FCC Chariman Julius Genachowski spent the day hobnobbing with cable industry executives at the Boston Cable Show. In an interview with CNBC, Genachowski defended usage-based pricing, claiming it will bring lower prices to light users, spur “innovation” and enable consumer choice. Verizon Wireless customers on the cusp of being thrown off their grandfathered unlimited data plans may have a bone to pick with the FCC chairman about how innovative and enabling such policies have on them. Genachowski also suggests his controversial Net Neutrality policy is working, despite recent attempts by Comcast to exempt its content from the company’s usage cap and the wireless industry toying with toll-free data for preferred partners. Genachowski had little to offer consumers in the interview, instead suggesting his deregulatory stance on “innovation” will eventually benefit them.  (5 minutes)

An innovative plan to rent New Yorkers a dime-sized over-the-air antenna housed in a Brooklyn data center to receive and stream local broadcasters could be the end of broadcast TV as we know it, at least if you believe the claims being made by network executives in their high-powered lawsuit.

Aereo, which charges $12 a month to an invitation-only customer base, is the target of serious legal action brought by the major broadcast networks and local TV stations that believe Aereo’s disruptive business model could allow cable operators to avoid paying retransmission consent fees for free, over the air television signals.

Aereo only streams local broadcasters in the New York metropolitan area to residents within viewing range of the signals. The company argues it operates legally because of a time-tested, sound legal principle: the Communications Act of 1934, which offers broadcasters a license to use the public airwaves in return for operating in the public interest. Aereo only rents its tiny antennas to one customer at a time, and provides them with streamed video received by that antenna. The company charges a nominal monthly fee to cover the costs of operating its data center and to cover streaming expenses.

The monthly subscription fee grants viewers access to watch one channel while recording another on a cloud-based DVR “storage locker.” Viewers can watch the signals on just about any device, as long as they are located within the New York metropolitan area. Travelers and those who live outside of the area cannot watch programming or subscribe to the service.

The threat to the nation’s pay television operators and broadcasters is obvious. Over the air television broadcasters increasingly rely on so-called “retransmission consent payments” collected from pay television operators in return for permission to place their signals on the cable, telco, or satellite TV dial. Broadcasters bank on that growing revenue. Pay television providers grudgingly agree to the payments and promptly pass them on to already rate-increase-weary subscribers, who want a way out of paying for hundreds of channels they don’t care to watch.

Aereo's over the air antenna is about the size of a dime.

Aereo breaks the business models of both broadcasters and the cable industry. Cord cutters can get reliable and cheap reception of over-the-air stations without dealing with cumbersome in-home antennas (or paying local cable companies for HD-quality local stations and a DVR box). Goodbye $70 cable-TV bill. Broadcasters also lose every time the local pay television company drops a subscriber. Aereo does not pay retransmission consent fees, nor do their subscribers.

But Aereo is not all bad news for pay television providers. If Aereo can survive the legal onslaught from broadcast interests, nothing stops local cable companies from licensing Aereo technology (or constructing their own system) that would bypass retransmission consent fees as well. That could save cable operators millions.

Ridiculous? Not according to Matt Bond, an executive vice-president at Comcast/NBC who told a New York federal court the risk is real.

“It makes little economic sense for cable systems and satellite broadcasters to continue to pay for NBCU content on a per-subscriber basis when, with a relatively modest investment, they can simply modify their operations to mirror Aereo’s ‘individual antenna’ scheme and retransmit, for free, over-the-air local broadcast programming,” Bond said. “I know for a fact that cable companies have already considered such a model.”

Diller

Broadcasters revile Aereo’s disruptive innovation.  Bond called the service “piracy.” Other network executives say it steals their content and resells it at a profit. Some are even predicting the destruction of broadcast television as we know it if Aereo is found to be legal. Virtually every network is on board for the lawsuit, which seeks an immediate injunction that would shut the service down.

Barry Diller, a veteran broadcast executive, has invested in Aereo and calls the broadcasters’ fears rubbish.

“It’s not the beginning of the destruction of anybody,” Diller told New York Magazine. “TV wasn’t the destruction of the movie business. Television wasn’t the destruction of radio. Cable wasn’t the destruction of broadcast networks. What happens is new alternatives come, and they live alongside whatever existed.”

