Despite hundreds of consumer complaints from residents in and around Baton Rouge, the Louisiana Public Service Commission has refused to vote itself the authority to threaten AT&T with a fine up to $175,000 for poor service.

Ignoring an agreement by AT&T to adhere to minimum service standards in return for permission to acquire BellSouth Corporation in 2006, the Commission oddly decided not to enforce those conditions for the protection of AT&T customers.  On Wednesday, in a 3-2 vote, the PSC instead decided to “study” the matter and to further consider whether or not it should impose the same minimum service standards on all of Louisiana’s phone companies.

Commissioner Foster Campbell, of Bossier Parish in northern Louisiana, was stunned by the vote’s results.

“You’re telling AT&T that no matter what they do, no matter how bad their service, we’re not going to do anything?” he asked.

Campbell told his fellow Commissioners he’s worn out after taking large numbers of calls from upset residents in northern Louisiana.

Field also voted for the measure. He serves District 2 in southern-central Louisiana

This is the second time the PSC refused to fine AT&T and instead “study” the matter.  Meanwhile, customer complaints from the Baton Rouge area continue to pour into the PSC offices.

Commissioner Jimmy Field, who represents the Baton Rouge area, told AP his office had been swarmed with consumers complaining about the length of time to get service installed and outages lasting more than 24 hours. Field wanted the PSC to hang the fine over AT&T’s head again.

Complaints against AT&T in Louisiana also involve lengthy waits for repair call appointments, delays in getting new lines installed, missed appointments, and extended service outages.

In just four months last summer, the Commission confirmed 435 of the 778 complaints lodged across the state against AT&T.

Apparently if the problems don’t impact the residents you represent, there isn’t a problem.

The three commissioners that voted against the proposal to potentially fine AT&T said as much.

Skrmetta was the ringleader of the three opposed to potentially fining AT&T. He serves District 1 in east Louisiana

PSC Commissioners Eric Skrmetta, of Metairie, Lambert Boissiere III, of New Orleans, and Clyde Holloway, of Forest Hill said it wasn’t fair to single out just one company.

Skrmetta went further and said he hadn’t seen many complaints in his district, north of Lake Pontchartrain.  But he had received complaints about some of AT&T’s competitors.

Boissiere voted against the measure. He represents District 3 in central Louisiana

Boissiere, despite voting against the proposal, delivered a verbal spanking to the AT&T representative on hand.

“I don’t like your methods. I don’t like your style. I understand where my fellow commissioners are coming from,” Boissiere said.

Debbie Canale, the executive director for regulation for AT&T Louisiana, wasn’t much impressed with Boissiere’s comments.

“Our customers vote with their money and would do business with competitors, if they were unhappy with AT&T,” Canale offered.

Our Take

The three commissioners who voted against giving themselves the power to make their regulatory authority count don’t belong on any Public Service Commission.  Any member of a review board should be concerned first and foremost with the interests of the residents they represent.  The three Louisiana commissioners who voted against the proposal failed to do that.  They should be removed immediately.

The only way to impress telecommunications companies under your review is to have the power to make them pay attention to your rulings.  Stiff fines for repeated violations (and 435 in just four months is an incredible number) will make any company sit up, take notice and fix problems.

Without it, verbal scoldings are little more than lip service to a provider that can afford to be arrogant, especially in rural Louisiana where competitive choice is hardly bountiful.

Canale’s response to the Commission boils down to, “if you don’t like our service, leave.”  If only every Louisiana resident could choose another landline provider if they wanted.

Holloway, the third "no" vote, represents District 4 in western Louisiana

Ignoring a company’s problems in one region of the state virtually guarantees those problems will eventually visit another.  It is short-sighted and inexcusable to ignore hundreds of valid complaints,  condemning residents to more of the same in the future.  Voting (for a second time) to “study” the issue is an insult to residents and little more than a stall tactic.

The Commission’s suggestion it wants to impose regulatory fairness comes despite a clear agreement, less than four years old, that AT&T signed onto as part of its buyout of BellSouth.  It says AT&T will commit to certain standards of service in return for regulatory approval of the merger.  AT&T already sought to renege on that agreement in mid-2009 when it asked the Commission to suspend fines as part of their “study” about regulatory policies across the state.

So much for that hard-fought consumer protection deal.  Evidently, what AT&T agrees to one year is fodder for their lobbyists the next.  If AT&T wants changes, can consumers demand some changes of their own that assure this company will provide quality service?

As usual, AT&T’s regulatory affairs never give consumers a good deal.  For 435 residents of Louisiana, it also gave them no dial tone and a lengthy wait to get it back.

At for Commissioners Skrmetta, Boissiere and Holloway, the only question that should be on the table is whether they represent residents or AT&T Louisiana.

That is something worthy of careful study.

Louisiana's Public Service Commission is made up of five commissioners, each with their own district to represent.

'Don't worry about our new higher prices.'

AT&T is raising its rates for existing DSL customers.  Stop the Cap! reader Bill writes that his latest bill shows a $3 forthcoming rate hike on his “Elite” DSL service just three months after his one year promotional price expired.

“First, there is nothing ‘elite’ about AT&T DSL.  Their promised 6Mbps speed is really closer to 3Mbps, and worse when the weather is bad,” Bill writes. “Second, I’m going to be paying more than $45 for DSL service that my nearby neighbors pay for 10Mbps cable modem service that actually delivers 10Mbps.”

Bill doesn’t have that option unless he pays $8,000 to his local cable company to install a cable down the street to reach his home.

“I called AT&T and tried to downgrade my service,” Bill adds. “When you call and reach the cancellation department, they’ll offer you all sorts of incentives to stay.”

Bill joined many other AT&T customers who have called the company to complain about the price increase during difficult economic times, and many are getting substantial discounts.

“They gave me another year of service for $24.95, the same promotional price I had before, which saves me $20 a month,” Bill notes.

That’s more meaningful than AT&T’s explanations on customer bills.  Broadband Reports quotes from AT&T: “We’re adjusting our pricing for AT&T High Speed Internet service in an effort to better align our pricing structure across our entire service territory, and to better reflect the value of our broadband service. But don’t worry, even with this adjustment, our pricing is still competitive across the industry.”

