On January 27, 1878 America witnessed the establishment of its first telephone exchange run by the District Telephone Company of New Haven, Conn. In addition to bringing the first phone service to Connecticut, District Telephone also published the world’s first telephone directory.  By the early 1920s, when America’s Bell System was taking hold in most cities, the company — now named Southern New England Telephone, had spread its network across most of the state.  SNET prospered for decades until Southwestern Bell (SBC) bought the company in 1998.  SBC rechristened itself AT&T in 2005.  It has been all downhill from there for many customers.

Today, AT&T Connecticut is the dominant phone company across the state, an unusual anomaly in the northeast, presided over mostly by Verizon Communications.  They also dominate the inbox at the office of the state Attorney General, who receives regular complaints about the phone company’s performance in the state:

In 2008, AT&T began installing refrigerator-sized cabinets on telephone poles and in right-of-way locations, often within feet of homes.  These Video Ready Access Devices (VRADs) connect AT&T’s U-verse fiber to copper wire telephone lines going to individual customers.  Dubbed “lawn refrigerators” by critics, the boxes are not only an unsightly 4-6 feet tall, they are also often noisy because of internal cooling fans.  More than one has burst into flames, thanks to malfunctioning power backup batteries found inside.

The perfect addition to any front yard... new boxes from AT&T. (Courtesy: Stopthebox.org)

AT&T’s often careless placement alienated residents, who complained they impeded views of turning drivers and pedestrians navigating sidewalks.  Many suggested the boxes reduced property values, especially when installed in front yards without screening or shrubbery to partly hide them from view.

One Trumbull man took his ire all the way to the state Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC), eventually winning noise dampening and two AT&T-supplied pine trees for the box in his backyard.

By 2009, AT&T was realizing “cost savings” promoted in the deal to merge with SBC — by laying off engineers and technicians responsible for maintaining the company’s landline network.  Service complaints soared, leading then-state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to charge AT&T was cutting accountability for faulty phone lines and flimsy service.  In fact, even as service quality deteriorated, AT&T was lobbying to dispense with service standards altogether, arguing disappointed customers had other choices.

“AT&T is literally hanging up on consumers — slashing jobs and service quality, even after violating state customer service standards,” said Blumenthal. “Our message to the DPUC: don’t let AT&T off the hook. Preserve customer service standards to protect consumers.”

In 2010, service complaints had grown so bad the DPUC finally acted, by fining AT&T the maximum amount possible — $1.2 million.  Blumenthal called it a ringing wake-up call for AT&T.

But by December of last year, AT&T had still not paid the fine, and was caught by Blumenthal trying to negotiate a secret discounted settlement directly with the DPUC, cutting the state Attorney General out of the negotiations.  Blumenthal released a statement blowing the whistle on the reported talks:

Blumenthal

“AT&T’s stalling should be stopped — and the fine enforced,” Blumenthal said. “This multibillion dollar company sought secret negotiations — cutting out my office and the public — to reduce its fine for failing to meet legally required service standards. We halted its concealment; and now AT&T should stop its delay in paying taxpayers the fine that it owes.”

“AT&T was fined for failing consistently, year after year over a decade, to fix phone lines in a timely manner. Failure to repair lines quickly endangers public health and safety, especially seniors and the handicapped for whom a working line is literally a lifeline.”

Richard Blumenthal went on to represent the state in the U.S. Senate, but his successor, George Jepsen is proving to be every bit as tenacious as the state’s new Attorney General.  In March 2011, the DPUC formally imposed a fine of $745,000 on AT&T after negotiations with the phone company, which also required AT&T to meet its service standards.  The fine was reduced because AT&T had previously made refunds and settlements with customers independent of the fine.  The company is appealing it anyway.

“While I believe the full, $1.2 million penalty was warranted, the $745,000 fine sends a clear message to AT&T that it needs to improve its response to out-of-service customers.” Jepsen said. “The company’s responses in the future will be closely monitored.”

But has AT&T fixed the problems in the state of Connecticut?  Judging from press accounts, the answer may be no.

James Bruni, who lives in Hamden, had U-verse installed in his new home back in December, and there has not been a day since when the service has worked properly.