“You have an antenna that has your name on it, figuratively … and it’s one-to-one. It is not a network,” Diller told members of the Senate Commerce Committee during a recent hearing. “It is a platform for you to simply receive, over the Internet, broadcast signals that are free and to record them and use them on any device that you like.”

Aereo is not a pioneer in the video streaming of over the air signals. iCraveTV launched in 1999 streaming broadcast stations from Buffalo, N.Y. and Ontario, Canada from its home base in Toronto. Broadcasters filed suit and quickly shut the service down. ivi-TV tried a similar venture in 2011 and was also shut down. Even companies experimenting with IPTV technology have run into trouble with some networks that feel threatened by a possible precedent that could be mistakenly established, starting a flood of similar services.

To date, only services that agree to broadcaster sanctions (Slingbox) or who have retransmission consent contracts with providers (such as the cable industry’s TV Everywhere project) have survived, but all have limitations imposed on their functionality that reduce their usefulness to consumers.

Aereo TV was demonstrated by the company CEO Chet Kanojia at the New York Tech Meetup May 9.  (21 minutes)

Can we have 90 seconds of your time, please?

Christopher Mitchell at Community Broadband Networks has put together some compelling evidence about how some of the most advanced broadband networks in the country are being built by and for the communities they ultimately serve.

You may think the best broadband around can be found in the biggest cities in America, but you’d be wrong.

“It may surprise people that these cities in Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana have faster and lower cost access to the Internet than anyone in San Francisco, Seattle, or any other major city,” says Christopher Mitchell, Director of ILSR’s Telecommunications as Commons Initiative. “These publicly owned networks have each created hundreds of jobs and saved millions of dollars.”

The fact is, public broadband is convincing some of the country’s biggest tech companies, including Amazon.com, to locate enormous distribution centers right in the middle of fiber-plentiful cities like Chattanooga, and that means job growth — a lot of it.

Unfortunately, too often today’s “broadband innovation” comes only from how to extract more money for less service from some of America’s top providers. Usage caps, overcrowded networks, and speed constraints conspire to help America lose the global speed race.  But some communities are fighting the good fight themselves, even as big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and CenturyLink are trying to smash those networks through special interest corporate welfare legislation.

Mitchell and his team have assembled the facts: BVU Authority’s OptiNet in Bristol, Virginia; EPB Fiber in Chattanooga, Tennessee; and LUS Fiber in Lafayette, Louisiana — all built by publicly-owned utilities, demonstrate the public sector can deliver effective, innovative service at prices consumers can afford.  Better yet, they’re doing it in places big telecommunications companies decided were unworthy of getting world-class service.

Watch this video and learn why community broadband networks represent America’s most innovative broadband, and then learn more about how you can get involved and support better broadband in your community.  (2 minutes)

Wall Street analysts are predicting the end of free video streaming in the near-term as media and cable companies regain control over online content for themselves.

Cable companies are partnering with content producers to move a growing amount of streamed video content behind paywalls in an effort to protect their core business profits.

The trend is evolving so rapidly, analysts like Laura Martin with Needham & Co. predict the end of free streaming is imminent.  Either customers will pay upfront or use TV Everywhere “authentication platforms” that require evidence of a pay television subscription before being able to watch.

Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford Bernstein, perennially sees cable operators as the most likely winners in the billion-dollar entertainment battle.

“They’re winning the broadband wars,” Moffett says of the cable industry. “Broadband is increasingly the flagship product, not the video distribution business.”

Cable networks and program producers are growing increasingly alarmed at the impact video streaming services like Hulu and Netflix are having on their bottom lines.

Case in point: the fall of Nickelodeon, a popular children’s cable network that used to guarantee high ratings and lucrative ad revenue.  Recently the network has fallen off the ratings cliff.  Some careful analysis found the reason why: Netflix.  Nickelodeon, along with many other cable networks, licensed a number of their series to Netflix for on-demand viewing. In households with young children, parents increasingly choose the on-demand Netflix experience for family viewing over the traditional cable channel.

Moffett

That’s a major problem for content producers and networks, and Moffett quotes industry insiders who predict licensing deals for Netflix streaming will increasingly not be renewed (perhaps at any price) as networks retrench to protect their core business.  What is left will soon be behind paywalls, limited to customers who already subscribe to a pay television service.

