Data provided by OSHA statistics

A new joint investigation by Frontline and ProPublica reveals serious lapses in safety for America’s cell tower workers, a career now considered one of the most hazardous and life-threatening in America.

In the last eight years, 50 climbers have died, with many more injured installing and servicing cell sites for AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and T-Mobile. The investigation finds many of these deaths and injuries were preventable, but as America’s profitable cell phone companies outsource jobs to cut-rate subcontractors (and the sub-contractors they often use themselves), safety measures take a back seat to low-ball bidding and profits.

Efforts to hold companies accountable are stymied by the byzantine layers of third party companies hired to do the work, an under-equipped federal safety agency, and difficulty assessing where the responsibility lies when things go wrong.

From ProPublica and Frontline:

From their perch atop the contracting chain, carriers typically set many of the crucial parameters for work on cell sites, including deadlines, pay rates and even technical specifications, down to the exact degree an antenna should be angled. An analysis of cell tower deaths by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” showed that tight timetables and financial pressure often led workers to take fatal shortcuts or to work under unsafe conditions.

“We’ve had a number of situations where we think that accidents were caused by companies trying to meet deadlines and … cutting corners on safety in order to meet those deadlines,” said Jordan Barab, OSHA’s deputy administrator.

But Barab said it’s difficult for the agency to hold cell companies responsible for safety violations involving subcontractors. In most cases, federal officials have interpreted OSHA regulations to mean that carriers can be held accountable only if they exercised direct control over subcontractors’ work or were aware of specific unsafe conditions.

OSHA has not sanctioned cell carriers for safety violations implicated in any subcontractor deaths on cell sites since 2003, a review of agency records by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” found.

Most of OSHA’s enforcement efforts have focused on a transient cast of small subcontractors, though they, too, typically have eluded significant penalties. Over the last nine years, the median fine levied for safety violations linked to a fatal tower accident was $3,750, an analysis by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” showed.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Watch this segment from PBS Frontline exploring ‘Cell Tower Deaths,’ and what can be done to stop them.  (30 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Cell Tower Sneakiness: Rogers Quietly Erects 50-Foot-High Cell Towers in Yards; Too Short to Regulate
2. Cell Tower Wars: Rogers Wants 1,000 New Cell Towers in Edmonton, Says Exasperated Councilman
3. AT&T Cell Towers in Connecticut Damaged by Winter Storm: 152; Verizon Wireless: 0
4. Cell Tower Politics: AT&T’s Alleged Cozy Connections With Civic Groups Upset Community
5. Water Tower Fire Wipes Out WiMAX and Cell Phone Service on Madison, Wisconsin’s West Side

Northern Minnesota's Paul Bunyan Communications is threatened by FCC reforms that they claim favor larger phone companies.

Northern Minnesotans will have to wait longer for broadband after a telephone co-op announced it was suspending its $19 million broadband expansion project because funding is being diverted to more powerful phone companies like AT&T and Verizon — neither of which have any concrete plans to improve rural wired broadband.

Bemidji-based Paul Bunyan Communications, which serves 28,000 hearty Minnesota customers, has been working on broadband expansion for several years, bringing broadband to customers who have known nothing except dial-up since the Internet age began. Only now the project is threatened because of well-intentioned plans by the Federal Communications Commission to expand rural broadband, but in ways that cater primarily to larger phone companies that lobbied heavily for the changes.

At issue is Universal Service Fund reform, which plans to divert an increasing share of the surcharge all telephone customers pay away from rural basic phone service and towards broadband expansion in rural America.

Paul Bunyan used their share of USF funding to scrap the company’s existing, antiquated copper-wire network in favor of fiber optics. Other phone companies have traditionally used the money to keep their existing networks running. Now the independent phone company says large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have successfully changed the rules in their favor, and will now benefit from a larger share of those funds, ostensibly to expand broadband to their rural customers.

Bissonette (Courtesy: MPR)

But neither AT&T or Verizon have shown much interest in rural broadband upgrades. AT&T, which recently announced it concluded its U-verse rollout in larger cities, has also thrown up its hands about how to deal with the “rural broadband problem” and plans no substantial expansion of the company’s DSL service.

Verizon also announced it had largely completed the expansion of FiOS, a fiber to the home service. Verizon has also been discouraging customers from considering its DSL service by limiting it only to customers who also subscribe to landline phone service.

Verizon Wireless has introduced a wireless home broadband replacement that costs considerably more than traditional DSL, starting at $60 a month for up to 10GB of usage.

