The remnants of JJ’s restaurant in Kansas City, Mo. after a gas explosion on Tuesday.

A contractor working for Time Warner Cable is alleged to have pierced a two-inch gas line in Kansas City, Mo., eventually causing a massive explosion that demolished a popular restaurant, leaving one worker dead and 15 injured.

Early Tuesday morning Heartland Midwest LLC, working on behalf of the cable operator, notified local authorities it intended to use a trenchless horizontal boring machine near JJ’s restaurant to install a fiber optic cable to reach a nearby office building.

Mark McDonald, president of North American Gas Workers Association told the Kansas City Star such installations can be dangerous because of nearby gas pipelines.

“You’re basically drilling blind,” McDonald told the newspaper. “You’re taking a lot of risk.”

Authorities now suspect that boring machine pierced the gas line and started a major leak.

There are conflicting reports about when the contractor notified emergency officials about the rupture. Some press accounts suggest it could have been one hour or more before 911 was notified.

Other reports criticize the local gas utility for not treating the gas leak as a more urgent threat.

Evacuations of nearby buildings, including JJ’s, did not begin until at least an hour after authorities were notified. Approximately one hour after that, JJ’s exploded leaving little more than a pile of rubble.

Megan Cramer, a 46-year-old server at JJ’s, was reportedly killed in the blast. More than a dozen others were injured.

At attorney for the contractor said the company was cooperating with local authorities in the investigation.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380”]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City TWC Contractor Responsible for KCMO Blast 2-20-13.mp4[/flv]

KCTV-TV in Kansas City reports they could find no evidence Heartland Midwest filed a permit request before starting work on behalf of Time Warner Cable.  (2 minutes)

Comcast may be attempting to get around Federal Communications Commission regulations governing what cable companies can charge for cable equipment by recasting the monthly fee as a “service charge.”

The cable operator’s decision to start charging $1.99 a month for digital transport adapters (DTAs) — small boxes that can convert digital signals into analog for older televisions — has at least one Minnesota city up in arms.

Eagan city officials met with outraged residents Tuesday to discuss the fee hike and hear a number of complaints about how Comcast does business in the community.

“It really ran the gamut, from concerns about losing stations, to concerns about being bait and switched, to having gotten boxes for free and worried that you had to pay for them in the future,” Eagan Mayor Mike Maguire told WCCO-TV.

Comcast customers in Minnesota are receiving letters from the cable operator some call deceptive. The letter warns “digital equipment is needed on all your TVs to receive channels,” despite the fact many televisions manufactured after 2007 are equipped with QAM tuners that will receive the digital signals without extra equipment, at least for now.

Only in fine print at the bottom of the letter does Comcast admit QAM-equipped sets won’t need the equipment, saving $1.99 a month per set.

Letters have also been sent to customers who have used DTA equipment provided by Comcast at no charge… until now.

Comcast earlier announced it intends to collect $1.99 a month from each subscriber using DTA equipment, even if those customers previously had received the equipment for free.

But Comcast’s decision to charge $24 a year in perpetuity for a box with a wholesale cost of less than $50, depending on the model, may run afoul of Federal Communications Commission regulations that forbid cable operators from charging excessive amounts to lease cable equipment:

Cable operators may require their subscribers to use specific equipment, such as converters, to receive the basic service tier. They may include a separate charge on your bill to lease this equipment to you on a monthly basis. This monthly rate must be based on the operator’s actual costs of providing the equipment to you. Operators may also sell equipment to you, with or without a service contract. If an operator provides a choice between selling and leasing the equipment, the monthly leasing rate will be regulated but the sales price will be unregulated. If an operator only sells equipment and does not also lease equipment, then the sales price must be the actual cost of the equipment plus a reasonable profit, and any service contract should be based on the estimated cost to service the equipment. If the customer buys the equipment but does not purchase a service contract, the customer can be charged for repairs and maintenance. Cable operators may not prevent customers from using their own equipment if such equipment is technically compatible with the cable system.