That line of thinking is already apparent at Time Warner (Entertainment), Inc., where CEO Jeff Bewkes rarely has a good thing to say about Netflix.  His company refuses to license a significant amount of their content for online streaming because it erodes more profitable viewing elsewhere.

Time Warner only licenses older content and certain “serialized dramas” that have proven difficult to syndicate on traditional broadcast television or cable outlets.  But the company keeps kid shows to itself and its own distribution platforms, like Cartoon Network.

When it does let shows go online, it wants them behind paywalls.

Bewkes applauded Hulu’s recently announced plans to move its service away from free viewing.  Authenticating viewers as pay TV subscribers before they can watch “makes sense” to Bewkes.

“Hulu is moving in the right direction now,” Bewkes said.

Big media companies do not want significant changes to the viewing landscape, where major networks front the costs for the most expensive series, and cable networks commission lower budget programs and repurpose off-network content.  Pay television providers bundle the entire lineup into an enormous package consumers pay to receive. That is the way it will stay if they have their say.

“Just because consumers would rather get individual channels a-la-carte, on-demand, and streamed — only what they want to pay for — [if they think] that is inevitably the way the world if going to evolve, not so fast,” Moffett said. “It may be the way consumers want it and it may be the way technologists want it, but the media companies have a say here.”

“There is no way they are going to voluntarily unbundle themselves,” Moffett said.

Craig Moffett talks about the current state of the media business on Bloomberg News.  He sees trouble ahead for online video streaming, as powerful media and entertainment content distribution companies reposition themselves to better control their content… and the revenue it earns.  The big winners: Cable operators, Hollywood, and major cable networks.  The losers: Consumers, Netflix, Hulu, and free video streaming. (11 minutes)

Laura Martin with Needham & Co. predicts the imminent demise of free video streaming. Media companies can’t handle the loss of control over their programming, and the erosion of viewers (and ad revenue) it brings.  Martin tells Bloomberg News she sees a future of paywalls blocking access to an increasing amount of online video content.  (5 minutes)

KJRH’s newsroom has been spending a lot of time this spring dealing with viewers ripped off by their telecommunications providers.  When Tulsa residents can’t get satisfaction from the local cable or satellite company, they often call Channel 2′s Problem Solvers for help.

DirecTV’s Phantom Gift Cards: The Promised Rebate That You Qualify For, Until You Don’t

Satellite TV companies are increasingly aggressive pitching discounts and rebates to win customers away from traditional cable TV or the phone company’s new IPTV service.  In addition to cheap teaser rates, many providers also sweeten the deal with high value rebate cards for customers signing multi-year service contracts.

Local resident Michael was attracted to DirecTV’s $200 Visa card rebate offer and signed up for satellite service.  Weeks later, with no rebate card in hand, he called the company to find out why, only to be told he did not qualify.  When Michael tried to cancel service because the company didn’t deliver what it promised, the customer service representative informed him he would owe $480 in early cancellation penalties.

DirecTV's fine print: Emphasis ours.

DirecTV initially stonewalled KJRH when they called on Michael’s behalf, eventually claiming he was told he did not qualify for a rebate a week after signing up for service.  But when KJRH asked to hear a recording of the call DirecTV routinely makes when customers sign up for service, they changed their tune.

“The next day, we were told Michael had been given the wrong information about the promotion and he could cancel without that $480 penalty,” the Problem Solvers’ team reports.

Michael says it is important to get everything in writing — including the names of representatives you speak with — because that can make all the difference when a company tries to squeeze out of its own promotional promises.  He’s now an ex-DirecTV customer for free, and decided to watch his favorite shows over local broadcast TV.

KJRH got called by Michael when DirecTV reneged on a $200 rebate offer that locked him into a contract that could cost him $480 to escape.  (2 minutes)

Suddenlink: Suddenly Owe $400 in April for Service You Canceled In January

Tulsa resident Lucille got the shock of her life this month when she opened a bill from Suddenlink charging her $400 for cable service she canceled in early January.

The past due bill came without warning and Lucille says she never received any phone call, bill, or letter notifying her charges were still accumulating on her account.

When she called Suddenlink, they told her that service was never discontinued, and she owed the money.

Lucille may have been born at night, but not last night.