Some of our readers are not satisfied with that explanation and have been calling customer service looking for discounts, which they’re finding.  Among the offers:

• Six months of service for $24.95 with a promise of an additional six months at that price if you call and ask at the end of the term;
• Six months of service at $22.95 with a similar six month extension when the first six months are up;
• 12 months of service at $22.95.
• 12 months of service at $19.95 (mostly found in Illinois).

Representatives may first offer to “lower your price” by switching you to a lower speed tier.  Refuse that offer and tell them you simply want a lower price.  Customers who have other competitive options (cable) will find AT&T most amenable to offering a lower price.  Those with no other options may find AT&T less willing to negotiate.  In those cases, some of our readers recommend calling back to speak to a different customer service representative.  If you do not have a standard residential phone line along with your DSL service, getting discounts becomes very difficult.

Trying to negotiate takes less than 30 minutes of your time and often brings you more than $200 in savings over the coming year.  That’s worth the effort.

[Stop the Cap! will be closely following Google's experimental gigabit fiber-optic broadband network. We'll be bringing regular updates about the communities applying, the strategies they are using to attract Google's attention, what the competition thinks, and the impact of the project on American broadband.  You can read our earlier community profiles, and news about the project here.]

Topeka wants Google’s fiber experiment so badly, it is willing to rename itself to Google, Kansas — at least for the month of March, anyway.

Mayor Bill Bunten signed a proclamation Monday rechristening the city “Google, Kansas — the capital city of fiber optics.”

It’s all part of a well-organized effort to bring Google’s fiber optics to 122,000 residents living and working in the capital city of Kansas.

Think Big Topeka, a local group started by three people just a few weeks ago, was launched to promote Topeka as a candidate city.  It includes links to e-mail elected officials, complete Google’s online nomination form, and coordinate upcoming events.

It has since collected more than 10,000 Facebook fans and has gotten a big push from most of the local broadcast and print media, which have run more than a dozen stories about the group and the petition to nominate Topeka.  Several stations even have prominent links back to Think Big Topeka’s website.  The city government is also an enthusiastic supporter of the experimental project.

Think Big Topeka knows how to get media attention.  The group recently started running “flash mobs” — events where hundreds of people silently promote the project by suddenly stripping off jackets to uncover T-shirts promoting the Think Big Topeka campaign.  Engineering events that are “made for television” guarantee plenty of attention on the evening news.

The Google “Think Big With a Gig” experiment has excited communities from coast to coast, convinced advanced fiber optic networks will bring new jobs, high technology business, and improved broadband service for both consumers and area businesses.  Many hope the competition will also finally lower prices.

Incumbent providers Cox Cable and AT&T are the largest local providers.

Cox currently offers three broadband tiers — Essential 3 Mbps/384 kbps ($29.99), Preferred 12/1.5 Mbps ($46.99), and Premier 25/2 Mbps ($61.99).

Cox Cable, when asked by KSNT-TV news what they thought about the project brought a response from Kelly Zega, a representative from Cox Communications: “We have always believed competition in the marketplace is a healthy thing, as it leads us all to improve and innovate in ways that ultimately benefit consumers.”

AT&T offers U-verse in selected areas of Topeka, but most areas are still served by AT&T’s traditional DSL service which offers considerably slower speeds — Basic 768/384 kbps ($19.95), Express 1.5 Mbps/384 kbps ($24.95), Pro 3 Mbps/512 kbps ($24.95), or Elite 6 Mbps/768 kbps ($24.95).  (Note the prices for Express, Pro, and Elite are identical — apparently which plan you get depends on what actual speeds AT&T is capable of delivering to your home.)

If Google can deliver faster speeds and lower prices, it’s no surprise thousands of Topekans are excited.

The Topeka Capital-Journal, the community’s daily newspaper, is also promoting the project on its editorial pages:

This excitement is being created by a lot of people who see opportunities to help the city grow and become an even better place to live, and are determined to do everything they can to make it happen.

Evidence of their enthusiasm and dedication was on display Thursday evening when about 500 of them gathered at the Ramada Hotel and Convention Center to talk about plans to revitalize downtown Topeka. Granted, the audience consisted of two different groups, but each had visions that, if fulfilled, would mean great things for our city.

We’ve written recently in support of Think Big Topeka, a group trying to convince Google that Topeka is the place to test an ultrafast Internet connection that promises to provide Internet service about 100 times faster than anything we are working with now. The effort has attracted about 7,875 supporters in a very short time and some of them turned out for Thursday’s meeting, sponsored by Heartland Visioning, to encourage others to jump on the bandwagon.

Supporters of the Google project and those interested in revitalizing downtown meshed during the evening as the discussion flowed between both issues.

Such a confluence of people and organizations with visions, dreams or plans — call them what you will — is a healthy, and welcome, development itself that bodes well for the city’s future. Most good things start with someone’s vision or dream, and they aren’t to be scoffed at or dismissed out of hand.

Think Big Topeka has more than 10,000 fans on its Facebook page

Dreams can come true… if a city actually applies.  The city of Topeka will.

“The city of Topeka welcomes the opportunity to participate in this unique technological experiment, if selected as Google trial community, to benefit our citizens in providing all opportunities to access Internet technologies,” city officials wrote on the city’s Facebook page.

The city’s information technology department has been tasked with working on what they characterized as a very long and detailed application.  Mark Biswell, IT director for Topeka city government, said his department has been hard at work on the application from the moment Google announced the project.

Shawnee county, which includes Topeka, is conducting an online  survey running until Saturday asking residents about their interest in the Google fiber project.  They are seeking input on what kinds of broadband speeds residents actually obtain, instead of relying on marketing promises made by the incumbent providers.  They also want to learn how satisfied residents are with Cox and AT&T.

For Topeka, a city coincidentally working on its own revitalization plan for downtown development, the prospect of Google gigabit fiber could be the crown jewel of a complete city makeover.

