasoned challenge before arbitrators, who would also hear counter-arguments from Verizon’s own legal team.

Verizon’s attorneys argued such class action arbitration was specifically forbidden in the company’s contract with customers.  Normally, a judge might decide at that point a customer agreeing to those terms and conditions was effectively up the creek.  But a series of legal challenges in circuit courts opened the door to invalidating those terms.

Litman and Wachtel argued that because the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Del. (2006), has held that an arbitration provision in a consumer contract that precludes class arbitration of low-value claims is unconscionable under New Jersey law, similarly, the arbitration provision in Verizon’s contract is also unenforceable.

Unfortunately for the two attorneys representing consumers, the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court effectively overrode that case, leaving Verizon on top with Judge Wolfson’s 2008 decision.

Wolfson

Wolfson’s written ruling on the case seemed unimpressed with claims that Verizon’s fees were unconscionable:

In this case, Plaintiffs are customers who chose Verizon as their wireless provider at least four years ago and continue to use Verizon today. They signed the customer Agreement with the arbitration clause and agreed to subsequent terms of service as added by Verizon. Plaintiffs do not allege that they did not understand the Agreement that they voluntarily entered into nor do they allege fraud or misrepresentation. The parties agreed “to settle [their] disputes . . . only by arbitration,” and the “agreement doesn’t permit class arbitration.” Therefore, [federal law] requires this Court to uphold the arbitration provision within Plaintiffs’ service Agreement.

But Judge Wolfson did recognize the effective impact of her decision:

“The Court recognizes the many hardships visited upon plaintiffs, such as in this case, based upon this ruling. First, it creates the opportunity for a different result depending on whether the case is brought in federal or state court. Second, it is also clear that compelling individual arbitration in this case will be tantamount to ending the Plaintiffs’ pursuit of their claims, as there is very little possibility that these Plaintiffs or any other plaintiff will pursue individual arbitration for claims that amount only to several dollars in damages. While this outcome is harsh, this Court is bound by Third Circuit precedent.”

Lately, Verizon Wireless customers have been seeking other forms of relief when Verizon unilaterally changes or implements new fees or surcharges.  Many are invoking the “materially adverse” clause found in Verizon’s terms and conditions, which theoretically allows customers to exit their contracts penalty-free if they do not agree to the changes Verizon is imposing on customers.  Verizon Wireless appears to be increasingly aggressive in fighting these claims, too, refusing to allow customers to leave without stiff early termination fees.  That may become the subject of another lawsuit at some point in the future.

Small town media, always eager for an easy story to tell, is notorious for rewriting industry press releases and calling it news, but when a major “news radio” station in Chicago does it, it’s simply sloppy and embarrassing.

WBBM Radio decided AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile, announced several months ago, has suddenly become newsworthy.  Why?  Because AT&T has been sending out press releases touting the merger’s benefits for Illinois customers.

News that a merger with America’s fourth largest wireless carrier would suddenly bring widespread 4G coverage to communities large and small has become catnip for lazy reporters who never bother to research the claims.  Even AT&T’s attorneys are on a different page from AT&T’s public relations department.

But the extent of WBBM’s investigation by reporter Alex Degman began and ended with a proposed AT&T coverage map:

A coverage map of the proposed network coverage shows most of the state would indeed be covered, minus large sections of the Shawnee National Forest in southeastern Illinois and scattered pockets in west central Illinois. The merger is expected to be approved in January.

Degman’s report was little more than a disguised advertisement for AT&T, completely reliant on the company’s claims and ignorant of the fact AT&T would bring 4G service to anyone in WBBM’s local coverage area with or without T-Mobile.

Apparently there was no time for merger opponents.

WBBM Reporter Alex Degman “covers” the impact of the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile on Illinois. August 22, 2011. (1 minute)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Listener Seth Weintraub was not impressed.

“Are you kidding?” Weintraub wrote. “Is AT&T writing your copy now?”

“How about reporting on the FCC document filings instead of unsubstantiated claims made by the company,” writes listener Patrick Dailey. “This is what is wrong with media today.”

The telecommunications industry better not take a tip from some Texas power companies that have found new ways to increase profits: charging customers a penalty when they do not use enough electricity during the month.  Imagine if broadband providers with Internet Overcharging schemes followed suit.

After Texas deregulated electric utilities, an increasing number of companies are using their freedom to find new, creative ways to tack on additional fees and surcharges that might normally be considered the cost of doing business.

CenterPoint Energy, a Fortune 500 corporation providing service in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas would like to introduce you to its Minimum Usage Penalty – a $9.95 fee applied to Texans caught using too little electricity from the company.

While most utility companies set a basic customer charge applicable to everyone, which covers the cost of your electric meter, power lines and their upkeep, billing, and other administrative expenses, many Texas power companies are billing consumers a monthly fee for conserving too much electricity.

The concept flies in the face of common sense, especially as the state contends with dozens of 100+ degree summer days and pleas from utilities for customers to cut back on energy use.  But if some do, especially low-consumption customers in apartments or those who maintain part-time residences, they’ll pay a penalty for doing so.

The Texas Electricity Ratings Blog found more than a dozen power companies with similar policies, with penalties as high as $12.96 for using less than 1,000 kWh per month:

Ambit Energy: $9.99 for less than 1000 kWh per month
Amigo Energy: Depending on the plan it is $9.95 of $6.95 for less than 1000 kWh per month
Bounce Energy: $4.95 for less than 1000 kWh per month for almost all of their plans, except intro plans are $6.96 per month for less than 1000 kWh.
Champion Energy: $4.95 for less than 500 kWh per month
Cirro Energy: $5.25 for less than 1000 kWh per month
Direct Energy: I couldn’t find a Monthly Fee in their Terms of Service or EFLs
Dynowatt: $6.95 for less than 1000 kWh per month
First Choice Power: $5 for less than 650 kWh per month, plus a $4.95 base charge
GEXA Energy: Seems to simply use a sliding rate per plan for different usage w/o a minimum charge
Green Mountain Energy: Didn’t seem to see any minimum usage charge in the EFL or Terms of Service
Mega Energy: $12.96 for less than 1000 kWh per month
MX Energy: Seems to simply use a sliding rate per plan for different usage w/o minimum charge
Reliant Energy: $9.95 for less than 800 kWh per month
Southwest Power & Light: I didn’t see minimum usage but they had a $7.95 monthly meter fee.
Spark Energy: $8.99 for less than 1000 kWh per month
StarTex Power: $4.99 for less than 500 kWh per month
Tara Energy: $6.95 for less than 500 kWh per month
Texas Power: $10.00 for less than 1000 kWh per month
TXU Energy: TXU uses a base $4.95 charge and sliding rates for less or greater than 1000 kWh, per plan.

KTRK in Houston provides surprising information about Texas utility usage-based-billing rates — power companies will charge you a penalty for not consuming enough electricity.  Better hope broadband providers angling for UBB don’t catch on.  (3 minutes)