“We have had tech after tech come into our home, each one telling a different story,” Bruni says. “When our TV [picture] freezes, our phone and Internet go out as well.”

When that happens, Bruni’s home alarm, connected to his U-verse phone line, is subject to going off as well.  Many home alarm systems signal an alert if they detect a phone line has gone out of service, a possible sign of a robbery in progress.

Bruni has kept a log of AT&T’s comings-and-goings since December.  He counts 23 technician visits, working both inside and outside of the home.  When calling customer service, he is left on hold for extended periods, and often has to explain his issues repeatedly to technical support each time he calls.  He takes virtually every service AT&T offers, but not for long.

“I have had it with how I have been treated as a customer.”

Former Bridgeport city councilman Gilberto Hernandez proves AT&T doesn’t treat the well-connected any better than anyone else in the state.  Hernandez, now over 75, was so desperate to get repeating service outages fixed, he took his case to the consumer reporter at the Connecticut Post.

Hernandez’s wife is very ill, but he can’t depend on his AT&T landline to summon help in case of an emergency because it is always out of service.

Hernandez says the answer to his problem is a new overhead line installed through the neighborhood.  But AT&T won’t pay for that.  Instead of making an investment to correct long-term problems, the company prefers short-term fixes, which often fail within days. Performing short term repairs may help boost on-time appointment and service repair requirements, but when not followed up with more extensive repairs and upkeep, the problems just keep coming back.

The Post reporter sought an explanation from AT&T about Hernandez’s problems, and the phone company forwarded the matter to the company’s hired gun — the public relations firm of Fleishman-Hillard.  After a delay, the firm told the reporter Hernandez signed off on AT&T’s repairs… four days before Hernandez called to report there was a problem.

The reporter summarized AT&T’s performance in Connecticut as spotty:

During the hearing [over AT&T’s quality of service], AT&T defended its record, saying it already paid people off for the rotten service by not charging them for the time their phones were out and for crediting them and paying other penalties to the tune of $5.3 million between 2001 and 2008.

The DPUC did find AT&T was particularly good at reducing the number of troubles reported per 100,000 customers and showing up for maintenance appointments. AT&T has met appointments for repair work more than 90 percent of the time. Installation of new service is also a strong suit for AT&T, where it showed up for more than 99 percent of appointments. The company also installed new service within five days of ordering more than 95 percent of the time.

But repairing stuff, at least within 24 hours, is not AT&T’s bag. The company never managed to put better than 72 percent of repairs back in service within 24 hours between 2001 and 2008.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Canada went to the polls last week and managed to deliver a predictable majority for incumbent Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party.  Even Americans ignorant of Canadian politics knew as much, but more than a few with an interest in the country’s telecommunications future were stunned to watch some long-standing parties get handed their hats and ushered out the door into the political wilderness (for at least a few years anyway).

The former mighty Liberal Party — the one that always saw themselves as Canada’s Natural Governing Party, succumbed to an embarrassing election failure.  Leader Michael Ignatieff not only oversaw the loss of more than 40 Liberal seats in the House of Commons, he couldn’t even manage to hold his own, losing his Toronto-area seat in Etobicoke-Lakeshore.  The centrist party won just short of 19 percent of the popular vote.  That’s a long fall for the party of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who won three successive majority governments in 1993, 1997 and 2000.  Much of the party’s strong support in Ontario collapsed, with seats swiped by Conservative and NDP candidates.  The centrist era is evidently over for now.

The Liberals take on telecommunications issues seemed mostly to rely on bashing whatever the Conservatives were doing.  Much of their criticism seemed to delight in Tory missteps and disorganization, particularly over what the party felt was incoherent policy direction for telecom issues.  Unfortunately, presenting a credible digital strategy alternative was not a high priority for the Liberals, and voters fretting about Internet Overcharging saw as much.  The Liberals have also taken flak for being too “establishment” and business friendly in recent years.  As a result, many former Liberal voters took their votes elsewhere.  At least Liberal Industry critic Marc Garneau survived.  He was successful at crystallizing the usage based billing (UBB) issue (and the CRTC’s failure by adopting it) in a way that consumers could easily understand.