KTKA Topeka aired three reports about the Google fiber experiment, including an interview with one of the founders of the Think Big Topeka group. (3 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WIBW Topeka Group Wants Google's Blazingly-Fast Internet To Come To Topeka 2-17-10.flv

WIBW Topeka has these two reports featuring the Think Big Topeka group and how the city government is involved in the project.  (4 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSNT Topeka City Renames Itself Google for March 3-1-10.flv

KSNT Topeka has several reports about the organizing effort, a “flash mob” and Topeka city government’s strong belief in the project.  (6 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Think Big Topeka.flv

Finally, Think Big Topeka has some of its own videos on offer, answering residents’ questions and cheerleading the effort to bring better broadband to Topeka.  (3 minutes)

Sprint, America’s third largest mobile phone and wireless company, has launched a marketing war on its bigger competitors AT&T and Verizon Wireless scoffing at both providers’ $69.99 “unlimited” calling plans.

“Recently AT&T and Verizon have attempted to confuse the marketplace by lowering their pricing to $69.99, but theirs are for calling only,” said Mike Goff, Sprint’s vice president of corporate marketing.

Sprint launched a new advertising campaign this morning featuring CEO Dan Hesse calling out both carriers for effectively confusing consumers.

Hesse explains most people use their cell phones for more than just making and receiving calls.  Hesse said his larger competitors charge substantially more to use data services, and that many of the latest handsets don’t qualify for the special pricing.

Both AT&T and Verizon Wireless have started to require consumers with so-called “smartphones” to sign up with a data plan, adding to the customer’s bill whether or not they actually use such services.  Sprint says their unlimited plan also bundles unlimited web browsing, texting, and GPS navigation for the same price — $69.99, available on any phone they sell.

Sprint has had its hands full trying to stem the ongoing loss of its customers to larger competitors.

AT&T has benefited from an exclusive sales agreement for Apple’s iPhone, while Verizon Wireless achieved the top spot among U.S. carriers for its perceived widest coverage area.  Sprint has neither, and historically poor customer service to boot.

Will Sprint’s new campaign make an impact?

Roger Entner, head of telecom research for the Nielsen Co., told Brandweek that AT&T and Verizon are in such a commanding position in the market right now that they are unlikely to respond to Sprint. “They have the luxury of being able to ignore [Sprint],” said Entner, who noted that both AT&T and Verizon added millions of new subscribers in the fourth quarter, many at Sprint’s expense.

Sprint has managed to at least slow customer defections.  In the last quarter of 2009, Sprint lost 148,000 subscribers.  The previous quarter, the company lost 545,000 customers.

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse explains why their $69.99 plan is “better” than the competition in this new advertisement.

Across AT&T’s service areas, the company has lobbied heavily for telecommunications deregulation that, among other things, makes the printing and distribution of telephone directories optional.  In Alabama, AT&T has filed a request with the state Public Service Commission to end automatic delivery of residential listings, the so-called “White Pages,” to reduce costs.

Because telephone companies earn substantial revenue from advertising in the business listings, the “Yellow Pages” will continue to be printed and dropped on doorsteps across Alabama once a year, whether  customers ask for them or not.

AT&T’s filing with the Alabama PSC explains the reasons for stopping the printed residential listings:

The traditional residential white page telephone book no longer provides the same utility it once did. Based on trials AT&T has recently conducted, it appears that the vast majority of customers neither need nor use these often quite large, bound paper directories delivered to their homes each year. AT&T Alabama thus proposes a directory delivery trial whereby AT&T Alabama would initially deliver the AT&T Real Yellow Pages directory in the Mobile market.

In addition to traditional Yellow Pages listings, that directory would also contain the business white page listings, the Government listings, the customer guide information, and other information required under the Commission’s Rules. Also included will be materials informing customers they can receive a printed white pages directory containing residential listings, which will be mailed at no cost to the customer. Customers tend to find their residential listings in today’s marketplace in a manner other than by using the printed white page directories, so publishing largely unused residential white page books is an inefficient use of environmental resources.

If the proposal is approved, AT&T will offer Alabama residents the option of receiving a printed version of the White Pages or a CD-ROM containing the listings mailed to them at no charge.

AT&T’s telephone directories are already online at AT&T’s RealPagesLive website.

The PSC is expected to consider the matter later today.

That's not all that expanded in Reno... customer's broadband bills faced $1/GB overlimit penalties as part of an Internet Overcharging experiment

AT&T’s experiment with usage caps appears to have lost them loyal customers, and generated numerous complaints against AT&T with the Better Business Bureau regional offices in Nevada and Texas for false advertising.  Now there are indications AT&T will wrap up the entire experiment by this April and “study the results.”  Stop the Cap! reader John wrote to say the nightmare may be ending… for now.  At least one of our readers arguing with intransigent AT&T executives heard likewise.

AT&T last year subjected Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada to a trial forcing a usage allowance between 20-150 gigabytes per month on customers, depending on the type of broadband plan selected.  The proposed overlimit fee?  $1.00 per gigabyte, although problems with their usage meter often kept overlimit fees off customer bills.

We’ve documented the howls of complaints from customers who were falsely sold an “unlimited” plan from AT&T and were never notified, or notified after signing up, of the existence of the Internet Overcharging scheme.  Some customers received express mail letters officially notifying them of the scheme, others received robocalls.  Complaints to the Better Business Bureau usually got any excess charges refunded, and some managed to secure a complete exemption from the usage cap trial, under threat of canceling their accounts.

Stop the Cap! reader Robin is a typical example of a customer who was sold a bill of goods by AT&T’s marketing, only to be punished with the fine print after signing on the dotted line.

“I just got my Express letter in the mail today. My internet was hooked up yesterday – no one ever said anything about any cap! I was in shock when I received the letter in the mail, I have never heard of anything like this. I live about 30 minutes out of Reno. Needless to say I am very very upset and trying to figure out what I am going to do now as I know I will go over the cap every month, I can’t afford that and I can’t afford cable internet at this time either. AT&T sucks and so does their customer service.”

Robin joins many other customers in both communities stuck in a trial that even some AT&T customer service representatives don’t understand.  Robin’s calls to customer service met with claims the account could not be found, and transfers to four different AT&T departments before being able to address the usage cap surprise.

Albert, another reader, was similarly surprised.

“They are fraudulent in every respect. The state attorney should look into this. They say “unlimited” and when you sign up, they send you a little email saying you are screwed [with the trial],” he writes.

AT&T’s response to Albert was essentially “tough cookies” and if he didn’t like it, he could cancel.

