Alaska’s largest cable company today unveiled changes to its Internet plans, ditching surprise overlimit fees in favor of a speed throttle.

GCI has been the subject of bad press in the past, with some customers experiencing up to $1,200 in overlimit fees after exceeding GCI’s usage allowances. In an effort to avoid public relations nightmares like that, GCI will stop assessing automatic overlimit fees and instead impose a speed throttle on customers over their limit that will temporarily reduce broadband speeds to less than 1Mbps until the next billing cycle begins. Customers can voluntarily pay for more usage in $10 increments, which buys a reprieve from the speed throttle.

GCI “No Worries” Broadband Plans offer varying usage caps and extra usage allotments:

Customers on lower speed plans continue to face a lower usage allowance and will receive considerably less extra data for their $10 add-on data plan. GCI’s highest speed re:D offering does get a bigger usage allowance: 600GB, up from 500GB. An $11.99/mo surcharge continues for broadband-only customers.

GCI’s largest competitor remains telephone company ACS, which heavily markets its unlimited usage DSL plans. Almost as an afterthought, ACS now markets packages that include landline service with unlimited local calling and 180 minutes of long distance for free.

A price comparison between the two providers is somewhat hampered by the fact GCI does not publicize a broadband+home phone bundle package on their website. GCI Home Phone is priced at $19.99 a month.

A 10Mbps unlimited use package from ACS costs $110/month. A 10Mbps plan from the cable company with a 30 40GB allowance + GCI Home Phone costs $79.98. On price, GCI wins at this speed… if you stay within your allowance. A 50Mbps unlimited use package from ACS runs $180 a month. GCI charges $104.98 with 150GB of included usage. Again, the price winner is GCI if you stay within your allowance. Taxes, surcharges and government fees are extra.

Heavier users may find ACS’ initially higher prices worthwhile if they are forced to buy GCI’s add-on data buckets. Both companies charge considerably more than providers in the lower 48 states.

Last year, nearly 10% of GCI’s revenue was earned from automatically applied overlimit fees. Giving up some of that revenue is a concession, but one that is likely to end bill shock and negative media attention. Still, usage allowances remain arbitrary. GCI’s entry level 10Mbps plan only offers a paltry 30 40GB a month — an allowance largely unheard of among other U.S. cable providers. GCI will also have a difficult time explaining why $10 will only offer one customer 5GB of extra usage while others will get up to 30GB. The costs for the additional data to GCI are the same.

Our thanks to an anonymous reader for sharing the news.

Updated 4:08pm EST 1/15: After going to press, GCI changed their website, adjusting the usage allowance for their 10/1Mbps plan to 40GB (up from 30GB) and deleted references to the $11.99 surcharge for broadband-only customers, which apparently no longer applies.

President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama will be in Cedar Falls, Iowa today to announce steps his administration plans to take to improve broadband in the United States, including a call to end laws that restrict community broadband development that limits competition.

“Today, too few Americans have affordable and competitive broadband choices, but some communities around the country are choosing to change that dynamic,” says a statement issued by the White House. “As a result – as outlined in a new report being issued today – cities like Lafayette, Chattanooga, and Kansas City, have broadband that is nearly one hundred times faster than the national average, yet still available at a competitive price. By welcoming new competition or building next-generation networks, these communities are pioneers in broadband that works, and today in Cedar Falls, Iowa, the President is highlighting their remarkable success stories and providing municipal leadership and entrepreneurs new tools to help replicate this success across the nation.“

The report, produced by the National Economic Council and Council of Economic Advisers, finds no evidence to support industry contentions that community-owned broadband duplicates existing broadband services and wastes taxpayer dollars. It also challenges cable and phone industry-backed groups claiming publicly owned broadband networks are business failures.

It cites the success of Chattanooga’s EPB Fiber service, operated by the local municipal utility. Not only is EPB successful financially, but it has introduced Chattanooga residents to the kind of competition sorely lacking in most cities for telecom services.

“EPB’s efforts have encouraged other telecom firms to improve their own service,” states the report. “In 2008, for example, Comcast responded to the threat of EPB’s entrance into the market by investing $15 million in the area to launch the Xfinity service – offering the service in Chattanooga before it was available in Atlanta. More recently, Comcast has started offering low-cost introductory offers and gift cards to consumers to incentivize service switching. Despite these improvements, on an equivalent service basis, EPB’s costs remain significantly lower.”