As a result of the funding changes, Paul Bunyan is reconsidering plans to expand its broadband, phone and television services to Kjenaas and about 4,000 other residents in rural Park Rapids and a township near Grand Rapids.

It may also have to cut workers.

“It’s kind of ironic,” Paul Bunyan’s Brian Bissonette tells Minnesota Public Radio. “The mantra of these changes is to create jobs. It’s killing jobs.”

Minnesota Public Radio explores how rural Minnesota broadband is being threatened by a telecom industry-influenced plan to divert funding to larger companies like AT&T and Verizon for rural broadband expansion those companies have no plans to deliver. (May 23, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

No related stories.

A green light for usage-based billing at Time Warner Cable.

Time Warner Cable announced its intention to expand its usage-based billing system for broadband beyond southern Texas, and is now considering new pricing tiers that will emphasize usage levels over broadband speeds, according to CEO Glenn Britt.

Appearing at the industry-sponsored Cable Show in Boston, Britt suggested consumers can “save money” opting out of unlimited broadband with its Internet Essentials program, which provides a $5 discount for customers who agree to keep their usage below 5GB per month.  The company is now also considering additional service tiers that will offer different usage allowances at progressively higher prices.

Britt insisted the company will retain the option of unlimited use service, but did not specify whether that would be sold at the same price customers currently pay for the cable company’s Internet service.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski yesterday told cable industry executives he supports usage-based pricing, making it unlikely the FCC will intervene if companies substantially raise broadband pricing.

In 2009, consumers and elected officials protested the cable company’s earlier experimental foray into usage pricing which would have tripled the price of unlimited broadband service to $150 a month. The company quickly relented after customers picketed the cable operator in Rochester, N.Y., and Greensboro, N.C., in a campaign coordinated by Stop the Cap! The cities of Austin and San Antonio, Tex. also made their opposition clear through public meetings and input from local officials.

No related stories.

Six college towns will benefit from the nation’s first multi-community broadband gigabit deployment, thanks to $200 million in capital funding to get the broadband networks off the ground.

The Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program leverages local government, universities, private capital, and the public to jointly support and foster the development of new fiber optic networks.

The new program claims it will offer competitively-priced super-fast broadband through projects that will cover neighborhoods of 5,000-10,000 people and communities up to 100,000 in size.  Selection of the six winning communities will be announced between this fall and next spring.

“Gigabit Squared created the Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program to help select Gig.U communities build and test gigabit speed broadband networks with speeds from 100 to 1000 times faster than what Americans have today,” the company said in a statement.

“The United States is behind in the world for Internet speed,” said Mark Ansboury, Gigabit’s president and co-founder. “The goal is to help get us out front for a platform of innovation.”

That platform is certainly not forthcoming from the country’s largest broadband providers, who according to Ansboury have been pulling back on wired infrastructure upgrades in recent years, shifting focus to more profitable wireless networks.

Gigabit Squared defines the next generation of broadband Internet in terms of speed, declaring 2,000Mbps (2Gbps) as the target to achieve.

The winning projects will be sponsored by Gig.U members, which include:

• Arizona State University
• California Institute of Technology
• Case Western Reserve University
• Colorado State University
• Duke University
• Florida State University
• George Mason University
• The Georgia Institute of Technology
• Howard University
• Indiana University
• Michigan State University
• North Carolina State University
• Penn State University
• University of Alaska – Fairbanks
• University of Arizona
• University of Chicago
• University of Colorado – Boulder
• University of Florida
• University of Hawaii
• University of Illinois
• University of Kentucky
• University of Louisville
• University of Maine
• University of Maryland
• University of Michigan
• University of Missouri
• University of Montana
• University of Nebraska – Lincoln
• University of New Mexico
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• University of Oklahoma
• University of South Florida
• University of Virginia
• University of Washington
• Virginia Tech
• Wake Forest University
• West Virginia University

Blair Levin, executive director at Gig.U, believes private American telecom companies will always be constrained from delivering world class broadband comparable to South Korea or Japan because of Wall Street opposition to the investment required to construct them. In the eyes of investors, today’s slower networks, in their estimation, do just fine.

Gig.U believes that they have a solution, at least for towns with a sizable university system that can serve as host of the next generation broadband network:

First, any community that wants its residents to have access to a network that delivers world-leading bandwidth can do so. The barrier is not technology or economics. The barrier is organization; specifically, organizing demand and improved use of underutilized assets, such as rights of way, dark fiber, or in more rural areas, spectrum. The responses identified a multitude of ways local communities can improve the private investment case by lowering investment and risk, and increasing revenues for private players willing to upgrade or build new networks without budget outlays from the local government.