Angered by Suddenlink’s intransigence, she called KJRH for help.  The station went to the top — calling Suddenlink’s corporate headquarters.

In short order, a company representative researching the dispute found Lucille’s cancellation request, as well as the customer service representative who never processed it.

That representative will be attending Customer Service 101 re-training classes, and a company executive called Lucille directly to apologize.

Not only that, a local Tulsa Suddenlink worker arrived with a $100 refund check — the credit balance owed her for service she paid one month ahead to receive.

While both Lucille and Michael benefited from the threat of both companies being portrayed in a bad light on the evening news, an unknown, uncounted number of customers may not win similar satisfaction.

Many customers simply give up pursuing unpaid rebate promotions (or forget about them altogether), and DirecTV’s nearly $500 early termination fee is a strong incentive to grudgingly stay with the satellite provider until your contract runs out.  Lucille, 88 years old, was not going to be intimidated by Suddenlink’s insistence she owed the money (or the implications of being called a past due deadbeat — an especially scandalous notion for older Americans).

Both consumers did something else: they wrote down names, times, and dates of their communications with the companies.  That can go a long way to winning satisfaction. So can filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau, which can usually prompt a contact from a higher-level customer service representative more willing to give a complaining customer the benefit of the doubt.

KJRH got a call from Lucille about an unexpected $400 Suddenlink cable bill for April… for service she canceled in January.  (2 minutes)

AT&T's bill padding.

No other single corporation has spent more trying to influence legislators in the state of California than AT&T.

That conclusion was reached as part of a report by the Los Angeles Times documenting AT&T’s millions in political donations and an army of lobbyists that effectively kill just about every measure the company opposes.

Some of the biggest checks change hands at the two-day Speaker’s Cup, the Godzilla fundraising event for California state Democrats.

During last year’s outing, those who attended were handed goody bags worthy of a Hollywood event.  Free products included a brand new iPad that came with a thank you note co-signed by Assembly Speaker John A. Perez (D-Los Angeles) and AT&T’s top lobbyist — its chief of government relations.

This year’s event, to be held May 5-6, is priced at an average of $12,000 per ticket, but many legislators get free passes for a weekend that includes unlimited golf, wine, gourmet food, body wraps and hot-stone massages.

Come for the golf, but stay for the lobbyist-legislator hobnobbing.

At past events, AT&T’s state president bounded across the green shaking hands with every legislator he could find, and those he couldn’t just had to wait by the mailbox.  Every California legislator is the recipient of at least $1,000 in the form of a campaign contribution.  More important state lawmakers earn much more from the phone company, often tens of thousands of dollars.

But AT&T’s “concierge service” for lawmakers doesn’t stop with golf outings and campaign checks.

AT&T spends more than $14,000 a day on political advocacy in California, and when a lawmaker can’t get tickets to a premiere event, concert, or playoff game, one phone call to an AT&T lobbyist is usually all it takes to remedy the situation.  Hundreds of free tickets were dispensed, according to the Times, for everything from basketball playoffs to Disney on Ice.

Lawmakers deny AT&T’s iPads, cash, and tickets have any influence over their decisionmaking, a view scoffed at by watchdog group Common Cause.

“What these things do is create a sense of gratitude and indebtedness,” Derek Cressman, western states director for Common Cause said. “It’s basic human nature: If someone does something nice for you, you want to do something nice for them.”

The number of favors returned by lawmakers for AT&T’s benefit:

• Bill to force phone companies to be more transparent about cellphone fees: died in legislature;
• Bill to end monthly charges for unlisted numbers: died in legislature, and AT&T and since raised the rates on the service;
• State controls on landline pricing: eliminated
• A bill to help consumers stop unwanted delivery of the Yellow Pages: defeated
• A measure to deregulate cable TV franchising and move it to the state level for the benefit of AT&T U-verse: passed

“Every day I look at a case and I think, well, if they [AT&T] don’t care, we have a good chance,” Denise Mann from the Division of Ratepayer Advocates told the newspaper. But if AT&T’s corporate offices do care, she added, “all we can do is appeal to conscience, reason and the public interest.”

Wolk

That often isn’t enough.  Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) learned that first-hand when she attempted to introduce a measure to curb phone cramming — placing unauthorized charges on consumer phone bills.  The negotiated measure was well on the way to passage in the state legislature until AT&T’s chief operative showed up.