In Wilson, N.C., Time Warner Cable customers pay significantly less for cable and broadband service than other North Carolina customers because of the presence of Greenlight, the community-owned fiber to the home provider. TWC customers in Wilson pay stabilized prices for service while residents in the nearby Research Triangle pay as much as 52 percent more for basic Internet service, according to the report. Greenlight’s competition has brought gigabit broadband to the community as well as lower prices for customers who decide to remain with Time Warner. The combined savings is estimated at more than $1 million annually for Wilson residents.

EPB is the municipal utility in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Those who believe municipal broadband is a waste of taxpayer dollars should consider the story of Lafayette, La.’s LUS Fiber. In addition to bringing superior broadband service to a city dominated by a cable operator that used to treat the market as an afterthought, the presence of LUS’ fiber to the home network has forced Cox Cable to improve service, offer significant customer retention deals to departing customers and defer rate increases. The investment in community broadband has saved residents an estimated $4 million from rate hikes that went ahead in other Cox cities, with an estimated total savings of between $90 and $100 million for Lafayette-area broadband customers over LUS’ first 10 years of service.

Taxpayer-supported institutions like local government, law enforcement, and schools have also seen dramatic savings by switching to municipal solutions. In Scott County, Minn. the local government’s annual bond payment for constructing their own broadband network is $35,000 less than what the county used to pay private companies for a much slower network. Area schools that formerly paid private sector telecom companies $58 per megabit of Internet speed now pay $6.83 — a savings of nearly 90 percent. Schools also received dramatic speed increases from 100 to 300Mbps. They paid less for more service — from $5,800 a month before to $2,049 a month today. Those payments go straight back to the county government instead of into the hands of out-of-state investment bankers and shareholders. On the state level, Minnesota’s public institutional network is saving taxpayers almost $1 million a year.

With the broadband profit gravy train for big cable and phone companies grinding to a halt in competitive areas, several of these companies have spent millions lobbying state governments to outlaw public broadband services. They have succeeded in 19 states, primarily with the assistance of the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which appeals to primarily Republican lawmakers with claims government broadband is unfairly competing with the private sector. In fact, private providers have not been driven out of communities where they face municipal competition, but they have been forced to lower prices and improve service for customers.

Today the president will call for a new effort to support local self-determination for broadband by strongly opposing industry-backed, anti-competitive deterrents and bans on community-owned networks. The president will also sign a letter addressed to FCC chairman Thomas Wheeler encouraging him to move forward with a federal ban on state broadband laws that restrict broadband development.

He will also announce additional funding for rural broadband expansion and take steps to bring local leaders together to explore how the development of community broadband initiatives in their cities and towns can make a major difference in the 21st century digital economy. The president recognizes that most Americans lack sufficiently competitive choices for broadband service and often have just one choice — the cable company — for broadband speeds greater than 25Mbps. That means many Americans are seeing their broadband speeds lag while their monthly bills continue to grow.

Community-owned broadband may be the only alternative many cities have for better broadband as would-be competitors are scared off by high construction costs and an inability to secure cable television programming at competitive prices for their customers.

Rep. Rocky Miller (R-Lake Ozark)

A Missouri state representative with a track record of supporting AT&T and other telecommunications companies has introduced a bill that would effectively prohibit community broadband competition in a bid to protect incumbent phone and cable companies.

Rep. Rocky Miller’s (R-Lake Ozark) House Bill 437 would strictly prohibit the construction of public broadband networks in any part of Missouri served by a private provider, regardless of the quality of service available or its cost, without a referendum that includes a mandated question observers consider slanted in favor of existing providers.

HB437 would banish community broadband networks as early as September unless services were already up and running. The bill would effectively stop any public broadband network intending to compete against an existing phone or cable company within the boundaries of a city, town, or village offering any level of broadband service. It would also require communities to schedule a referendum on any project budgeted above $100,000, and includes ballot language that implies public broadband projects would duplicate existing services, even if a private provider offers substantially slower broadband at a considerably higher price. (Emphasis below is ours):

“Shall [Anytown] offer [broadband], despite such service being currently offered within Anytown by x private businesses at an estimated cost of (insert cost estimate) to Anytown over the following five-year period?”

Miller’s proposal would also require voters to approve a specific and detailed “revenue stream” for public broadband projects and if the referendum fails to garner majority support, would prohibit the idea from coming up for a second vote until after two years have passed, allowing cable and phone companies to plan future countermeasures.