Second, the responses confirmed that university communities have the easiest organizing task and greatest upside. Their density, demographics and demand make the current economics more favorable for an upgrade than other communities. For example, the high percentage of the population in university communities living in multiple dwelling units makes the economics of an upgrade far more favorable than for communities composed largely of single-family homes. With the growing importance of Big Data for the economy and the society, university communities are the natural havens for such enterprises to be born and prosper. Through the Gig.U process, our communities are already exploring more than a half-dozen paths to achieve an upgrade; paths that will be replicable for others and will deliver a major step forward in providing America a strategic broadband advantage.

Outside of a handful of upstart private competitors like California-based Sonic.net, most fiber broadband expansion come from private companies like Google — building an experimental fiber-to-the-home network in Kansas City, community-owned broadband services coordinated by local town or city government, co-op telecommunications companies owned by their subscribers, or municipal utilities.

While those efforts are typically committed to the concept of “universal service” — wiring their entire communities — the Gig.U project targets funding only for networks in and around university campuses.

The New America Foundation builds on Gig.U’s premise in its own recent report, “Universities as Hubs for Next Generation Networks,” which argues affordable expansion of broadband can win community support when the public has the right to also benefit from those networks. While Gig.U’s approach suggests the project will target fiber broadband directly to the homes qualified to receive it, the New America Foundation supports the construction of mesh wireless Wi-Fi networks to keep construction costs low for neighborhoods targeted for service.

An earlier project in Orono and Old Town, Maine may afford a preview of Gig.U’s vision, as that collaboration between the University of Maine and private fiber provider GWI is already in its construction phase. For those lucky enough to live within range of the fiber project, broadband speeds will far exceed what incumbents Time Warner Cable and FairPoint Communications deliver. FairPoint has fought similar projects (and GWI specifically) for years.

Will private providers object to the Gig.U effort to win local governments’ favor in the six cities eventually chosen for service? History suggests the answer will be yes, at least to the extent local cable and phone companies demand the same concessions for easy pole access, reduced pole attachment fees, and easing of zoning restrictions and procedures Gig.U project coordinators expect.

Levin has stressed Gig.U projects are based on university and private funding sources, not taxpayer dollars. That may also limit how much objection commercial providers may be able to raise against the projects.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WABI in Bangor previews the new gigabit broadband network being constructed in Orono and Old Town, Maine.  (2 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Bailiwick of Jersey Residents Getting 1Gbps Broadband; Private Providers Want Less
2. Leverett, Mass. Fed Up With Poor Broadband; Town Wants Its Own Gigabit Network
3. Publicly Owned LUS Fiber Launching Gigabit Broadband for Lafayette, Louisiana
4. Google Fiber Will Have to Wait Until 2011; Applications “Exceeded Our Expectations”
5. How Does Google Fiber’s Gigabit Broadband Change Kansas City?

Phillip "Is this 'innovation' or more 'alienation' from Big Cable" Dampier

While Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski pals around with his cable industry friends at this week’s Cable Show in Boston, observers could not miss the irony of the current FCC chairman nodding in repeated agreement with former FCC chairman Michael Powell, whose bread is now buttered by the industry he used to regulate.

The revolving door remains well-greased at the FCC, with Mr. Powell assuming the role of chief lobbyist for the cable industry’s National Cable and Telecommunications Association (and as convention host) and former commissioner Meredith Attwell-Baker enjoying her new office and high priced position at Comcast Corporation, just months after voting to approve its multi-billion dollar merger with NBC-Universal.

Genachowski’s announcement that he favors “usage-based pricing” as healthy and beneficial for broadband and high-tech industries reflects the view of a man who doesn’t worry about his monthly broadband bill. As long as he works for taxpayers, we’re covering most of those expenses for him.

Former FCC chairman Powell said cable providers want to be able to experiment with pricing broadband by usage. That represents the first step towards monetizing broadband usage, an alarming development for consumers and a welcome one for Wall Street who understands the increased earnings that will bring.

Unfortunately, the unspoken truth is the majority of consumers who endure these “experiments” are unwilling participants. The plan is to transform today’s broadband Internet ecosystem into one checked by usage gauges, rationing, bill shock, and reduced innovation.  The director of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, Blair Levin, recently warned the United States is on the verge of throwing away its leadership in online innovation, distracted trying to cope with a regime of usage limits that will force every developer and content producer to focus primarily on living within the usage allowances providers allow their customers.

“I’d rather be the country that developed fantastic applications that everyone in the world wants to use than the country that only invented data compression technology [to reduce usage],” Levin said.