Our readers in Beaumont went through the same AT&T Confusion Circus, transferred between departments until someone recognized the caller was a lucky winner of an Internet Overcharging experiment.

In both cities, delivering an effective message of customer contempt with AT&T’s usage cap scheme means filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.  As an accredited member, AT&T values its rating very highly, and targeting complaints to the Bureau forces them to spend time and money to respond.  Better yet, AT&T executives don’t like it one bit, as Albert writes:

“Go to the Southern Nevada Better Business Bureau and file a complaint. I just had the VP of Regional West of AT&T call.  She was pissed that I filed a complaint, and now she has to personally reply. She hung up on me.”

Being an active consumer willing to make your voice heard is an effective way to deliver the message pricing and usage tricks and traps are unacceptable.  Better yet, it annoys providers with dollar signs in their eyes, especially when canceling your service.

Albert was told the nightmare ends April 1st, when the trial wraps up, but now is the time to deliver the final protest AT&T cannot ignore.

April 1st is an ironic date — the first anniversary of  Time Warner Cable sharing word of its own Internet Overcharging experiment in Austin, San Antonio, Greensboro, NC and Rochester, NY. After two weeks of protest, Time Warner Cable shelved their experiment.

If you’re a resident of Reno or Beaumont, it’s critically important to deliver AT&T a message they can understand:

1. Contact the local media and request they publicize the ongoing controversy over Internet Overcharging schemes;
2. Contact your local and federal elected officials and let them know AT&T’s schemes are unacceptable.  See our “Take Action” section regarding support for legislation that would outlaw such schemes;
3. File a detailed complaint with the Better Business Bureau, particularly emphasizing any lack of disclosure about the experiment, bait and switch advertising, ripoff pricing, etc.  Demand an immediate and full refund for any overage charges and a free pass to cancel AT&T services without any early termination fees.
4. Reno residents — contact Barbara DiCianno at 775-334-3112. She is the mayor’s assistant. Call her and ask to have an investigation launched regarding AT&T’s discrimination against Reno with overcharging schemes that put the city at a distinct broadband disadvantage.  Local elected officials can deliver a strong political message to AT&T that such overcharging schemes will lead to robust support for re-regulation of AT&T’s broadband business to protect consumers.
5. Tell AT&T you will never remain a customer of a provider that has Internet Overcharging pricing schemes.  Tell them in no uncertain terms usage limits and usage based billing are unacceptable, and you will cancel service the moment they attempt to implement either.

A year ago, it was the residents of Beaumont and the other cities impacted by Time Warner Cable’s overcharging scheme that fought on the front line to protect every Time Warner Cable customer from facing a tripling of their price for broadband service.  Today it’s Reno and Beaumont fighting for AT&T customers, both inside their own communities and those nationwide.  As Albert reminds us:

“We will be the ones that determine if this continues or stops here and now.”

Americans have got it all wrong.  Their ‘faster is better’ obsession over broadband speed threatens to harm jobs and hurts those looking for work.

Those are the views of Stuart N. Brotman, a senior fellow at the Digital Policy Institute, which calls itself “a vehicle for faculty research that coalesces around the arenas of law, regulation, economics, intellectual property, and technology as these relate to public policy issues of local, state and national interests.”

Brotman argues that while broadband speeds matter, regulators should not be focused on speed as much as considering how broadband can help Americans find jobs.

The Agriculture and Commerce Depts. are tasked with administering $7.2 billion in stimulus funding for broadband by Sept. 30. As they decide where to place the bulk of those funds, which remain unawarded, government officials should show preference to grant and loan applicants that can use broadband to reach displaced workers more quickly.

There also need to be more funds made available to, and a greater focus on, public institutions, such as libraries, community centers, job training facilities, and adult education sites, where broadband spending may have the largest impact on jobs.

Greater broadband competition, which the FCC recognizes is essential to promote more infrastructure development and more varied pricing, also will be helpful. So, too, will be more efficient use of our spectrum resources, particularly those that have been controlled by colleges, schools, and other educational institutions for decades. Those airwaves can be better deployed to deliver high-speed wireless broadband services or leased to private-sector companies offering them.

Large telecommunications providers couldn’t have said it any better.  They have repeatedly argued broadband speeds are besides the point.

Brotman

AT&T last fall wrote the Federal Communications Commission, suggesting residential customers would do fine with broadband speeds that let them “exchange emails, participate in instant messaging, and engage in basic web-browsing.”  For AT&T, speed was less important than setting “a baseline definition of the capabilities needed to support the applications and services Americans must access to participate in the Internet economy—to learn, train for jobs, and work online….”

Verizon echoed AT&T, asking the Commission to retain the current minimum definition of broadband speed at 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream.  That allows them the chance to participate in stimulus funding projects that set the broadband speed bar low, especially in the rural areas Verizon wants to spend less on or is trying to sell-off.

“It would be disruptive and introduce confusion if the Commission were to now create a new and different definition,” Verizon said in its letter to the FCC.

Some of the smaller telecommunications companies also believe broadband speed should be de-emphasized.

Embarq, before completing a merger with CenturyTel (now CenturyLink) told the FCC 1.5Mbps broadband service has become “the most common offering.”  Embarq called that “consistent with an emphasis on economic development and jobs as many important applications, such as video conferencing are arguably possible only with 1.5 Mbps service and above. Any higher speed threshold, however, would risk defining as unserved the large number of satisfied customers of 1.5 Mbps service, which seems implausible.”

Embarq underlines the real reason providers are concerned about broadband speed — they’re not delivering it.  Once legislators or the Commission increases minimum broadband speed levels, many of these companies may find themselves below the threshold, guilty of “just enough speed to scrape by” in non-competitive markets.  That could lead to the prospect of facing federally-funded stimulus projects from others in their service areas, now deemed “unserved” or “underserved.”

Brotman further advocates that funding be focused on those that can deliver results “quickly.”

Embarq would agree with him there as well, stating “funds through grants directly to broadband providers rather than loans or other measures as this will have the greatest and quickest impact in bringing broadband to the hardest-to-serve areas.  …there is no time to wait for complete broadband maps or block grants to states for redistribution.”