The biggest catastrophe befell the Bloc Québécois, the separatist-motivated party in Quebec.  Outside of wins on the Gaspé Peninsula riding that covers the rural regional county municipalities of La Haute-Gaspésie, La Matapédia, Matane and La Mitis, and a few victories around Trois-Rivières, the Bloc was effectively obliterated — left with just four seats.  They had 47. That means the BQ is now too small to even count as an official party in Canada.  Observers say it was Quebec’s version of “throw the bums out,” with a very strong voter sentiment against “the establishment,” which in Quebec means the BQ.  Which Canadian party is the least establishment?  The NDP — and votes flowed in that direction.

On telecom issues, BQ members didn’t seem to appreciate Bell and Videotron’s usage-based-billing policies any more than the rest of Canada, and Bell in particular endured harsh questioning from BQ members at earlier hearings.

But the big news from the election was the sweeping realignment of Opposition to the Tories into the hands of the NDP – Canada’s social-democratic, left-wing New Democratic Party.  The NDP has championed opposition to UBB like no other party in Canada. Digital affairs critic Charlie Angus, who is a brash firebrand against corporate telecom abuse and their lackeys on the CRTC, will get an even larger platform to blast away at anti-consumer policies on offer from the telecom regulator.  Both Angus and the NDP champion Net Neutrality as well.  Two MPs from Toronto, Peggy Nash and Andrew Cash, will also bring strength to the NDP’s policy platform on copyright issues.

The NDP won most of the seats lost by the BQ in Quebec, and also won strongholds in western Ontario, northern British Columbia, Manitoba, and the Western Arctic.  In fact, NDP wins in Quebec were so frenzied, Leader Jack Layton found himself presiding over a dramatically younger caucus, including three McGill University students and a bartender in the heavily francophone riding of Berthier-Maskinonge.  That presents a problem for newly elected Ruth Ellen Brosseau, who so disbelieved she was a serious candidate, she spent the last week of the campaign running around Las Vegas.  She also doesn’t speak French.  A local station that finally reached her in Las Vegas to discuss her win had to abandon the interview when she was unable to offer coherent answers to questions in Quebec’s majority language.  Rosetta Stone is in her near future.  So is a trip to her district — Brosseau told the Trois-Rivières newspaper Le Nouvelliste she has never stepped foot in the riding before.  But she offered the people there seemed nice.

While the NDP doesn’t have a majority, they are sure to call out any Conservative telecommunications policies that appear to be anti-consumer, and turn them into media events — good news for a country whose television media often ignores telecommunications stories.  A five minute interview with Charlie Angus will surely deliver plenty of amusing soundbites for the evening news.

With the strengthened majority of the Conservative Party, it’s a safe bet Canadian telecommunications policies will no longer be stuck in neutral.  There are open questions if Tony Clement, Industry Minister will retain his portfolio or make a move elsewhere in government.  Clement has steadfastly insisted UBB is unacceptable to him and the government.  The upcoming review by the CRTC of their earlier decision is likely to give the government some time to sort things out.  The Conservatives ignored Openmedia.ca’s request for a formal position against UBB, something that does give us pause.

It will remain important for Canadian consumers to keep the pressure on the Tories to act when regulatory bodies like the CRTC fail.  The natural view of the Conservatives in to let the marketplace sort things out, but even they recognize that is an impossibility in a duopoly.  When 500,000 Canadians sign a petition against UBB, standing with big cable and phone companies would be political suicide.

What Conservatives are likely to promote is increased competition.  So far, that has not meant much, especially as consolidation continues in the broadcasting and telecommunications sector.  The Tories best answer for now is throwing doors open to foreign investment in telecommunications, especially in wireless.  That will mean relaxing foreign ownership rules which could help new cell phone entrants — Wind Mobile, Mobilicity and Public Mobile expand their competitive reach.  If the Tories adopt the new rules, even AT&T could move north of the border — but that will bring no relief to Canadians seeking an escape from Internet Overcharging schemes.  Other issues likely to come up — copyright reform legislation, royalty taxes imposed on digital devices, and piracy.

Menino

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has problems with Comcast.  The cable operator, long a dominant player in the city of Boston, has been raising basic cable prices for the last several years, and the mayor’s office has had enough.  This week Menino filed a petition asking the Federal Communications Commission to give the city “emergency control” over the price of basic cable service in Boston — the only control permitted in the largely deregulated cable television marketplace.