Wolk was amazed to find AT&T’s Bill Devine taking a front row seat in the committee room reserved for legislators and staff to listen to her revised bill.  When she finished, Devine headed for the microphone and delivered his own version of how the bill should be written.

Wolk was out of her league.  A common-sense measure that had received early support from legislators suddenly was in deep trouble as fellow legislators quickly fell in behind Devine’s reinterpretation of the bill.  The bill was put on hold and died a quiet death one week later.

Nobody spends more than AT&T on influencing public officials in the state government.  In the past 13 years, the phone company has spent more than $47 million on lobbying, more than twice the second biggest corporate spender — Edison International — has spent in the state.  That doesn’t include the $1 million+ in political campaign contributions doled out each year.

AT&T takes care of the political advocates who take care of them, as well.

The Times reports that ex-lawmakers, regulators, and staff members of the legislature have all found work in lobbying and public relations firms that include AT&T as a client.

Even non-profit groups who advocate AT&T’s positions on telecommunications issues stand to win.  The company cuts checks to groups like United Way and the Boys and Girls Club who in turn write letters to legislators requesting they support AT&T’s agenda.

Cogeco Cable is cracking down on customers who shop around for a better deal.

After dumping its money-losing Portuguese Cabovisao operation earlier this year, the company is looking to recoup its losses, and Canadian consumers are paying the price.

Chief Executive Louis Audet told investors Cogeco has tightened up promotions, giveaways, and credit standards to weed out bargain hunters and those who ultimately never pay their cable bill.

“If somebody else wants these undesirable customers, they’re theirs for the taking,” Audet said. “There’s too many promotion hoppers out there who are jumping from one supplier to the other.”

Audet

At least 9,000 customers left Cogeco during the second quarter, but that did nothing to hurt Cogeco’s bottom line.  Profits nearly quadrupled to $81.5 million according to Audet, but much of that is due to changes in accounting related to its sold-off Portuguese operation. Closer to home, Cogeco revenue inside Canada grew 12.4% from one year ago to $345.6 million.

Cogeco bought Televisao in 2006 for $465 million.  It sold it in February for just over $59 million.

Cogeco Cable, which serves subscribers in smaller cities and suburbs in Ontario and Quebec, is Canada’s fourth largest cable operator with more than 875,000 cable subscribers. Its biggest competitors are Bell (in Ontario and Quebec) and Telus, which has some landline operations on the Gaspé Peninsula in eastern Quebec.

Most of Cogeco’s promotions and retention offers appeal to customers threatening to take their business to the phone companies. But Audet signaled the promotional pricing had become so aggressive, some customers have learned to bounce back and forth between providers to maintain lower pricing indefinitely.

By tightening up customer promotions, Audet said, the company can achieve a “stable” customer base that pays regular Cogeco prices.

An ad in the Syracuse Post-Standard announces a new invention -- a bow tie antenna design originally designed in the 1950s.

Back in December, Stop the Cap! alerted readers about the “revolutionary razor thin” HDTV antenna Clear-Cast that promised salvation from high cable and satellite TV bills forever.  No article published here has attracted as much attention as that one, drawing more than 40,000 new readers to find out whether the product is truly a scientific breakthrough, or razor thin hype.

Readers have overwhelmingly agreed with our review of the product — it did no better than a $1.49 antenna we bought years earlier from Radio Shack.  But plenty of readers also shared their disappointment with the company advertising Clear-Cast: Canton, Ohio-based Universal Media Syndicate, Inc.

The Canton Regional and Greater West Virginia Better Business Bureau reports it has received “numerous” complaints about Clear-Cast’s marketing practices, refund policies, and advertising claims.  Indeed, we’ve heard from hundreds of readers who assumed we sold the product, and a lot of choice words were included in the angergram e-mails mistakenly sent our way.  Among the claims many found deceptive — Clear-Cast’s marketing stretch that users can receive up to 953 shows (not channels).

Our story has been linked from a number of other websites, so many in fact our review of the product often appears higher in Google’s search rankings than the company selling the product itself.