Telecommunications companies would also do well by Brotman’s suggestion that federal funding for broadband projects reaching public and community service institutions should be emphasized.  As communities often request companies provide those services at a deep discount or free in return for franchise agreements or other licensing provisions, that’s money AT&T, Verizon, and others need not spend out of their own pockets.  Getting free airwaves swiped from educational institutions to deliver wireless broadband also benefits AT&T and Verizon, who are in that business as well.

When a “policy institute,” “research group,” or other seemingly unaffiliated entity starts rehashing telecommunications industry talking points, it’s time to start digging.

Buried on page five of a PDF file describing the work of the Digital Policy Institute, one comes to a section titled, “DPI Impact and Influence.”  DPI doesn’t list their financial supporters or partnerships as such.  Instead, they call them “national, collaborative relationships.”  Who does DPI collaborate with?

• AT&T
• Embarq
• National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (rural telco lobbyists)
• Verizon
• …among others.

Imagine my surprise.

But that’s not all.  Stuart N. Brotman Communications counts (or counted) among his clients AT&T, Cox Cable, National Cable and Telecommunication Association, and the New England Cable TV Association.

Perhaps Business Week would have done a better service to readers had they also disclosed that.

Fool me once... can't get fooled again!

After astroturfing their way to a statewide video franchising bill in 2007 that made AT&T millions and saved consumers nothing, the company is back again looking for more legislative goodies from the Wisconsin legislature.

This time, they want near-total deregulation of their landline telephone business.  The reason?  Their overpriced, uninspired service has caused 50 percent of their customers to disconnect, preferring to rely on cable “digital phone” products, cell phones, or Voice Over IP services like MagicJack or Vonage.  AT&T has succeeded in driving away so many of their customers, the company is left with just 675,000 landlines in the entire state.

The answer?  Deregulation!

Of course, no regulation prevents AT&T from investing in Wisconsin to win back their former customers with better service at lower prices.

AT&T apparently feels it can’t compete tied down with state consumer protection rules and those ‘oversight pests’ that make sure the company lives up to appropriate service standards.

This time, like last time, your legislative cruise director is Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee), a chief sponsor of Senate Bill 469, along with most of the Republican party in the state legislature.  Plale’s a special case in point — a very grateful recipient of AT&T campaign cash, and he’s no stranger to the phone giant.  In 2007, Plale accepted $1,000, the maximum allowed, from AT&T just a week before introducing the aforementioned statewide video franchising bill.  But the check from AT&T’s PAC is always just the start of the Money Party, because AT&T executives and their spouses also joined the conga line of campaign contributions on their own, spreading around money to Republican and Democratic legislators and the governor.

“It [was] impossible [in 2007] to not see the connection” between AT&T’s campaign cash and its push for the deregulation bill, Mike McCabe, executive director of the non-profit Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which monitors campaign donations, told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

AT&T’s campaign gifts starting in 2007 were also unusual because company officials had not been “particularly active” givers prior to the video franchising bill, McCabe said. “The giving is targeted.”

It still is.

Plale

The Big Money Blog, covering the atrocities committed by Wisconsin legislators hungry for campaign cash, reports that those who played along with AT&T got rewarded handsomely with contributions.  Those who voted no had their contribution checks reduced or cut out altogether.

Of course Plale can’t see the connection, probably because all that money is blocking his view.  He told the newspaper he had no idea why AT&T would max out their contribution to his campaign, despite only getting a fraction of that amount prior to the introduction of the video franchise bill.

Who does he think he’s kidding?

He’s got plenty of nerve to be back asking for more “legislative relief” just a few weeks after the verdict is in for the video franchising “competition” bill that was supposed to save Wisconsin consumers money.  It didn’t.  In fact, the rate increases just kept on coming.  While I’m sure that provided financial relief to AT&T, consumers gained little, if anything.

The reaction among the elected officials who promised all those savings?  Mild surprise and disappointment — a veritable ’shucky darn’ and shrug of the shoulders.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports consumer groups are outraged.

They worried that less regulation could lead to less investment in the companies’ infrastructure.

That’s critical, said Charlie Higley, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, because competitors of AT&T and other local phone companies often rent portions of the network and sell their own services over it.

He said freer oversight would allow local phone companies to hide financial information and “evade appropriate regulation.”

Union representatives also were critical of the legislation, saying that deregulation steadily has driven down employment in the industry.

Despite that, Plale and most of the Republicans are in for a penny, in for a pound with AT&T.

Professor of telecommunications at the University of Wisconsin Barry Orton looked through the notes on how the bill was drafted and discovered all of the requests and language came from telecommunications industries.  There was absolutely zero consumer input in the bill.

Color me surprised.  We’ve watched telecommunications companies in North Carolina custom-write legislation and find elected officials more than happy to get such legislation introduced, especially when campaign contributions smooth the way.  In Kansas, negotiations between legislators and company officials appear to have been conducted in secret, with charges from consumer groups that legislators withheld meeting notes.

Despite the evidence these AT&T-sponsored bills don’t help consumers, Plale carries on.  He argues the bill is needed because telecommunications services are evolving too fast to ’shackle companies with outdated regulations.’

Back for a second helping from the Wisconsin Legislative Buffet

“The 1930s models have outlived its usefulness,” he said.

Perhaps his constituents will think the same about him after their phone bills go up as quickly as their cable bills.

If the legislation doesn’t work out for you, Plale suggests you simply “switch providers.”  “[Customers] can switch to Verizon, or Sprint or Time Warner,” he said after a recent hearing on the measure. “It’s really not an issue anymore.”

Really?  What about the tens of thousands of rural Wisconsin residents that depend on AT&T for telephone and broadband service?  They don’t enjoy good reception from cell phone providers and cable television is an idea that will never come to their rural neighborhoods.  Plale can afford to pay the premium prices cell phone companies charge (AT&T should just give him a free phone).  Many cash-strapped consumers in his state cannot.

Unfortunately for rural Wisconsin, their only choice will likely be AT&T for some time to come.  For those consumers stuck with one choice, it’s not comforting to know Plale’s bill makes sure the state government can’t intervene when your phone line goes out, your bill is wrong, or you can’t get service installed.