Menino waved a study done at the behest of the city showing residents were paying substantially higher prices for the lowest level of service from Comcast.  Basic Service, which includes 37 local over the air stations and a handful of shopping and public access channels costs $15.80 inside city limits — up from $9.05 in 2009.  In nearby Cambridge, the same service costs $7.30 a month.  What’s the difference?  Cable rates are completely deregulated in the city, but smaller communities around Boston lack sufficient meaningful competition, so they are permitted by law to continue regulating rates for the lowest tier: Basic Service.

Now Menino wants those rates brought back under control for the benefit of seniors and low income residents, among the 10,000-15,000 local homes that subscribe to the economy service.

It’s just the latest challenge for Boston, which is among a few cities along the coast of the northeastern United States not benefiting from aggressive broadband and video competition between the phone and cable company.  Just over 200 miles away, metropolitan New York and the bedroom communities in that state, as well as New Jersey and Connecticut, have access to super fast broadband from Verizon FiOS, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, and Comcast — the latter predominately serving greater Philadelphia.

Boston has been bypassed for Verizon FiOS, is ignored by other potential cable competitors, and is stuck with poor-performing cable overbuilder – RCN, which has focused most of its efforts on multi-dwelling apartment and condo units in the city.  The rest of Boston gets ‘take it or leave it’ service from Comcast or DSL from Verizon.

Comcast was quick to respond to Menino’s call for reregulation, noting they provide $5 senior discounts for their cable customers and offer cheaper service than the alternatives — $17.50 a month from RCN or between $30-35 for promotions from DirecTV and DISH Satellite.

Menino’s dealings with telecommunications companies in Boston have run hot and cold for years.  In February, Menino appeared with Comcast senior vice president Steve Hackley to celebrate the opening of a Digital Connectors program for up to 2,800 low income households, paid for by federal stimulus grant money.  Under the program, students who complete computer training courses receive discounted Comcast Internet service for $10.95 a month for the first year and $15.95 for the second year.

Boston

Menino’s office has often been a watchdog when it comes to Comcast fulfilling its franchise obligations, and the city had high hopes competition from RCN would extend a choice of cable providers to most city residents.  That has not happened.

The city’s other telecommunications provider, Verizon, has been in contention with the city for several years.  The trouble began in 2007 when Menino declared war on property tax exemptions for utility poles dating back to 1915, granted to telecom companies like Verizon.  Four years later, that battle has culminated in Verizon literally wiring its fiber optic FiOS service around the city of Boston, refusing to deliver service inside it.

The promise of Verizon fiber has often gone unfulfilled or delayed in many larger cities, subject to bureaucratic delays not experienced in smaller communities.  Some towns and villages in Massachusetts signed franchise agreements just a few months after the company came knocking.

One local official, not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, told Stop the Cap! many communities welcomed Verizon’s fiber optic initiative with open arms.

“You have to understand there is a different mentality among government officials in smaller towns than there is among larger cities,” the official tells us. “In our town of 35,000 when Verizon offered to wire competitive service in our area, we wanted to know where to sign and when they could get started.”

The official says the local government was concerned about making sure Verizon repaired any damage to local infrastructure, abided by local zoning rules, and guaranteed they would not bypass parts of the town.  Negotiators also fought for funding to upgrade equipment for the community’s public access channels, but never went into the negotiations thinking about how much they could extract from the phone company.

“In larger cities in this state, there is a definite mentality that Verizon represents a golden goose ready and willing to lay golden eggs in return for franchise agreements,” the official told us.  “Maybe that is true, but when you are in a smaller town, you recognize the degree of willingness to invest capital to tear out old wires and replace them with fiber is far less here than a city like Boston, which has the potential of many more customers.”

Boston, like other large cities, prepared for protracted negotiations with the phone company over the new fiber service.  At the same time, Mayor Menino infuriated Verizon when he won his property tax lawsuit against the company, collecting $5 million in tax payments that one city official rubbed in.