Genachowski’s performance in Boston displayed a public servant primarily concerned about the business models of the companies he is supposed to oversee.

Genachowski: Abdicating his responsibility to protect the public in favor of the interests of the cable industry.

“Business model innovation is very important,” Genachowski said. “There was a point of view a couple years ago that there was only one permissible pricing model for broadband. I didn’t agree.”

We are still trying to determine what Genachowski is talking about. In fact, providers offer numerous pricing models for broadband service in the United States, almost uniformly around speed-based tiers, which offer customers both a choice in pricing and includes a worry-free usage cap defined by the maximum speed the connection supports.

Broadband providers experimenting with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, speed throttles, and usage-billing only layer an additional profit incentive or cost control measure on top of existing pricing models.  A usage cap limits a customer to a completely arbitrary level of usage a provider determines is sufficient. But such caps can also be used to control over-the-top streaming video by limiting its consumption — an important matter for companies witnessing a decline in cable television customers.  Speed throttles are a punishing reminder to customers who “use too much” they need to ration their usage to avoid being reduced to mind-numbing dial-up speeds until the next billing cycle begins. Usage billing discourages consumers from ever trying new and innovative services that could potentially chew up their allowance and deliver bill shock when overlimit fees appear on the bill.

The industry continues to justify these experiments with wild claims of congestion, which do not prevent companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cox from sponsoring their own online video streaming services which even they admit burn through bandwidth. Others claim customers should pay for what they use, which is exactly what they do today when they write a check to cover their growing monthly bill. Broadband pricing is not falling in the United States, it is rising — even in places where companies claim these pricing schemes are designed to save customers money. The only money saved is that not spent on network improvements companies can now delay by artificially reducing demand.

It’s having your cake and eating it too, and this is one expensive cake.

Comcast is selling broadband service for $40-50 that one research report found only costs them $8 a month to provide. That’s quite a markup, but it never seems to be enough. Now Comcast claims it is ditching its usage cap (it is not), raising usage allowances (by 50GB — four years after introducing a cap the company said it would regularly revisit), and testing a new Internet overlimit usage fee it literally stole from AT&T’s bean counters (a whopping $10 for an anti-granular 50GB).

In my life, all of the trials and experiments I have participated in have been voluntary. But the cable industry (outside of Time Warner Cable, for the moment) has a garlic-to-a-vampire reaction to the concept of “opting out,” and customers are told they will participate and they’ll like it.  Pay for what you use!* (*-at our inflated prices, with a usage limit that was not there yesterday, and an overlimit fee for transgressors that is here today. Does not, under any circumstances, apply to our cable television service.)

No wonder Americans despise cable companies.

Michael Powell, former FCC chairman, is now the host and chief lobbyist for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association's Cable Show in Boston. (Photo courtesy: NCTA)

For some reason, Chairman Genachowski cannot absorb the pocket-picking-potential usage billing offers an industry that is insatiable for enormous profits and faces little competition.

Should consumers be allowed to pay for broadband in different ways?  Sure. Must they be compelled into usage pricing schemes they want no part of? No, but that’s too far into the tall grass for the guy overseeing the FCC and the market players to demand.

Of course, we’ve been here and done this all before.

America’s dinosaur phone companies have been grappling with the mysterious concept of ‘flat-rate envy’ for more than 100 years, and they made billions from delivering it. While the propaganda department at the NCTA conflates broadband usage with water, gas, and electricity, they always avoid comparing broadband with its closest technological relative: the telephone. It gets hard to argue broadband is a precious, limited resource when your local phone company is pelting you with offers for unlimited local and long distance calling plans. Thankfully, a nuclear power plant or “clean coal” isn’t required to generate a high-powered dial tone and telephone call tsunamis are rarely a problem for companies that upgraded networks long ago to keep up with demand. Long distance rates went down and have now become as rare as a rotary dial phone.

In the 20th century, landline telephone companies grappled with how to price their service to consumers.  Businesses paid “tariff” rates which typically amount to 7-10 cents per minute for phone calls. But residential customers, particularly those outside of the largest cities, were offered the opportunity to choose flat-rate local calling service. Customers were also offered measured rate services that either charged a flat rate per call or offered one or two tiers of calling allowances, above which consumers paid for each additional local call.

Consumers given the choice overwhelmingly picked flat-rate service, even in cases where their calling patterns proved they would save money with a measured rate plan.

"All you can eat" pricing is increasingly common with phone service, the closest cousin to broadband.

