Mashburn

A veteran Kansas City AT&T employee with more than 40 years of service to the company died Sept. 19 after waiting 15 minutes for his employer to respond to urgent pleas for help and another 30 minutes before the company and emergency responders were finally able to locate him in the suburb of Gladstone.

Questions are being raised about why AT&T waited so long to locate and help Kevin Mashburn, 58, even as an ex-convict sits in a Clay County jail, charged with his murder. AT&T has so far refused to officially answer why dispatchers were not available to receive Mashburn’s frantic pleas for help and why they failed to use built-in GPS tracking equipment installed in company trucks to find Mashburn sooner.

According to official 911 transcripts, an AT&T employee eventually told Gladstone 911 dispatchers she was unable to ping Mashburn’s cellphone to help identify his exact location, telling the dispatcher “we’re not that useful.”

Mashburn was working alone, making overnight repairs to AT&T facilities in the area, when he was attacked by someone with a pry bar. Authorities later charged 35-year old ex-convict Bryan Middlemas with the crime. AT&T offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of a suspect in the case.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSHB Kansas City Son Quicker response time could have saved dads life 9-25-12.mp4[/flv]

KSHB in Kansas City talked with Mashburn’s surviving son, who expressed concern that a quicker response time could have saved his dad’s life. Independence Power and Light says AT&T’s delayed response would never happen at their company.  (3 minutes)

Mashburn used AT&T’s instant messaging system installed in company trucks to alert his employer that he needed an ambulance after being attacked, but court documents show Mashburn waited 15 minutes for AT&T dispatchers to respond:

Kevin (2:52:24 a.m)  Amanda I NEEDE YOU TO CALL ME AN AMBULANCE

Kevin (2:52:37)  I HAVE BEEN ATTACKED

Kevin (2:52:57) HELP ME PLEASE

Kevin (2:53:32) I am in Gladstone, MO AT THE KENDALLWAOOD APAT. COMPLEX OFF ANTIOCH

Kevin (2:54:01) DOYOU READ ME?

About 15 minutes later an AT&T employee named Amanda responded to Mashburn’s message.

Amanda (3:11:20) I got it.

While he waited for the dispatcher to respond, Mashburn also sent messages to another AT&T employee on duty:

Kevin (2:55:13) GRACIE ARE YOU THERE?

Gracie (3:11:06) I’M HERE NOW

Gracie (3:11:11) I WAS IN A MEETING

Kevin (3:20:10) need police

Gracie (3:20:43) THEY HAVE BEEN CALLED.. AND SO HAS STRICKLEN

Kevin (3:20:47) hurry

Gracie (3:21:14) THEY ARE EN ROUTE

Kevin (3:21:07) ok

Kevin (3:21:14) ok

Gracie (3:21:21) STRICKLEN ALSO EN ROUTE

Kevin (3:21:38) ok

Kevin (3:24:03) was attacked wiyh a flat crowbar

Gracie (3:24:40) we are praying

Gracie (3:25:08) you hurt bad?

Kevin (3:25:12) yes

Kevin (3:25:37) head split open

Gracie (3:26:15) stricklin on line.. can you give us an exact location we have the address

Gracie (3:26:21) he is trying to find you

Gracie (3:26:45 he is trying to find you

Kevin (3:26:45) near crossbox. Beacon and flasher are on

Kevin (3:27:25) I can sound horn

Gracie (3:29:10) yes

Gracie (3:29:10) us are on kendallwood

Kevin (3:30:44) yes

Gracie (3:32:10) are you near a business… can not hear you horn but keep sounding

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSHB Kansas City GPS questions in ATT techs murder 9-26-12.mp4[/flv]

KSHB explores how AT&T used (or did not use) the GPS system built-into Mashburn’s company vehicle to help locate him. (3 minutes)

Kansas City Police contacted Gladstone dispatchers regarding the assault on Sept. 19 at 3:12 a.m. Mashburn was not located until 3:42 a.m. Despite the fact AT&T trucks have built-in GPS tracking to monitor employees, the company has not publicly explained why it apparently went unused during the 30 minute search to find Mashburn. The frustration by all concerned was readily apparent in this portion of the official 911 transcript:

3:30:18 a.m. Gladstone Dispatcher #1: Our officers are still looking. They haven’t found anything yet.