Eagan Mayor Mike Maguire

In a possible attempt to avoid regulatory language regarding cable equipment, Comcast has declared its new $1.99 fee is actually an “additional outlet service charge,” not an equipment fee.

“The deployment of DTA technology allows us to bring more value to our customers through additional HD channels and faster Internet speeds, both of which are used by the majority of our customers,” said Mary Beth Schubert, vice president of corporate affairs. “These types of enhancements require significant investment, and we feel the nominal fee now being implemented for DTA additional outlet service on our digital tiers reflects the additional value of the service.”

“There is no charge for the first three DTA devices,” said Schubert. But she quickly added, “After the digital transition in March and April, those TVs will not have access to these channels unless they are paying the $1.99 DTA additional outlet service fee.”

Michael Bradley, an attorney representing 20 local communities, is investigating to see if Comcast’s language about its new fee violates FCC rules.

The new charge is expected to be lucrative for Comcast, earning the company at least $550 million annually in new revenue.

Comcast intends to boost that even further as it embarks on encrypting its digital lineup, making QAM-equipped televisions useless to receive scrambled cable channels.

“These customers will eventually need to connect a digital device to their QAM tuner equipment at a future date as we implement additional network security features,” warned Schubert. “Customers will be provided complete information well before any additional measures take place.”

The FCC previously negotiated an agreement with cable operators intending to encrypt their cable lineup to keep customers from experiencing bill shock from new, mandatory equipment fees:

But by recasting new fees as unregulated “additional outlet fees,” Comcast and other cable operators may have successfully outwitted the FCC’s good intentions, earning billions in new revenue annually as a result of a simple language change.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCCO Minneapolis Comcast Fee Causes Outrage in Minn 2-20-13.mp4[/flv]

WCCO reports the city of Eagan held an informational meeting Tuesday about Comcast’s newest fee for digital boxes required on older televisions. Comcast customers nationwide will soon pay the new $1.99 “DTA additional outlet service fee” for each television equipped with the digital set top DTA box “to offset increasing programming and operational costs.”  (2 minutes)

Verizon Wireless has created a new warning page about “high-risk apps” that can chew up your data allowance or kill a fully charged Android smartphone battery in a matter of hours.

The Kansas House of Representatives voted 118-1 to pass a bill they admit was written and pushed by the largest telecom companies in the state. The chief supporters all received campaign contributions from AT&T and other telecom interests.

Kansas’ House of Representatives voted 118-1 Monday to support a bill largely crafted by AT&T that will let the state’s largest phone company discontinue service at-will in rural areas of the state.

H.B. 2201 had near-universal support from legislators that openly admitted the legislation was conceived and written by the state’s largest telecommunications companies, chiefly AT&T, and grants the phone companies a third round of deregulation.

The legislation is expected to sail through the Kansas Senate with bipartisan support and Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who generally favors telecom deregulation, is likely to sign it.

The legislation was originally pushed as a money-saver for Kansas ratepayers. The bill calls for a major reduction in funding requirements for the Kansas Universal Service Fund (KUSF), which subsidizes rural telecommunications services in the state. The KUSF is principally funded through a surcharge found on customer bills. Under the terms of the bill, funding requirements will be drastically reduced, cutting the surcharge in the process.

The Kansas Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board testified if H.B. 2201 only contained KUSF reform, the group would have supported the measure. But the bill also has a myriad of deregulation measures that received little apparent attention by legislators:

1. H.B. 2201 eliminates quality of service requirements. AT&T and other phone companies can deliver any level of phone service they choose with no oversight and nobody to answer to;
2. Allows price discrimination based on geographic location, which could mean substantially higher phone rates in rural areas, especially for nearby toll calls;
3. Allows telecom companies to exit the Lifeline program for inexpensive service for the poorest Kansans after 90 days written notice;
4. Removes AT&T and other phone companies as “carriers of last resort,” which means they are no longer required to provide phone service upon request.