The concept baffled the economic intelligentsia who wondered why consumers would purposefully pay more for a service than they had to. A series of studies were commissioned to explore the psychology of flat-rate pricing, and the results were consistent: customers wanted the peace of mind a predictable price for service would deliver, and did not want to think twice about using a service out of fear it would increase their monthly bill.

In most cases, flat rate service has delivered a gold mine of profits for companies that offer it. It makes billing simple and delivers consistent financial results. But there occasionally comes a time when the economics of flat-rate service increasingly does not make sense to the company or its shareholders. That typically happens when the costs to provide the service are increasing and the ability to raise flat rates to a new price point is constrained. Neither has been true in any respect for the cable broadband business, where costs to provide the service continue to decline on a per-customer basis and rates have continued to increase for consumers. The other warning sign is when economic projections show an even greater amount of revenue and profits can be earned by measuring and monetizing a service experiencing high growth in usage. Why leave money on the table, Wall Street asks.

That leaves us with companies that used to make plenty of profit charging $50 a month for flat rate broadband, now under pressure to still charge $50, but impose usage limits that reduce costs and set the stage for rapacious profit-taking when customers blow through their usage caps. It also delivers a useful fringe benefit by keeping high bandwidth content companies from entering the marketplace, as consumers fret about their impact on monthly usage allowances. Nothing eats a usage allowance like online video. Limit it and companies can also limit cable-TV cord-cutting.

Fabian Herweg and Konrad Mierendorff at the Department of Economics at the University of Zurich found the economics of flat rate pricing still work well for providers and customers, who clearly prefer unlimited-use pricing:

We developed a model of firm pricing and consumer choice, where consumers are loss averse and uncertain about their own future demand. We showed that loss-averse consumers are biased in favor of flat-rate contracts: a loss-averse consumer may prefer a flat-rate contract to a measured tariff before learning his preferences even though the expected consumption would be cheaper with the measured tariff than with the flat rate. Moreover, the optimal pricing strategy of a monopolistic supplier when consumers are loss averse is analyzed. The optimal two-part tariff is a flat-rate contract if marginal costs are low and if consumers value sufficiently the insurance provided by the flat-rate contract. A flat-rate contract insures a loss-averse consumer against fluctuations in his billing amounts and this insurance is particularly valuable when loss aversion is intense or demand is highly uncertain.

Applied to broadband, Herweg and Mierendorff’s conclusions fit almost perfectly:

1. Consumers often do not understand the measurement units of broadband usage and do not want to learn them (gigabytes, megabytes, etc.)
2. Consumers cannot predict a consistent level of usage demand, leading to disturbing wild fluctuations in billing under usage-based pricing;
3. The peace of mind, or “insurance” factor, gives consumers an expected stable bill for service, which they prefer over unstable usage fees, even if lower than flat rate;
4. Flat rate works in an industry with stable or declining marginal costs. Incremental technology upgrades and falling broadband delivery costs offer the cable industry exceptional profits even at flat-rate prices.

Time Warner Cable (for now) is proposing usage-based pricing as an option, while leaving flat rate broadband a choice on the service menu. But will it last?

Time Warner Cable (so far) is the only cable operator in the country that has announced a usage-based pricing experiment that it claims is completely optional, and will not impact on the broadband rates of current flat rate customers. If this remains the case, the cable operator will have taken the first step to successfully duplicate the pricing model of traditional phone company calling plans, offering price-sensitive light users a measured usage plan and risk-averse customers a flat-rate plan. The unfortunate pressure and temptation to eliminate the flat rate pricing plan remains, however. Company CEO Glenn Britt routinely talks of favoring usage-based pricing and Wall Street continues to pressure the company to exclusively adopt those metered plans to increase profits.

Other cable operators compel customers to adopt both speed and usage-based plans, which often require a customer to either ration usage to avoid an overlimit fee or compel an expensive service upgrade for a more generous allowance.  The result is customers are stuck with plans they do not want that deliver little or no savings and often cost much more.

Why wouldn’t a company sell you a plan you want? Either because they cannot afford to or because they can make a lot more selling you something else. Guess which is true here?

Broadband threatens to not be an American success story if current industry plans to further monetize usage come to fruition. The United States is already falling behind in global broadband rankings. In fact, the countries that lived under congestion and capacity-induced usage limits in the last decade are rapidly moving to discard them altogether, even as providers in this country seek to adopt them. That is an ominous sign that destroys this country’s lead role in online innovation. How will consumers react to tele-medicine, education, and entertainment services of the future that will eat away at your usage allowance?