Orton warns passing AT&T’s deregulation bill will leave the phone company essentially unregulated.  He told the Badger Herald phone companies would be less accountable under the bill, leaving the state ill-equipped to be sure all rural areas of the state were provided with adequate service.

“The phone companies argue that because of competition, they shouldn’t have regulation anymore,” Orton told the newspaper. “[They also argue] if consumers don’t like their service, they can go to another provider. But the problem is that in some places there aren’t any more providers.”

You really couldn’t do worse as a legislator than to openly admit your hand is wide open to receive AT&T campaign contributions while you advocate against the best interests of your own constituents.  It doesn’t get more shameful than that.

If you live in Wisconsin, get on the phone with your representatives in the State Assembly and Senate and tell them in no uncertain terms you oppose the giveaway deregulation bill for AT&T.  Let them know you’re watching their vote closely, particularly after the 2007 statewide video franchise bill debacle made sure you were left with less money in your wallet than before they passed it.

A Kansas utility board overseeing telecommunications regulation in the state is embroiled in scandal after accusations surfaced that AT&T and the Kansas Corporation Commission, the state’s utility board, met secretly to negotiate a custom-written deregulation bill favoring the telephone company.  Senate Bill 384 would deregulate rural telephone exchanges, increase telephone rates for low income families and seniors, allow AT&T to discontinue printing phone directories, and eliminate price caps on basic residential phone service.

Hearings over the proposed legislation exploded when Steve Rarrick, an attorney with the consumer protection Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board (CURB), told committee members documents requested by the Board were withheld.  Rarrick also revealed extensive private discussions between AT&T and the KCC to work out the deregulation regulation — negotiations that were kept secret.

“It is disturbing that the KCC believes it is appropriate to meet and communicate in secret with a regulated utility about deregulation legislation the regulated utility is sponsoring,” Rarrick told the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Last week, a KCC board member with direct ties to AT&T resigned from the Commission “for personal reasons.”  In addition to his involvement in AT&T’s regulatory reform agenda, KCC commissioner Michael Moffet of Lawrence had the ultimate conflict of interest — an ongoing personal relationship with a female staff member at the Commission.  Staff members prepare recommendations for the Commission regarding matters coming before it.

Moffet worked for politically-connected Public Strategies, a notorious Texas-based astroturfer and corporate lobbying group hired by SBC Communications (now AT&T) back in 2004 when he was appointed to the Commission by then-governor Kathleen Sebelius.  He was reappointed for a second term by current governor Mark Parkinson, but a hold was placed on his Senate confirmation of a second term.  His biography (since deleted from the Kansas government website – linked to Google cached version) softens his former employer considerably, calling Public Strategies “a Texas public affairs consulting company.”

Moffet

Senate Bill 384 is just the latest in a series of AT&T-sponsored initiatives towards deregulating its operations.  The bill’s provisions would gut decades of regulations covering everything from rates to mandates for Internet access.

AT&T Kansas president Dan Jacobsen defended the 15-page bill, claiming it comes in response to increased competition and a 35 percent loss in landlines.  Jacobsen said AT&T cannot competitively respond tied down with years of “obsolete” regulations.  Jacobsen also proposed expanding what constitutes “effective competition,” a provision that can reduce regulatory oversight once achieved.

Jacobsen claims rural residents will receive the same prices that competition generates in urban areas. Unfortunately for rural residents, urban customers traditionally pay higher phone bills because of extended local calling areas.  Most rural residents pay considerably less because their local calling area is generally much smaller, sometimes only covering a handful of nearby communities.

Jacobsen

Jacobsen also said customers will not be forced into bundled service packages, promising that customers seeking a traditional voice landline will always be able to obtain one from AT&T.

The disposition of Senate Bill 384 is itself creating a number of questions.  Despite clear recommendations in an internal KCC staff report recommending new price caps on the state’s phone companies, the Commission took the direct opposite position, seeming to advocate AT&T’s legislation which would dramatically deregulate providers.  The KCC staff found that competition was more rhetoric than reality, and the lack of it has kept Kansans paying higher phone bills in areas that were previously deemed “competitive” and subject to fewer regulations.

Rarrick warned that supporting AT&T’s custom-written bill would result in much higher bills for state residents.  Rarrick pointed to a similar experience in California, where AT&T pushed through a regulatory scheme that tied prices to an inflation index.  The result was massive rate hikes for residential customers — 23 percent last year and another 22 percent this year.  Since 2006, deregulation has cost Californians plenty — a 226 percent increase in the price of directory assistance calls, 85 percent for call waiting and 345 percent to keep your number unlisted in the phone directory.

“Do we want to move with complete price deregulation when you’re seeing some red flags?” he said.

The Capital-Journal reports consumer groups are also opposed to AT&T’s proposal.

“AARP opposes Senate Bill 384 because it will allow telephone companies to raise rates for service for which there is little competition and eliminate necessary consumer protections and fail to provide a positive benefit for consumers,” said Dave Wilson, state president of AARP Kansas.

This isn’t the first time Moffet has openly supported AT&T’s agenda.

At a 2007 hearing about increasing consumer protections and lowering rates for consumers, Moffet turned the hearing upside down when he asked witnesses to testify about the implications of eliminating state regulatory powers over AT&T.  That’s an AT&T legislative favorite – the elimination of state telecommunications regulations in favor of federal regulations and guidelines widely seen as lacking consumer protections and oversight powers.

The proposal would have made it easier for AT&T to cut off past due customers and raise customer rates.

Back then, Rarrick told the Joplin Globe, “If they go through with that, consumers are going to lose protection they’ve had for 24 years. If I were a telephone company and didn’t want to comply with state rules, I’d be thrilled.”

Our Take — An Editorial

Dampier

This latest in a series of controversies continues to shine a spotlight on the perennial problem of the legislative-private sector revolving door.  It should come as little surprise that a paid lobbyist representing the interests of AT&T/SBC would appear amenable to his former employer’s positions on legislative matters coming up for Commission review.  That then-governor Sibelius would appoint such a industry-connected person to the KCC is political malpractice against her fellow Kansans.  It will also come as no surprise if Moffet finds future employment at AT&T or another telecommunications provider or affiliated consultants group.