The elimination of the “carrier of last resort” provision is essential to AT&T’s plans to abandon rural landline service, forcing customers to buy substantially more expensive cellular phone and data service. With the passage of H.B. 2201, AT&T can notify rural Kansas customers it will drop their landline service and/or broadband at-will.

Siewert

The single “no” vote came from freshman Rep. Larry Hibbard, (R-Toronto), who noted landline service was essential in many rural areas. Hibbard worried AT&T would use the legislation as an excuse to raise rates or force elderly Kansans to use a wireless cell phone, which could prove too confusing for them.

“This bill may come back to haunt rural Kansas,” Hibbard warned.

“We have this mentality, ‘if I don’t have a wire, I can’t make a phone call.’ That’s not true,” countered Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican who supports the bill. “That copper line is being replaced with an antenna, and it’s more reliable.

“We are not killing Lifeline,” Schwab added. “We are just not mandating it.”

Other supporters were far more sanguine, even disclosing the substantial role telecom companies had getting the legislation written and shepherded through the House.

“This was an industry bill that they all worked very hard” to put together, admitted Rep. Joe Seiwert (R-Pretty Prairie) during a House Republican caucus meeting. “[This bill] puts legislators in an easier position of not having to ‘choose between friends.'”

Kuether

Seiwert, for example, did not have to disappoint his largest campaign contributor — AT&T — or others who donated to his campaign, including the Koch Brothers, Cox Communications, CenturyLink, Verizon, and the Kansas cable lobby.

Rep. Annie Kuether of Topeka, who is the ranking Democrat on the Utilities and Telecommunications Committee, also supported the bill. Kuether is the recipient of campaign contributions from AT&T, Cox Cable, Time Warner Cable, Kansas cable and telephone company PAC groups, and more than a dozen independent telecommunications providers doing business in Kansas.

For ordinary Kansans, the bill does not assure savings, and could lead to dramatic price increases, especially in rural areas forced to pay for cell service. The measure also eliminates the Kansas Corporation Commission as a last resort for customers with service problems that go unresolved. Those customers would be on their own after the bill becomes law.

Legislators did not see any incompatibility between the proposed bill and Kansas state policy, set forth in Statute 66-2001:

It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state to:

(a) Ensure that every Kansan will have access to a first class telecommunications infrastructure that provides excellent services at an affordable price;
(b) ensure that consumers throughout the state realize the benefits of competition through increased services and improved telecommunications facilities and infrastructure at reduced rates;
(c) promote consumer access to a full range of telecommunications services, including advanced telecommunications services that are comparable in urban and rural areas throughout the state;
(d) advance the development of a statewide telecommunications infrastructure that is capable of supporting applications, such as public safety, telemedicine, services for persons with special needs, distance learning, public library services, access to internet providers and others; and
(e) protect consumers of telecommunications services from fraudulent business practices and practices that are inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.

The Associated Press notes this is AT&T’s third trip through the state legislature to win deregulation. A 2006 state law deregulated prices for bundles of services that included wireless, Internet access, cable TV or other video and moved toward deregulating rates for local service in exchanges where competition existed. A 2011 law went further, allowing companies to avoid most state price caps. This year’s bill would allow those companies to avoid even the Kansas Corporation Commission’s consumer protection regulations and minimum quality-of-service standards.

Atlantic Canada provider Eastlink still offer unlimited access for speeds of 20Mbps or slower, but the fastest speeds now come with usage caps and overlimit fees, as depicted on this sample invoice.

While broadband pricing in the United States depends primarily on whether one lives in a rural or urban area, in Canada, which province you live in makes all the difference.