3:30:20 a.m. Radio 258: I’m pulling out my map for the rental properties.

3:30:21 a.m. AT&T Supervisor (to dispatcher): Oh you’re kidding?

3:30:22 a.m. Gladstone Dispatcher #1: No.

At 3:32 a.m., AT&T Amanda said she called both Mashburn’s work and personal cellphones, but got no answer. By this point, four Gladstone Police officers were searching for Mashburn across the apartment complex.

3:32:50 a.m. Gladstone Dispatcher #1: Are you guys possible to ping his cellphone?

3:32:54 a.m. AT&T Amanda: I don’t have a way to.

3:32:56 a.m. Gladstone Dispatcher #1: You don’t have a way to do that?

3:32:59 a.m. AT&T Amanda: We’re not that useful.

3:33:33 a.m. AT&T Supervisor: It’s amazing you can’t find this guy.

Although medical teams eventually reached Mashburn, he did not survive the ordeal and was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Mashburn’s son says he has been asked why his father sent messages to company dispatchers instead of calling authorities directly. William Mashburn told the local Fox affiliate that he was not surprised his father used the mobile data terminal to seek help, because that was one of his primary tools on the job.

“If you could try to keep in mind it was a pretty severe head injury,” William Mashburn told the Fox affiliate. “Maybe the ability to speak wasn’t there. Maybe the phone was dislodged during any confrontation or something so, there’s a lot of questions we don’t have answers to, if people could be a little sensitive to that, we’d appreciate it.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSHB Kansas City 911 call details confusion in ATT attack 9-27-12.mp4[/flv]

KSHB chronicles almost an hour of confusion and frustration trying to reach the injured AT&T worker, who was pronounced dead when he finally reached the hospital nearly an hour after the attack. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Time Warner Cable to charge monthly Internet modem fee 10-2-12.mp4[/flv]

WSYR in Syracuse and WCPO in Cincinnati report Time Warner Cable and former Insight Cable customers are upset the cable company is introducing new modem rental charges on Nov. 1 in both areas, but the company has yet to directly notify customers the new fees are coming. WSYR covers the concerns of customers in central New York. (1 minute)

Charter Communications’ new CEO Thomas Rutledge loves Connecticut so much, he is moving the company’s executive headquarters to a new facility in Stamford — just minutes from his tony estate in New Canaan —  at taxpayer expense.

Rutledge has been running Charter, based in St. Louis, largely from Connecticut and a temporary executive suite in New York City since he accepted the position days after quitting as Cablevision’s chief operating officer in December, 2011.

But instead of relocating to St. Louis, Rutledge will force about 100 employees to quit or move to Connecticut, with taxpayers picking up the tab. Charter blamed the move, in part, on the downsizing of St. Louis’ airport which company spokesperson Jessica Hardecke said hampered the ability of the company’s employees to visit its cable systems in 25 states.

Under the terms of the corporate welfare deal, Charter will receive a 10-year loan of $6.5 million financed at 2%, with principal payments deferred for three years. If Charter meets modest job milestone requirements, the loan’s balance will be transferred to state taxpayers who will pay it back in part or in full, depending on Charter’s job growth performance. The company has promised to add up to 200 jobs in Stamford, which will earn them an added bonus. The package allows Charter the opportunity to access up to $2 million in grant funding — $1 million for each additional 50 corporate jobs they bring to Connecticut. The company can also receive $1 million in grants if it adds 100 jobs. The grants are capped at $2 million.

News reports indicate Charter is eyeing 70,000 square feet of premium office space in a 15-story high rise in downtown Stamford shared with UBS Financial Services and Harmon International.