Consumers must insist those appointed to oversee the state’s regulated businesses not come from those businesses (or their lobbyists or consultants), or at the very least must be required to recuse themselves from anything involving their former employer.  Also demanding rules that forbid an exiting Commissioner from simply flipping hats to become a lobbyist or paid employee at a business he or she formerly oversaw would dramatically slow the spinning of that revolving door.

An intimate relationship with a staff member and Commissioner is extremely serious, and represents more bad judgment.

As for AT&T’s proposed legislation, it belongs in the shredder.  Even disregarding the controversy coming from the upheaval on the Commission, and the accusations of secret negotiations and withheld documents, ordinary consumers can readily identify sections of the bill that will harm their interests and finances.  Here is just a sampling:

• A provision to strip price caps from any telephone company exchange serving 75,000 or more customers;
• A provision that deregulates phone companies exposed to at least two “competitors,” which in this case are defined as one mobile phone company and one unaffiliated telecommunications provider, regardless of whether it offers equivalent levels of service or even reaches your home, such as the case with cable operators who refuse to wire outlying areas, or cell phone companies that deliver no bars to your neighborhood.
• Permission to jack rural customer rates up $1 a month each year starting back in 1997 (an illustration of how long AT&T has been trying to get away with this) until such time as rates are equalized with the average price charged rural customers across Kansas.  If you’re in a high priced service area, there is no provision to roll back your rates, however.  But if your phone company charges considerably less, it can now charge considerably more until it achieves parity with a statewide average cost for rural phone service.
• AT&T’s idea of a give-back to consumers is a provision requiring free touch tone service for residential customers, like you didn’t have that already in nearly every area.
• Any bundled service packages are automatically price-deregulated;
• The California Trick: “On and after July 1, 2008, the local exchange carrier shall be authorized to adjust such rates without commission approval by not more than the percentage increase in the consumer price index for all urban consumers, as officially reported by the bureau of labor statistics of the United States Department of Labor, or its successor index.”
• The definition of what constitutes a “broadband network” in the eyes of AT&T is any connection that exceeds 200kbps.
• No audit is permitted of the company’s requested initial rates, to determine whether that initial pricing is fair and reasonable.
• Starting in 2012, phone companies no longer have to submit pricing and service information (a tariff) to the KCC for services it sells to residential or business customers.  The KCC would no longer be able to easily red flag problematic pricing.
• Beginning July 1st, phone companies can opt out of state regulations as a “local exchange carrier” and instead receive far easier regulatory treatment under “telecommunications carrier” provisions.
• AT&T is relieved of being the “carrier of last resort,” a provision that guarantees every American access to basic telephone service.  When delivered unprofitably, the Universal Service Fund kicks in a payment to ensure phone companies don’t lose money on very rural, difficult-to-reach customers.  Although AT&T claims it will continue to offer voice service to every customer in “its service area,” what defines a service area could eventually exclude exceptionally rural customers.  AT&T also reserves the right to provide voice service “using any technology” which could convert unprofitable wired customers into being served by a basic wireless radio-based system, which could indefinitely keep those customers from receiving high quality phone service, much less obtaining any broadband service.
• Relieve AT&T of the state requirement to provide at least basic, reasonably-priced “dial-up” Internet access.
• AT&T can quit publishing phone directories any time it chooses.

AT&T couldn’t have done better writing Senate Bill 384 themselves.  Oh wait… they did!

Since utility boards in some states seem to have an inherent inability to read and measure the impact of these company-friendly proposals that do absolutely nothing for consumers but enrich providers and free them from pesky oversight and regulatory requirements, consumers must remain forever vigilant and suspicious of these industry-sponsored giveaways, letting their elected state representatives know they recognize funny business when they see it.  If an ordinary consumer can bullet point more than a dozen bad ideas after less than an hour skimming the bill, why can’t those who purport to serve our interests do likewise?

Early reaction and declarations of a price war notwithstanding, yesterday’s “price cuts” from Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility on their unlimited calling plans may bring price increases for many customers who don’t need all of the components of the wireless industry’s Cadillac plans.

First, an explanation of what has changed.

Verizon started the ball rolling announcing a $30 price cut on their Nationwide Unlimited Talk plan.  Formerly $99.99, customers now pay $69.99.  For those with multiple phones on a single account, Verizon’s Nationwide Unlimited Talk Family SharePlan, which includes two lines, now drops to $119.99.  AT&T immediately matched Verizon’s new pricing.  AT&T’s Nation Unlimited plan is now also $69.99 and their shared line plan, FamilyTalk Nation Unlimited is $119.99 and also includes two lines.

Customers currently paying more for a wireless plan with either carrier have to call customer service at either carrier to switch to these plans.  You won’t incur a service charge or extend your existing contract.

Verizon’s plans with unlimited calling and texting features have also dropped in price.  Verizon’s Talk and Text plan costs $89.99 per month, down from $119.99. The Nationwide Unlimited Talk & Text Family SharePlan is now $149.99 per month.  AT&T customers can add unlimited texting to an existing plan, and the rates for doing so remain unchanged — $20 for single phone accounts, $30 for family plan accounts.

However… Here comes the tricks, traps, and gotchas.

For big families with multiple phones, these unlimited plans bring a nasty surprise  — the additional charge for each third, fourth, and fifth line is $49.99 per month for each phone, not the traditional $9.99 each for those on plans with minute allowances.

Those who receive employer-related discounts from the wireless carriers may find those discounts do not apply to the Unlimited talk plans.  Verizon declares all of their unlimited plans are not eligible for any monthly access discounts, period.

AT&T goes out of its way to define what they believe a “voice call” means:

Unlimited voice services are provided primarily for live dialogue between two individuals. If your use of unlimited voice services for conference calling or call forwarding exceeds 750 minutes per month, AT&T may, at its option, terminate your service or change your plan to one with no unlimited usage components. Unlimited voice services may not be used for monitoring services, data transmissions, transmission of broadcasts, transmission of recorded material, or other connections which do not consist of uninterrupted live dialogue between two individuals.

Both AT&T and Verizon Wireless may try and up-sell you on the new data plans when you call to change your plan.  Customers calling both carriers have reported customer service representatives only too willing to provide steep discounts for new handsets or try and convince you to add one of the company’s new data plans.  Take advantage of their offer to upgrade your phone and you’ll likely discover yourself forced to also take a mandatory data plan with it anyway.  The list of phones falling under this trap keeps expanding.