Clear-Cast’s advertising, designed to look like an authentic newspaper article, has appeared in dozens of newspapers around the country.  Many readers report the price has increased as well, now selling for as much as $50, not including the high-pressure sales tactics to throw in “warranty protection” ($5 buys you two years) and shipping and handling (add another $10).  We found readers who spent $110 for two bow-tie antennas that used to be included with televisions until the 1980s for free.

Our findings: Clear-Cast is an antenna capable of receiving local broadcast channels, but no better or worse than other basic antennas we have tested that sell for $4-9.

Returning the product for a refund also proved nightmarish.  We received a working antenna from one of our readers if we’d agree to return to it the company when we were finished.  It was returned by Priority Mail in late January and was received by them in two business days.  Our reader reports a credit for the return finally posted to his credit card statement this morning — nearly four months later.

The BBB received such a substantial number of complaints, they met with the company in January to discuss their product and how it is sold:

The BBB found that the product does provide channels without cable or satellite. However BBB inquiries indicate that because the headline states that you can get rid of cable or satellite bills, consumers are under the impression that they will receive the same type of channeling as they would with their current provider.

Additionally, there seems to be some confusion as to what is actually being given away for free. In the company ad it states in the headline “Free TV” and “gets rid of cable or satellite bills.” Some inquiries indicate that consumers are under the impression that they will be receiving a free television. Also there seems to be confusion as to how many possible channels a consumer may get when using the ClearCast Digital HDTV. The company ad has indicated that consumers can receive up to 953 “Shows” and up to 53 “channels” depending on where you live.

The company has added disclosures that outline and explain what the consumers are actually getting, however the overall impression of the ad seems to imply differently.

The basic principles of the BBB code of advertisement states that an advertisement as a whole may be misleading although every sentence separately considered is literally true. Consumers are encouraged to read the ad in its entirety and despite deadlines and restrictions, to make sure the company and product is researched prior to purchase in order to make an educated buying decision.

We were not surprised to learn readers were still complaining about Clear-Cast as late as this weekend.

Universal Media Syndicate, which is responsible for its marketing, also pitches:

• the so-called “Amish-Made” Heat Surge Fireplace (all parts from China, with only the wood frame made by “Amish” employees);
• “three hundred ninety-eight dollars and shipping”-portable air conditioner ArcticPro;
• coin peddler World Reserve Monetary Exchange;
• PatentHEALTH, a Canton-based provider of something called “nutraceuticals” that include an FDA warning suggesting their products are “not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.”

Variation on the traditional bow-tie UHF antenna

Our advice for cord cutters remains the same:

Antenna design really has not changed much in 50 years. Here is a good and credible site to explore: http://www.antennaweb.org/Info/AntennaInfo.aspx

Start out with something basic. The best antennas allow you to orient them in different directions towards the signal you want. For UHF, try a set top loop-style antenna that can be rotated (Wal-Mart probably has one). You might also find playing around with some aluminum foil attached behind the antenna or even to it can make some difference. Experiment… a lot, until you find the ideal position for your antenna. If you are thinking of spending $38 on Clear Cast, remember it will probably cost you at least $5 to mail it back if you find it not worth keeping.

For the absolute best results, seriously consider a traditional outdoor or attic antenna. Channel Master and Winegard are quality manufacturers with a long history. They sell online and UPS can deliver it straight to your home already assembled in many cases.

But always hire a professional installer if you are absolutely not certain of your rooftop skills.  A frequent cause of rooftop falls and other accidents used to be attributed to do-it-yourself antenna installers who didn’t appreciate the risks.

WTVQ in Lexington, Kentucky investigated viewer complaints about Clear-Cast and talked with the Better Business Bureau about the company and its marketing tactics.  (3 minutes)

Verizilla

The Communications Workers of America has a new, decidedly low-budget video decrying a spectrum swap between America’s largest cable companies and Verizon Communications that will leave Verizon Wireless stores pitching cable television service from one of Verizon’s cable company competitors.

To the CWA, this is nothing less than the birth of Verizilla, a new monster of a telecommunications company that has capitulated on competing with Big Cable and will instead devour the wireless communications marketplace for itself.  The CWA interest is obvious: many of its employees are responsible for constructing and maintaining Verizon’s now-stalled FiOS fiber to the home network.