Ronald W. Rakow, Boston’s commissioner of assessing, told the Boston Globe at the time: “We will actually be sending a bill to them for that later today,’’ Rakow said. “Don’t want to let the ink dry.’’

No Verizon FiOS for Boston

The argument over property taxes may have been the final straw for Verizon FiOS in Boston.  Menino suspected as much, telling the Globe “they insinuated that we weren’t going to get it because of my position on telecommunications.’’

Even then-Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg warned the city during a speech at the Boston College Chief Executives’ Club of Boston “to be careful when considering new taxes or regulations.”

Verizon has since stopped expanding its FiOS service to new cities.

“We knew as the financial crisis grew we were smart to sign up earlier rather than later, because if we didn’t, we would never have the service today,” the local official tells us.  “I have sympathy with local officials in every city trying to do what is best for their residents, but anyone who understands wired telecommunications should know these kinds of projects are exceedingly rare — grab them when you have the chance.”

Just a few years later, the impact of earlier decisions not to hurry competition into the city of Boston and the city’s tax policies have become clear:

• Comcast may be forced to reduce their Basic Service rate, but nothing prevents them from increasing Digital Service cable rates to make up the difference;
• RCN’s network has languished, providing competitive choice to just 15,000 local residents.  Comcast serves at least 170,000;
• Verizon has no plans to offer FiOS in the city indefinitely;
• Menino’s victory claim that Verizon should pay its fair share in property taxes seems less victorious today as the phone company began passing on the new taxes to ratepayers as a “Massachusetts Property Tax Recovery Surcharge” in March, 2010.
• No other competitor has appeared on the horizon willing to take on Comcast in the city of Boston.

With Time Warner Cable’s broadband now running as high as $50 a month for standard, stand-alone service, getting the best deal possible can save you as much as $20 a month off those prices.  Time Warner Cable has been repricing their services to deliver the most value to customers who bundle all of the company’s products into a single package.  But if you don’t want television or telephone service from the cable company, you are going to pay a lot more than your service-bundled-neighbors for Road Runner High Speed Internet.

Stop the Cap! presents our strategy to help broadband-only customers get the best possible prices from Time Warner Cable:

Choose Earthlink

Customers paying Time Warner Cable’s regular prices for broadband service are paying too much.  Time Warner currently charges just short of $50 a month for Standard 10/1Mbps service (speeds are slower in some areas).  That’s up from years of charging $40 a month, slightly higher if you were a broadband-only customer.  But with the help of Earthlink, you can cut that broadband bill to $29.99 a month for the first six months.  Earthlink co-exists with Road Runner, Time Warner Cable’s own broadband service.  With just a few mouse clicks and a quick phone call, Time Warner can switch your regular price Road Runner to Earthlink without any equipment changes.  Billing and service will continue to be provided by Time Warner and the change literally takes less than five minutes by phone.

Earthlink’s broadband service is indistinguishable from Road Runner — same speeds, same level of service, with two exceptions:

• Earthlink does not benefit from PowerBoost, which delivers temporary speed increases during file downloads
• You will forfeit your rr.com e-mail address

We recommend you avoid using ISP-provided e-mail addresses when possible, because they help tie you down to an existing provider.  Instead, sign up for a free e-mail account from Google’s Gmail, or Yahoo! Mail, or any of the dozens of other web-based e-mail providers.  Or, purchase your own domain name from GoDaddy or 1and1, which includes e-mail, and either read it on those sites or forward it to a web-based e-mail provider.  Domain names can be had for under $10 a year and deliver maximum flexibility for those who want the freedom to change Internet providers.

After Six Months, Switch Back to Road Runner

When your Earthlink promotion expires at the end of six months, your price will increase to $41.95 per month.  Just before that happens, switch back to Time Warner Cable’s Road Runner service.  You qualify for new customer pricing promotions.  As of this week, Time Warner Cable in western New York is offering one year at $29.99 per month for 10/1Mbps service.  Other areas may have different pricing promotions.

After the year is up, you can start all over again, heading back to Earthlink for another six month promotional term.  Earthlink has offered its promotional plan for more than two years, and it shows no signs of ending anytime soon.