The proposed bill also carefully protects existing providers from pressure to upgrade their networks.

Miller’s bill defines “substantially similar” in a way that would treat DSL service as functionally equivalent to gigabit broadband as both could be “used for the same purpose as the good or service it is being compared to, irrespective of how the good or service is delivered.”

In other words, if you can reach Rep. Miller’s campaign website on a CenturyLink 1.5Mbps DSL connection and over a co-op gigabit fiber to the home connection, that means they are functionally equivalent in the eyes of Miller’s bill. Residents voting in a referendum would be asked if it is worthwhile constructing fiber to the home service when CenturyLink is offering substantially similar DSL.

Among the telecom companies that had no trouble connecting to Rep. Miller to hand him campaign contributions: AT&T, CenturyLink, Comcast, and Charter Communications

The Coalition for Local Internet Choice was unhappy to see yet another state bill introduced designed to limit competition and take away the right of local communities to plan their own broadband future.

“The state of Missouri is the latest legislature to attempt to erect barriers to the deployment of broadband networks that are critical to the future of its local economies and the nation, via House Bill 437,” said a statement released by the group. “High-bandwidth communications networks are the electricity of the 21st century and no community should be stymied or hampered in its efforts to deploy new future-proof communications infrastructure for its citizens – either by itself or with willing private partners.”

The group urged the Missouri legislature to reject the bill.

In 2013, Miller hit the ground running in his freshman year to achieve his campaign pledge of “getting the government out of the way of economic development.” In the Missouri state legislature, Miller strongly supported AT&T’s other state legislative priority: deregulation of cell tower placement. Miller traveled around Missouri promoting HB650, an AT&T inspired bill that would strip away local oversight powers of cell sites.

The issue became a hot topic, particularly in rural and scenic areas of Missouri, where local officials complained the bill would allow haphazard placement of cell towers within their communities.

“[The] bill inhibits a city’s ability to regulate cell towers as we have in the past,” Osage Beach city attorney Ed Rucker said. “The process we have in place has worked, and has worked well.”

Had HB650 become law, Osage Beach residents would today be surrounded by six new cell towers around the city, with little say in where they ended up. The bill Miller supported would have also eliminated a requirement that providers repair, replace, or remove damaged or abandoned cell towers, potentially leaving local taxpayers to pick up the tab.

Miller claimed the legislation would allow expansion of wireless broadband across rural Missouri and remove objectionable fees. HB650 would limit municipal fees to $500 for co-locating an antenna on a pre-existing tower and $1,500 for an application to build a new tower. Local communities complained those limits were below their costs to research the impact and placement of cell towers.

“That cost is an inhibitor to broadband,” Miller countered. “It’s beginning to look like the fees are an impediment to the expansion of broadband.”

Miller did not mention AT&T’s interest in cell tower expansion is also connected to its plan to retire rural landline service in favor of its wireless network, saving the company billions while earning billions more in new revenue from selling wireless landline replacement service over its more costly wireless network. The cell tower bill was eventually caught up in a legal dispute after a court ruled the broader bill that included the cell tower deregulation language was unconstitutional on a procedural matter.

Verizon Communications has stepped up efforts in New York City to get intransigent landlords to let the company into their buildings to bring FiOS fiber optics to tenants, even as some property managers accuse Verizon of ignoring earlier requests to get the service.

On at least 13 occasions in December, Verizon has filed petitions with the New York Public Service Commission requesting help to gain entry to a total of 476 buildings in the city after claiming to receive either no response from building management or active resistance to Verizon bringing FiOS to their tenants.

In an effort to stay compliant with its franchise agreement with the City of New York, Alyson Siegal, area manager for FiOS Franchise Assurance – New York City, has written a lot of letters lately:

Dear Property Owner/Manager:

I have been advised by Verizon New York Inc.’s (“Verizon”) NYC FiOS Real Estate Department of the difficulty Verizon has encountered in attempting to install and/or attach its FiOS facilities at [your property].

Our records indicate that you have not responded to our previous correspondence, that you have conditioned Verizon’s access on unreasonable terms and conditions or that you have denied Verizon access to the Property. The purpose of this letter is to restate our need to gain access to your Property.