Even worse, with no evidence of a broadband capacity problem in the United States, Mr. Genachowski’s apparent ignorance of the anti-competitive duopoly’s influence on pricing power is frankly disturbing. Why innovate prices down in a market where most Americans have just one or two choices for service? Economic theory tells us that in the absence of regulatory oversight or additional competition, prices have nowhere to go but up.

To believe otherwise is to consider your local cable operator the guardian angel of your wallet, and just about every American with a cable bill knows that is about as real as the tooth fairy.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Our Concerns About Time Warner Cable’s New Usage-Based Billing
2. Internet Overcharging: “The Best Thing That Ever Happened to the Cable Industry”
3. Wall Street: We Expect Time Warner’s Usage Based Billing to Become the Rule, Not the Exception
4. Shaw Sneakiness: Company Lowers Usage Limits, Hopes Nobody Noticed
5. Consumer Groups Question FCC Chairman’s Endorsement of Internet Overcharging Schemes

CenturyLink wants to repeal a 1993 Idaho rule that requires phone companies to repair service outages within 24 hours or provide one month of service for customers at no charge.

The phone company is lobbying the state Public Utilities Commission to be exempted from the rule that its predecessor Qwest/US West lived under for nearly 20 years. (CenturyLink acquired Qwest.)

CenturyLink says consumers no longer need their phone lines repaired in such a short time, and the company says the rule in hurting their business.

A "temporary" phone cable installed along the top of a wire fence.

“Today, a substantial majority of basic local service customers are not cut off from communication and are not out-of-service in the event their wireline telephone is not working,” the company argued.

Besides, CenturyLink claims, wireless providers are not subject to the same rule, giving them an unfair competitive advantage.

CenturyLink already has a repair exemption for customers who experience service outages due to a natural disaster, during the weekend, or one caused by the customer’s own actions. But now the company wants more, telling the commission most people will simply switch to cell phones while their landline remains out of service.

Despite the apparent contradiction that delivering reduced service is better for consumers, the PUC has been negotiating a compromise, offering to eliminate the service credit requirement and extend the window for repairs to 48 hours.

Before they do, they might want to review CenturyLink’s performance in Arizona, where the company has been caught installing repaired phone lines in pavement cracks and atop public roadways.

The PUC staff questioned claims made by both CenturyLink and Frontier Communications, another phone company that supports the repeal of the repair rules.

“CenturyLink argues that a large percentage of customers now have access to wireless and broadband voice services,” the staff report says. “For CenturyLink’s legacy Qwest customers located in urban areas, this may be true. It may not be true for customers in the very rual parts of CenturyLink’s service territory. When wireline service fails, few, if any, alternative communication services are available in some rural areas.”

The PUC staff also argued the impact on small business in Idaho could be significant. Small businesses still rely overwhelmingly on traditional landline services to conduct business and process credit card payments. Prolonged outages could create significant economic harm for affected customers.

The commission is taking comments on the proposed settlement of Case # CEN-T-12-01 through May 31.

No related stories.

A bizarre allegation (and theft-of-service complaint filed with local police) that a Voice Over IP service provider was “stealing” access to its fiber network has triggered the nation’s first formal Net Neutrality complaint under new Federal Communications Commission rules.

The complaint was triggered after Albany (Ga.)’s Water, Gas, and Light Commission (WG&L) filed a report with Dougherty County Police accusing L2Networks of accessing its municipal fiber network without paying.

If the FCC finds the city was correct asserting its claims of theft of service, other broadband providers could begin assessing additional fees for consumers who wish to access Google, Facebook, and Netflix, according the VoIP provider.

The case could create an “irreversible ripple effect along with the creation of various legal challenges across nearly every national content and application provider,” L2Networks CEO Kraig Beahn said in a press release. “We are deeply concerned that the alleged claim could potentially change the landscape of the national Internet marketplace as residential and commercial consumers see it today.”

Beahn's booking photo

In the view of L2Networks, the incident represents a direct and indisputable violation of the Federal Communications Commission’s Net Neutrality policies, which forbids providers from blocking service or selectively charging competitors additional fees to reach customers.

But details about the background of the complaint remain murky and a series of past disputes between Beahn and other telecommunications companies in Albany may require further exploration by federal officials investigating the complaint.

L2Networks is a small Albany-based telecommunications company that provides service to area businesses. L2Networks CEO Kraig Beahn is, however, well-known to both WG&L and local cable operator Mediacom, both of which have previously raised questions about his business practices.

L2 counters WG&L has made life increasingly difficult for the company since the two entities had a falling out in 2011.  That year, WG&L dumped L2 from its plans to deliver a competitive cable television service for Albany residents after the utility’s general manager accused Beahn of not fulfilling the promises he made with WG&L.