Promotional Half-Truths

Promotions come and go from Time Warner Cable, so it is wise to check with them often if the $29.99 deal is not currently running in your area.  Start by checking Time Warner Cable’s website, and remember if you are using Earthlink, you will want to select pricing for new customers.  If you find a good price on the website, you may be able to complete your order online.  Otherwise, call your local office and ask about currently running promotions.  Some common ones:

• Road Runner Turbo at 50% off for the first year;
• Road Runner Turbo free for six months;
• Road Runner with wireless router/modem free for six months to one year;
• Road Runner with free installation (especially useful if you want Road Runner Extreme/Wideband service, which carries a pricey installation fee);
• Road Runner for $29.99 for six months;
• Bundled promotions — $99 for all three services, $79 for broadband/cable or broadband/phone

Not every promotion delivers the best deal for customers, and some have been slightly deceptive, such as this speed comparison we found on the cable company’s website this morning:

Our View:

1. Time Warner Cable has been spanked before for their claims about running a “fiber network.”  In fact, their “Fiber Rich Network” is a marketing stretch.  All modern cable systems use fiber optics to help distribute their service into various communities, but coaxial copper cable delivers the signal through neighborhoods to your individual home.  Cable companies still cannot match the broadband speeds available on an all-fiber network.
2. “Powertasking” is a meaningless marketing claim.  Any high speed network will allow the entire family to effectively share a broadband connection.
3. We’re glad to know Time Warner Cable has “massive bandwidth” — more than enough to go around.  We’ll remember that if and when the company ever entertains bringing back their experimental Internet Overcharging scheme they claimed was necessary to pay for equipment upgrades to cope with broadband traffic growth.
4. It would be simpler to install Time Warner’s DOCSIS 3 upgrade if we could do it ourselves, but the cable company currently requires a mandatory service call ($67.98 fee) to install it.
5. Time Warner is being cute comparing their broadband speed with Verizon FiOS.  In fact, FiOS is faster because of what isn’t mentioned here — upstream speeds.  Time Warner tops out at 5Mbps, Verizon offers 20Mbps for uploads.  But Time Warner’s pricing is better at that download speed.  Verizon is more aggressively priced when they bundle services together.  For example, Time Warner’s $99 triple play bundle only offers 10/1Mbps service.  Verizon offers up to 25/25Mbps service for the same price.  Both include phone and television service.

Stop the Cap! readers will recall we pulled the plug on Frontier Communications with the disconnection of our landline back in early February.  After at least 25 years doing business with Rochester Telephone Corporation, later Frontier-Global Crossing, later Frontier-Citizens Communications, we had enough.  Frontier Communications has done nothing of merit for the metropolitan Rochester, N.Y., area since the late 1990s.  Their DSL broadband service is handily beaten in quality, reliability, and price by cable competitor Time Warner Cable, and Frontier’s lack of willingness to invest in something better for their largest service area of nearly one million people in western New York has left us cold.  After a one week experiment with Frontier’s DSL service in 2009, we dropped the service like a hot potato after it achieved an underwhelming 3.1Mbps in the town of Brighton, less than one mile from the Rochester city line.

In early February, our last remaining service — the landline — was transferred to Time Warner Cable.  But even on the way out the door, Frontier continued to disappoint.  After more than two months (and two invoices later), Frontier had still not refunded our credit balance of $26.09.  We’re a long way from Rochester Telephone, a well-regarded predecessor to Frontier which traditionally enclosed a refund check with the final bill.  Frontier makes you wait, and wait, and wait some more, reminding you they owe you money with repetitious “do not pay – credit balance” invoices for long-terminated service.

More than two months after disconnecting service, our refund check finally arrives!

On Monday, the refund check finally arrived, in an obscure envelope resembling one of those PIN reminders banks send you.  After tearing away three sides of perforated strips, there it was — $26.09 from Frontier Communications.

The long wait is hardly a random glitch.  Stop the Cap! covered the story of a Frontier customer in California who waited several months for the phone company to refund her just over $15, and just this evening we heard from one of our regular readers in Rochester disappointed by Frontier’s hardly-rapid refund policy.

The only good news is that we weren’t overbilled on the way out the door, as one Elk Grove, Calif. customer was — to the tune of $680.

To Frontier we say goodbye and good luck (and we’ll be cashing that check faster than you sent it).