Rutledge has a long history of stubbornly sticking close to home. While an executive at Cablevision, he refused to move closer to the company’s headquarters on Long Island, requiring the cable company to provide a helicopter service that flew him back and forth from Connecticut every day.

Rutledge

Rutledge could have self-financed the entire move out of his personal compensation. His four-year pay package at Charter is worth about $90 million, according to recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Two other former senior executives who left Cablevision to join Rutledge at Charter may have known Rutledge would never move to Missouri. Neither Charter’s chief operating officer or chief marketing officer have put their New York City-area homes up for sale. Now they don’t have to.

St. Louis officials were shocked by the decision, and were fuming about the company’s surprise announcement Oct. 2, because nobody gave them an opportunity to make a counteroffer to get Charter’s executives to stay.

Steve Johnson, executive vice president for economic development at the Regional Chamber and Growth Association, wasn’t given a chance to change Charter’s mind either. “You never want to lose corporate headquarters and the cachet that goes with them,” Johnson says. “But I’m not sure there was anything we could do to influence this one.”

County Executive Charlie Dooley was more succinct: “I don’t believe [Rutledge] wanted to come to St. Louis.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KMOV St Louis Charter Moving to Conn 10-2-12.mp4[/flv]

KMOV in St. Louis reports local officials were unpleasantly surprised with Charter’s sudden announcement, but were partly mollified with promises Charter would hire an additional 300 modestly paid customer service workers in St. Louis (without any taxpayer incentives) between now and the end of the year. (2 minutes)

 [flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVI St Louis Charter Moving Headquarters Out of St Louis Area 10-2-12.flv[/flv]

KTVI in St. Louis notes Charter’s executive exit from Missouri has become a political issue, with Republicans complaining the state has to do even more for businesses to keep this from happening again. (2 minutes)

Time Warner Cable’s new $3.95 monthly cable modem fee applies to customers signed up for broadband service, but if you are a Time Warner “digital phone” customer and don’t subscribe to broadband, the fee does not apply even though the same equipment can sometimes be used for either service.

Time Warner Cable claims the new modem fee was needed to cover the cost of repairing and replacing cable modems over time. But New York City customers have been asking why Internet customers have to buy their own modem to avoid the fee while those using the same modem only for telephone service do not.

The New York Times reached out to Time Warner Cable’s director of public relations Justin Venech, who had to acknowledge the logic disconnect between “digital phone” and Internet customers, but could only offer this weak explanation:

“The way we have decided to charge this fee is, we’re charging it for use of the Internet portion of the modem,” Venech explained. “It’s a business decision. It’s a matter of starting to treat this equipment the same way we treat our other equipment.”

That explanation did not seem to fly… with Time Warner Cable’s own customer service representatives.

When Manhattan resident Tom Arana-Wolfe demanded an explanation for the inconsistent fees, the representative put his call on hold to transfer him to a supervisor, but forgot to hit the mute button.

“She was discussing our conversation with a co-worker and said that they have to come up with something better, because ‘He has a valid point,’” Arana-Wolfe said.

Arana-Wolfe is considering starting a class action lawsuit against the cable operator relating to the modem fee, but is also considering switching his service to Verizon FiOS, which charges no modem fees.

“We know where you live, where your office is and who you owe money to. We are having your house watched and we are going to use this information to destroy you. You made a big mistake messing with TCI. We are the largest cable company around. We are going to see that you are ruined professionally.” — Paul Alden, TCI’s vice president and national director of franchising to an independent consultant hired to review competing cable operators for Jefferson City, Mo., in a historical example of cable industry abuse

The Federal Communications Commission last week voted unanimously to expire rules that required cable operators to make their programming available on fair and reasonable terms to competitors. Big mistake.