Canadian broadband pricing varies wildly across different provinces. If you live in northern Canada, particularly in Nunavut or the Yukon, Internet access is slow and prohibitively expensive, assuming you can buy it at any price. Customers in Atlantic provinces including Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Labrador and Newfoundland pay the next highest prices in the country, often exceeding $60 a month. But Atlantic Canadians often find unlimited use, fiber optic-based plans are often part of the deal. In the west, fervent competition between dominant cable operator Shaw and telephone company Telus has given residents in British Columbia and Alberta more generous usage allowances, faster speeds, and lower pricing.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports the most significant gouging takes place in the Canada’s two largest provinces: Ontario and Québec, where Bell (BCE) competes with three dominant cable operators: Rogers and Cogeco (Ontario) and Vidéotron and Cogeco (Québec). Critics contend that “competition” has been more in name-only over the last several years, as prices have risen and usage allowances have not kept up.

“These disparities are influenced by the competition,” Catherine Middleton, a professor at the University of Ryerson’s Ted Rogers School of Management told CBC News. “For example, Bell competes against Rogers in Ontario, but against Vidéotron in Quebec, with different plans for different markets.”

(Coincidentally, in 2007 the University of Ryerson accepted a gift of $15 million from the late Ted Rogers, founder of Rogers Communications, which won him naming rights for the Ted Rogers School of Management.)

Rogers and Cogeco charge Ontario residents more money for less access. Vidéotron treats their customers in Québec somewhat better, so Bell has plans to match.

“Ontario gets the worst when it comes to competitiveness,” Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law told CBC News. “It tends to be the least competitive when it comes to getting bang for your buck.”

Prices start to moderate in the prairie regions. SaskTel and MTS Allstream are the largest providers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Both offer customers unlimited service plans, something of a shock to those further east. But unless you live in a larger city where the two companies are upgrading to faster fiber-based networks, DSL at speeds averaging 5Mbps is the most widely available service.

Nearing the Canadian Rockies, usage-restricted plans are a reality once again. In Alberta and British Columbia, Telus and Shaw competition means more generous usage allowances, and Telus does not currently enforce their usage limits. Shaw raised its own usage limits significantly beyond what a customer would find from Rogers back east. Prices are often lower as well.

The CBC notes unlimited broadband from cable operators has become a rarity. Eastlink, which provides service in Atlantic Canada, has phased out unlimited access on plans above 20Mbps. Rogers has a temporary “unlimited use” offer for customers paying for its premium-priced 150Mbps plan, and only until March 31.

The most significant recent change for eastern Canada was Bell’s decision to offer an unlimited-use “add-on” for $10 extra a month for Bell customers in Québec and Ontario who choose at least three Bell services (broadband, television, phone, satellite, or wireless service). Rogers has matched that offer for its own triple-play customers. Those who only want broadband service from either provider will pay three times more for unlimited access — an extra $30 a month.

The mainstream Canadian press often ignores third party alternative providers that offer an escape from usage-capped Internet access.

But there are other alternatives, often ignored by the mainstream media.

A growing number of third-party independent providers buy wholesale access from large Canadian networks and sell their own Internet plans, often with no usage limits. TekSavvy, Distributel, Acanac, among many others, provide Canadians with DSL and cable broadband at prices typically lower than one would find dealing with Bell, Rogers, Shaw, or other providers directly. Some discount plans still include usage caps, but those limits are often far more generous than what the phone or cable company provides, and unlimited access is also available in most cases.

One website allows consumers to comparison-shop 350 different providers across Canada. Despite the growing number of options, the majority of Canadians still buy Internet access from their phone or cable company and live under a regime of usage caps and high prices, if only because they do not realize there are alternatives.

Usage caps have cost Canadian broadband consumers both time watching usage meters and money paying overlimit penalties. But the cost to innovation is now only being measured. While online video has become so popular in the United States it now constitutes the largest percentage of traffic on broadband networks during prime time, usage limits have kept the online video revolution from fully taking hold in Canada. That is a useful competition-busting fringe benefit for large telecom companies in Canada, which own cable networks, cable systems, broadcast networks, and even satellite providers.

Netflix’s chief content officer called Canadian broadband pricing “almost a human rights violation.” The online video provider was forced to introduce tools to let Canadians degrade the quality of their online video experience to avoid blowing past monthly usage allowances.