In January 2012, Beahn was arrested and charged with felony theft of service after Mediacom discovered an illegal tap on their cable line, which investigators learned was being used to provide Internet and phone service to L2 customer Adtran Logistics. Beahn called the charges “frivolous” and were part of an ongoing dispute with WG&L.

Mediacom vice president of legal and public affairs Tom Larsen noted the company did learn about the suspicious connection from the local utility.

“When our local team went to investigate, they discovered a Mediacom modem connected to two car batteries that was wired into our cable plant and being used [allegedly by L2] to serve a nearby business,” Larsen said.

No related stories.

Wi-Fi access is about to become a lot more ubiquitous if you happen to buy broadband from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, Bright House Networks, or Cox.  All five companies on Monday announced they will open up their free Wi-Fi hotspots to customers of any of these companies nationwide.

The collaborative agreement extends the authentication platforms cable operators use to verify customer accounts when granting access to services like TV Everywhere — the online video streaming services operated by pay television providers. By sharing basic account information, customers traveling outside of their home cable service area can “roam” on free Wi-Fi networks operated by the other providers.

For example, a Cablevision subscriber who lives on Long Island will be able to access Bright House Networks’ Wi-Fi in central Florida or Time Warner Cable’s growing wireless network in Los Angeles.

The cable industry calls it a back door entry into mobile data, and unlike its existing partnership with Clearwire for WiMAX 4G service, Wi-Fi hotspots are available at no additional charge.

“We believe that Wi-Fi is a superior approach to mobile data,” said Kristin Dolan, head of projects at Cablevision. “Cable providers are best positioned to build the highest-capacity national network offering customers fast and reliable Internet connections when away from their home or business broadband service.”

More than 50,000 Wi-Fi hotspots are to be included in the project, all unified under the name “CableWiFi.”

Eventually, the companies hope to unveil automatic log-ins on the network, regardless of where customers access it.

The industry is aggressively expanding Wi-Fi services to give subscribers another reason to stick with their local cable company. Some may require customers to maintain both a cable-TV subscription and broadband to qualify for the service, others will only require a current broadband account. The free add-on may also make subscribers think twice about canceling service if it means losing access.

Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable already have a deal in place to share their networks in southwestern Connecticut, New York City, parts of New Jersey and Philadelphia.

Cable operators will target high-traffic areas for Wi-Fi expansion — especially public parks, beaches, malls, eateries, stadiums and convention centers.  Don’t expect cable Wi-Fi to be common in residential neighborhoods, and users will have to temper their expectations. Most provide access suitable for web browsing and e-mail, but often have trouble keeping up with streaming video and other high bandwidth services.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. Time Running Out on New England Cable/Phone Customers Seeking Storm-Related Credits
2. Turner Introduces New TV Everywhere App for Everyone But Time Warner Cable Customers
3. Goodnight Irene: Some Customers Will Have to Wait Until October for Restored Internet Service
4. Cablevision Customers: Get $20 Off Your Monthly Bill for 2 Years
5. Cablevision’s Rate Freeze A Lesson for Cable Operators Trying to Raise Rates

Verizon has a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service except in areas where it has existing agreements to deliver service.

Virtually every mayor in the urban centers of upstate New York is accusing Verizon Communications of redlining poor and minority communities when deciding where to provide its fiber-to-the-home service FiOS.

Now they are telling the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice to become more closely involved in reviewing a proposed anti-competitive marketing partnership between the phone company and some of the nation’s largest cable operators.

The mayors are upset that Verizon has chosen to target its limited FiOS network primarily on affluent suburbs surrounding upstate New York city centers.

“Verizon has not built its all-fiber FiOS network in any of our densely-populated cities. Not in Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Binghamton, Kingston, Elmira or Troy,” the mayors say. “Yet, Verizon has expanded its FiOS network to the suburbs ringing Buffalo, Albany, Troy, and Syracuse, as well as many places in the Hudson Valley, and most of downstate New York. As a result, the residents and businesses in our cities are disadvantaged relative to their more affluent suburban neighbors who have access to Verizon’s FiOS, providing competitive choice in high-speed broadband and video services.”

The mayors fear the reduced competition that will come from the marketing partnership between the phone and cable industry will eliminate any pressure on Verizon to expand its fiber optic network into more New York cities. The agreement allows Verizon Wireless customers to received significant bundled discounts when they sign up for cell phone service and a cable package from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, or Bright House Networks. No corresponding discount is available to a Verizon Wireless customer choosing to bundle Verizon FiOS, putting the fiber service at a competitive disadvantage.