We have been here before. Let us turn back the clock to the days before the FCC and Congress mildly reined in the cable television industry with the types of pro-consumer regulations Chairman Genachowski and others have now let expire. Why were these rules introduced in the first place? Because years of industry abuse heaped on consumers and local communities took their toll, with high prices for poor service, outrageous corporate bullying tactics, and endless litigation to hamper or stop consumer relief.

How long will it take for the industry to resume the same abusive practices that forced the FCC and Congress to finally act once before?

The Central Telecommunications. v. Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI): The Poster Child for Cable Industry Abuse

Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) was the nation’s largest cable operator. Later known as AT&T Cable, the company was eventually sold to Comcast.

Back in the 1980s, before the days of direct broadcast satellite competition like DirecTV and Dish, and years before telco-TV was allowed by law, the cable industry totally dominated the video marketplace. The only challenges came from incredibly rare competing cable TV providers or three million home satellite dish owners or wireless cable subscribers.

The industry’s only check on unhampered monopoly growth came from local authority over cable operations through the cable franchising process. If a cable company got out of control or did not offer the programming or service a community found adequate, it could offer a franchise to another company, effectively kicking bad actors out of town.

In Jefferson City, Mo., the local cable operator during the 1980s was Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI). It had acquired the franchise in the city by buying out the original provider in the late 1970s. TCI had been buying a lot of smaller cable operators around the country under the direction of then CEO John Malone. By 1981, it had grown to the largest cable operator in the country, and few dared confront the well-heeled operator, which had a legal budget greater than the operating budgets of some communities TCI served. TCI was later acquired by AT&T Cable, which in turn sold its cable systems to Comcast, which continues to operate them to this day.

In 1980, Jefferson City officials decided it would be prudent to make sure they were getting the best cable service possible, so as TCI’s franchise agreement reached expiration, the city issued a “request for proposals” offering other cable companies a chance to bid for the right to serve the community of around 38,000. For TCI, this was tantamount to a declaration of war, and the cable company meant business. Malone equated anything threatening a permanent cable franchise for TCI as something like an act of government theft. In books later written about the events in Jefferson City, even some TCI executives admitted they were “horrified by the sleaziness” of the kind of hardball tactics involved, comparing them to a “B-movie.”

TCI revealed it would stop at nothing to keep competitors away from their territories and drag out years of litigation. Central Telecommunications, Inc., v. TCI Cablevision, Inc., revealed exactly how far TCI was willing to go:

From: Cutthroat: High Stakes & Killer Moves on the Electronic Frontier, By Stephen Keating

Cajole the mayor into canceling competitive bidding. In early 1980, after Jefferson City made it known TCI might get some competition, the company quickly met with the mayor hoping to persuade him to renew TCI’s franchise without a competitive bid process, so as to avoid a “frontal attack” by competitors.

Threaten the independent consultant. In December, 1980 the city hired Elmer Smalling, an industry consultant, to independently evaluate various bids from cable operators willing to serve Jefferson City. TCI immediately began publicly attacking his qualifications in a way the court later found to be defamatory. The court case documents Paul Alden, TCI’s vice president and national director of franchising, making personal threats against Smalling.  A sample:

“We know where you live, where your office is and who you owe money to. We are having your house watched and we are going to use this information to destroy you. You made a big mistake messing with T.C.I. We are the largest cable company around[.] We are going to see that you are ruined professionally.”

It got worse for Smalling. At this same time, Warner-Amex (another large cable company now known as Time Warner Cable) was a client of Smalling’s. Alden contacted Warner-Amex about Smalling. Following the threats, Smalling lost Warner-Amex as a client.

City Attorney Thomas Utterback later wrote a memo to the City Council in which he described TCI as a “relentless corporate bully.”

Threaten would-be competitors. On several occasions, from January of 1981 to the summer of 1981, Alden repeatedly telephoned Robert Brooks, chief operating officer of Teltran, a company which submitted a bid for the city’s franchise, and threatened him that unless Teltran withdrew from the bidding process, TCI would make trouble for Teltran in Columbia, Missouri, where it operated a cable television franchise. Teltran subsequently dropped out of the bidding process on the ground there was a “distasteful environment” in Jefferson City.