Last year, Verizon started requiring customers choose data plans for the LG EnV Touch and the Samsung Rogue.  With this week’s changes, customers activating LG Chocolate Touch, LG EnV, LG VX8360, Motorola Entice W766, Nokia 7705 Twist, and Samsung Alias2 are now also subject to required data plans.  Don’t expect Verizon Wireless representatives to sell you on their cheapest pay-per-use option, which is priced at $1.99 per megabyte.  I’ve witnessed Verizon Wireless’ store employees pushing Verizon’s new unlimited $29.99 data plan.  If customers complain that’s too much, the $9.99 data plan for a piddly 25MB of access is offered next.  If it looks like a balking customer might cost a sale, the representative will grudgingly sell you pay per use plans.

AT&T customers buying many midrange and “quick-messaging” phones are also going to be required to spend at least $20 a month on a combination of texting and/or data plans. Customers using phones like the LG Neon or the Samsung Propel are affected, and weren’t required to buy data plans before.  Unlimited data for quick-messaging devices is priced at $15 a month.

If you already own a top of the line phone, your data plan charges remain the same.  Verizon customers using Windows Mobile, BlackBerry or Android phones will still pay $29.99 a month for unlimited data.  AT&T customers using the iPhone, BlackBerry, Nokia smartphone or Windows Mobile phones will also pay $29.99 a month for unlimited data.

Customers using wireless broadband with a USB dongle are also unaffected by these changes.  Whether you tether or use the dongle, your usage is limited to 5GB per month.

Existing customers will not be forced to add a data plan until their contract is up for renewal or they upgrade their phones.

Do These Changes Save Customers Money?

For most, the answers is no.  In fact, these pricing changes guarantee higher bills for most customers down the road.

Only a tiny percentage of customers pay for unlimited calling plans because most calling-allowance plans provide generous usage ranges, free night/weekend calling, and often free calling for the most frequently called, or those who are also customers of your wireless carrier.  AT&T even rolls-over unused minutes from month-to-month.  Paying considerably more for an “unlimited” calling option makes little sense for customers not exceeding existing calling allowances.

Changes to calling plans and the features associated with them occur year to year, but many customers prefer to remain on legacy plans that may offer fewer minutes, but have far fewer revenue-enhancing tricks and traps.  Verizon customers hanging on to their America’s Choice II FamilyShare plan offered four years ago maintain 700 minutes of calling time between multiple phones, get free night and weekend calling, and can access data features on their phones that deduct from their airtime allowance instead of billing for data usage charges.  The price?  $60 a month for two lines.  The equivalent plan today is priced at $69.99 for the voice calling plan, plus a mandatory data plan for the increasing number of phone that require one.  Even for phones on a pay-per-use plan, any data access will incur a minimum charge of $1.99 per month.

Where the real money will be made is from overpriced data plans forced on customers whether they want them or not, especially for midrange phones.

Wireless consultant Chetan Sharma estimates fewer than 10 percent of these customers buy data plans.

“There’s a significant number of consumers out there who like the idea of a cutting-edge handset but not of paying for services,” Michael Nelson, founder at Nelson Alpha Research told Business Week.

Wall Street analysts know mandatory data plans will bring exceptional new revenue to both major providers, especially at current prices.

“We could see a move upwards rather than downwards [in revenue/earnings],” says Jennifer Fritzsche, an analyst at Wells Fargo Securities in Chicago, who recommends buying shares of AT&T and Verizon Communications.  “Any kind of voice pricing is very much a commodity,” Fritzsche tells Bloomberg News. “Data is the future.”

JPMorgan is celebrating the potential windfall for both companies and their stocks, estimating just two percent of customers will realize any savings from these pricing changes, while many more will see prices increase.

For Verizon Wireless, it’s party time.  Even though Credit Suisse analyst Jonathan Chaplin estimates the carrier will sacrifice $540 million in voice revenue, they’re likely to gain $630 million in data plan sales. The costs of providing the service are likely to be minimal, considering most of the customers now forced to choose a plan are unlikely to use it much.

“Price War” or “War on Customers”

Still, some on Wall Street are unhappy with the prospects of any pricing changes that head downwards, especially if it sparks a price war.  Some have dumped their wireless stocks as a result of industry trends this year.  But what they may need to worry more about is the prospect of middle class customers switching from traditional postpaid two-year contract plans to prepaid services that offer light and medium mobile users better value with fewer tricks and traps.

As families face the prospect for $100+ monthly bills just for cell phone service, with mandatory data charges likely to add another $20-30 on top of that, will non-power-users stick with AT&T and Verizon for service?  Sprint and T Mobile argue they already offer better value for the hard-hit middle class, but prepaid mobile has garnered new respect for its simpler plans and easy-to-understand billing (and taxes and fees are typically included in the prepaid plan price.)

Formerly the domain of those willing to pay a steep per minute fee and buy top-up cards at convenience stores, today’s prepaid wireless plans often offer month-to-month service with familiar “minute bucket”-allowances or unlimited calling, and operate on Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile’s nationwide networks.

A real price war has broken out in the prepaid wireless sector, with competitors offering unlimited calling plans as low as $40 a month.  Straight Talk, using Verizon Wireless’ network, goes even lower for a simple 1,000 minute/1,000 text/30MB web access plan for $30 a month.  The only downside is a very limited selection of phones.  Regional players like MetroPCS and Cricket offer comparable pricing for their unlimited plans, but their network coverage is a shadow of the larger players, roaming agreements notwithstanding.

As major carriers pile on extra fees for services many customers don’t want, many will find far better values in the prepaid phone marketplace.  Without the two-year contract common on major carriers, customers can switch providers at will, taking their phone number with them in most cases, if one provider doesn’t provide good service.  Best of all, they don’t have to pay for a cancellation fee or take services they don’t want or need just to satisfy AT&T and Verizon’s quest for cash.

WIVB-TV in Buffalo appeared to be drinking the industry’s Kool-Aid about the benefits of new, ‘lower pricing,’ but towards the end even they admitted there are tricks and traps involved. (3 minutes)