From the CWA:

The deal, struck behind the closed doors of America’s corporate boardrooms, poses a threat to consumers and workers. If it goes through, it will be the death knell for competition between cable and telecom companies. Verizon Wireless, Time Warner, Comcast, and other cable companies will become a giant, unregulated quasi-monopoly. Verizon will have no incentive to challenge cable by building FiOS into new areas — meaning less competition, consumer choice, and higher prices for consumers.

Less FiOS also means fewer jobs building, maintaining, servicing, and installing the network. This deal will create a corporate behemoth that will use exclusive quad-play market power to shrink its future workforce.

Worst of all, Verizon Wireless and the cable companies are refusing to come clean about the details of the deal. Even as the FCC and Department of Justice review it, we still don’t know what it means for consumers or workers.

The CWA has so far collected more than 135,000 signatures on its petition opposing the current form of the deal. 

America, say hello to Verizilla, wreaking reduced investment havoc on Verizon service areas across the northeastern United States.  (2 minutes)

Sen. Linda Runbeck, a dues-paying member of ALEC, a corporate funded pressure group that advocates for legislation advantageous to ALEC's corporate sponsors.

Rural Minnesota is facing a full frontal assault on community broadband, courtesy of a state representative so proud of her involvement in a corporate front group, she’s actually a dues-paying member.

State Sen. Linda Runbeck (R-Circle Pines) introduced HF 2695, a bill to prohibit publicly-owned broadband systems:

A bill for an act relating to telecommunications; prohibiting publicly owned broadband systems; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 237.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. [237.201] PUBLICLY OWNED BROADBAND SYSTEM; PROHIBITION.

(a) Notwithstanding section 475.58, subdivision 1, other state law, county ordinance, or any authority granted in a home rule charter, a city or a county may not use tax revenues raised within its jurisdiction or issue debt to construct, acquire, own, or operate, in whole or in part, a system to deliver broadband service.

(b) Notwithstanding sections 123A.21, 123B.61 to 123B.63, 125B.26, and 475.58, subdivision 1, no school district or service cooperative may use state revenues, tax revenues raised within its jurisdiction, or issue debt to construct, acquire, own, or operate, in whole or in part, a system to deliver broadband service.

(c) For the purposes of this section, “broadband service” means a service that allows subscribers to access information from the Internet by means of a physical, terrestrial, non-mobile, or fixed wireless technology.

(d) This section applies to a system to deliver broadband service whose construction begins after the effective date of this section, but does not apply to:

1. the city of Minneapolis, St. Paul, or Duluth; or
2. the maintenance or repair of a system delivering broadband service whose initial construction began before the effective date of this section, provided that the geographical area in which the system delivers broadband service is not expanded as a result of the maintenance or repair.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.

The public broadband option delivers the most bang for the buck, which is why some providers want to see it banned.

Runbeck is a dues-paying member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a secretive corporate front group that lobbies lawmakers to introduce business-friendly legislation, often on the state level.  Runbeck told the Minnesota Independent via email that she paid $100 for a two-year membership in the organization, and says she’s never used ALEC’s “model legislation,” bills that are sometimes written by corporate members of the group and that pop up in state capitols across the country.

But Runbeck’s sudden interest in banning community broadband coincides with similar efforts in states like Georgia and South Carolina backed by big cable and phone companies.  Runbeck’s bill would directly target rural Minnesota, where broadband is the least robust, while exempting Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth (and incumbent phone and cable companies) from the bill’s provisions.  Runbeck’s bill also constrains existing public broadband services from expanding, an important matter for providers still rolling out service to additional neighborhoods in their communities.

Community broadband is already hampered in Minnesota by laws that make such projects difficult to approve and build.  When projects do break ground, incumbent providers do everything possible to throw up roadblocks to delay or abort the progress being made.  In Monticello, TDS Telecom filed nuisance suits against that city’s public broadband network before finally deciding to upgrade service themselves.  Mediacom and Charter, two major Minnesota cable operators, have objected to public broadband projects that don’t even serve communities they’ve wired.

When the networks are in operation, providers like Charter work to undercut them by selling service at prices so low, they’re predatory.  But when competitors are driven out, prices rise… quickly.

 Runbeck’s $100 membership in ALEC is paying dividends, if you are a big incumbent cable or phone company. Consumers will pay much more than that if broadband competition is curtailed.