Another competitor, Central Telecommunications, became a defendant in a TCI lawsuit challenging the city’s right to request proposals from other cable companies. TCI argued it now had a 1st Amendment right of free speech to serve Jefferson City residents regardless of the wishes of city officials. In a wide ranging series of subpoenas, TCI demanded the bank handling Central’s financing turn over a “very wide range of potentially confidential records,” which according to Central was an effort to destroy its financing agreement with the bank.

Malone

Threaten customers. TCI warned customers that unless it won the cable franchise for Jefferson City, it would immediately shut off its cable system and leave customers without service, potentially for years, until Central built its own system from scratch. TCI officials said “it would not sell ‘one bolt’ of its system to whoever received the new franchise and that it would ‘rather have [its system] rot on the pole’ than sell it to a competitor at any cost.”

TCI’s system manager in Jefferson City told elderly residents of a senior citizens’ home that TCI would cut off service if denied a franchise, and the residents would be without television for two years pending construction of a new system because the concrete walls of their residence would not allow reception of over-the-air stations.

Lie, Lie, and Lie Some More. In one City Council meeting, Alden wildly claimed that TCI was the nation’s largest distributor of satellite dish antennas, with “an exclusive” right to sell in the state of Missouri. TCI promised that if the city renewed its franchise agreement, it would keep satellite dishes out of Jefferson City. If the franchise was not renewed, Alden promised to “flood the city with satellite dishes,” denying the city franchise fees. Alden later admitted both statements were untrue.

Threaten the mayor’s office. Although the mayor has never disclosed exactly what TCI threatened him with, the public record shows in March 1981, Alden called the mayor and threatened to turn the system off unless TCI’s franchise was renewed. TCI also filed an expensive lawsuit against Jefferson City regarding the way it handled its request for proposals.

By the fall of that year, TCI was meeting with city attorney Utterback in secret negotiations to renew its cable franchise, in direct violation of the city’s request for proposals  which required all negotiations to be open, as well as Missouri’s “sunshine laws.” By next spring, the mayor had privately notified council members he would veto any franchise renewal awarded to anyone other than TCI, which he later admitted was a condition imposed by TCI during its secret negotiations.

On January 25, 1982, the City Council provisionally awarded the franchise to… Central Telecommunications. TCI immediately refused to pay the city the prior year’s franchise fees, in excess of $60,000. It also reminded the mayor of his obligations to TCI as part of the secret franchise renewal negotiations held the prior fall. On April 20, 1982, the City Council passed the ordinance awarding a franchise to Central. The vote was six in favor and four against. The mayor vetoed the ordinance. The council then deadlocked five-to-five on awarding a franchise to TCI and the mayor cast the deciding vote in favor of that company. The next day, TCI dismissed its lawsuit against the city and paid the withheld franchise fees.

In the end, several courts upheld tens of millions in damages for Central Telecommunications, TCI’s lawsuit was dismissed at the company’s request, Mr. Alden was summarily dismissed by TCI after Malone referred to him as a “loose cannon,” and Jefferson City was stuck with several additional years of lousy service from TCI.

But TCI’s “bad corporate citizen” practices would come back to haunt the cable juggernaut, eventually failing to win assignments for two $800 million orbital slots for a direct broadcast satellite service the company proposed. After the Jefferson City experience, even the FCC could not, in good conscience, reward TCI with satellite slots it wanted for a “competing satellite service” it would sell through its own cable companies.

The memories of FCC officials are evidently short. Giving cable operators an inch has historically bought them a mile, paid for by consumers. Mandating easy to understand rules requiring cable operators sell programming to competitors on fair and reasonable terms is sound policy whether there is competition or not. Removing those rules or watering them down only promotes the kind of mischief that, when unchecked, leads to these kinds of horror stories. History need not repeat itself.