“These commercial agreements appear to eliminate any incentive that Verizon might have had to expand its all-fiber network to our high-density urban centers,” the mayors say. “After all, Verizon Wireless, a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, will now be able to sell Time Warner’s video and broadband service as part of their bundled package in our communities.”

That leaves most with Verizon’s DSL service, a product Verizon has been marketing less and less to its customers. The company recently announced it would no longer sell standalone DSL broadband, another point of contention for the mayors.

The mayors are concerned that Verizon’s deteriorating landline network will have profound implications for city centers, where tele-medicine, education, business, and entertainment services will all be left lacking if the fiber network is not extended.

“As you are well aware, high-speed broadband is critical to economic development and job creation, as well as improvements in health care, education, public safety, and civic discourse which is so essential to communal life,” say the mayors. “The economic health of our cities and our upstate region depends upon access to the same first-rate communications infrastructure available to the New York City metropolitan region and the suburban communities that ring our cities.”

The nine mayors are also questioning whether Verizon executives misled them when they claimed Verizon’s strong financial performance would allow the company to reinvest profits into further expansion of its FiOS network. Verizon executives have since admitted the company is indefinitely finished with FiOS expansion, except in areas where it already committed to build the fiber network.

Signing the letter were:

• Byron W. Brown – Mayor, City of Buffalo
• Stephanie A. Miner – Mayor, City of Syracuse
• Gerald D. Jennings – Mayor, City of Albany
• Matthew T. Ryan – Mayor, City of Binghamton
• Shayne R. Gallo – Mayor, City of Kingston
• Susan Skidmore – Mayor, City of Elmira
• Brian Tobin – Mayor, City of Cortland
• Robert Palmieri – Mayor, City of Utica
• Lou Rosamilla – Mayor, City of Troy

(The city of Rochester is served by Frontier Communications, which has no plans to deliver a fiber to the home network within its local service area.)

No related stories.

The southern tier city of Elmira, N.Y. is not too happy with Time Warner Cable’s lock on the local cable market.

“There’s no competition so their prices continue to go up, their offers continue to go down, and the people here with no other competition are just paying and paying and paying,” Elmira mayor Sue Skidmore told WETM News.

Skidmore and the city council intend to hold public hearings on the cable operator’s franchise renewal before they attempt to negotiate the next 10-year agreement with the cable company.

“This gives the public an opportunity to come and say anything good or bad pertaining to the cable franchise,” said city manager John Burin. The public meeting is scheduled for 7pm, June 4, on the second floor of Elmira City Hall.

Skidmore

The city’s ability to press Time Warner Cable for lower rates or service changes are extremely limited, however. Wholesale deregulation of the cable television industry has allowed most cable operators to manage their systems as they see fit, with no obligation to accept the recommendations of local government.

This fact of life was underscored when Time Warner mailed its own vision of what a renewal agreement with the city should look like, prior to any public discussion.

The city’s lawyer, John Ryan Jr., told the Ithaca Journal the company deleted several provisions in the proposed renewal agreement that are part of the current agreement. Ryan intends to speak with the operator about those changes, and wants to see changes in the city’s favor.

In most franchise renewal agreements, the only leverage a city typically has is to threaten not to renew a cable franchise. That is a very rare occurrence, however, because it is exceptionally rare for another major cable provider to agree to service a city that cancels a franchise renewal with another company. In the end, most renewal agreements come down to handshake agreements to correct any long-standing service issues, agree to wire certain unserved areas, and negotiate over public, educational, and government access channels and franchise fees payable to the city.

The local telephone company, Verizon Communications, has no plans to provide its FiOS fiber optic service in the city, leaving customers with the competitive option of landline phone service, DSL, and a contract with Verizon’s satellite TV partner, DirecTV.

Click here to view the embedded video.

WETM in Elmira reports city officials are preparing for franchise renewal discussions with Time Warner Cable. The cable company is already on that, preemptively sending the city a franchise renewal agreement it wrote itself. (1 minute)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

1. HissyFitWatch: Time Warner Franchise Negotiation in Troy Turns Into ‘Caught on Tape’ Shoutfest
2. WETM Elmira: Time Warner Plan Nixed, the Twin Tiers Can Relax
3. Lee, Mass. Resident Wins Battle With Time Warner – Gets $12,000 Install Fee Slashed to $35
4. New Yorkers: If the Cable Guy Arrives Late, You’ll Receive a Free Month of Cable Service
5. Local Governments Discover Cable Deregulation Leaves Them Powerless to Represent Consumers