By way of background, Verizon is attempting to gain access to your building because we have received a request for FiOS service(s) from a tenant(s) in your building and/or a resident(s) on your block, and our access to your Property is necessary to provide cable television services to those tenants and/or residents. We are very excited about the opportunity to provide world-class voice, data and video services to you and the area residents using a fiber based network to deliver these services at unprecedented speeds and capacities. Your cooperation in allowing Verizon access to your Property will enable your tenants and/or other residents on your block to receive the services they want in a timely manner.

Building owners don’t want a repeat of this kind of FiOS installation.

In a few earlier cases, some landlords refused entry without special financial compensation or gifts like free service for life. Others have unilaterally decided their tenants are happy enough being served by Time Warner Cable and don’t need a competitor. But a significant number claim the problem is with Verizon itself.

Hamdi Nezaj, who owns several buildings in Bronx, last summer refused entry to workers seeking to install FiOS, complaining Verizon performed shoddy work.

“On three properties that I own, the installation of FiOS was done recklessly,” complained Nezaj. “They never came back to fix the holes that were drilled, fix the boxes they installed and put molding on their respective wires. I am not interested once again in having Verizon drill holes and butcher my buildings.”

Several building owners responded to Verizon’s complaints indicating the phone company itself was responsible for dropping the ball on FiOS installation and were stunned the company was resorting to legal tactics to force entry.

Arthur Leeds from Leeds Associates LLC reports one of his properties has been waiting for Verizon to install FiOS since April 2014.

This customer found Verizon installing its FiOS cables up and down his doorways.

“We have responded every time we were asked for access most specifically to Thomas Miller, the FiOS franchise manager in NYC, and to Alyson Seigal (sic) another Verizon manager either by phone or via certified mail but all of our responses to them were ignored,” wrote Leeds. “Further we are well aware of the law and are certainly interested in supplying our tenants with alternatives to RCN and Time Warner Cable. However we do have a right to know how and with what materials Verizon intends to install their equipment in our building, [a request that] seems to stall any response on your part or that of your contractors.”

Amy Ward, an attorney representing the interests of 200 East 87”’ Street Associates, LP, has Leeds beat. She told the PSC Verizon first sought to install FiOS in the building in 2012, but Verizon kept stalling. When Verizon formally sought permission yet again in September 2014, a building representative asked for a delay because of “multiple intrusive projects occurring at and planned for the property.” No response to that request was forthcoming from Verizon until the December demand for entry was received.

Brian Loftman, property manager of the @The Aspen New York, wrote the PSC he was not happy to hear from Verizon’s legal team either.

Many building owners want Verizon to install crown molding like this that can effectively hide cables.

“I am appalled that Mr. Richard C. Fipphen, assistant general counsel for Verizon has contacted you stating that we have not complied with their request to give access to the property,” wrote Loftman.

Loftman included a copy of correspondence he sent to Ms. Siegal, claiming she is impossible to reach.

“I am writing to you because after several attempts to reach you via phone at 888 364 3467 it has been impossible,” wrote Loftman. “I find it hard to believe that you being in the telecommunications business that even your voicemail is full and I cannot leave a message on the number you provided us to contact your office.”

Loftman also questioned Siegal’s claims that Verizon has “world-class voice, data, and video services.”

“Has it improved since the last time our phones were out or the DSL went down for almost a week?” he asked.

Loftman’s previous experience with Verizon’s installation crews was not a positive one. He only learned after signing up for the service at another building he manages that Verizon intended to use visible basic plastic molding throughout the building’s hallways to hide FiOS wiring. Other property managers shared aesthetic objections to Verizon’s plans, requesting wiring be installed behind more visually attractive crown molding or run through ceiling ducts.

Part of New York State’s Public Service law covers the installation of cable television facilities, which also covers Verizon FiOS:

§228. Landlord-tenant relationship

1. No landlord shall:

(a) interfere with the installation of cable television facilities upon his property or premises, except that a landlord may require:

(1) that the installation of cable television facilities conform to such reasonable conditions are necessary to protect the safety, functioning and appearance of the premises, and the convenience and well being of other tenants;
(2) that the cable television company or the tenant or a combination thereof bear the entire cost of the installation, operation or removal of such facilities; and
(3) that the cable television company agree to indemnify the landlord for any damage caused by the installation, operation or removal of such facilities.

§898.1 Prohibition

Except as provided in section 898.2 of this Part, no landlord shall demand or accept any payment from any cable television company in exchange for permitting cable television service or facilities on or within said landlord’s property or premises.

§898.2 Just Compensation

Every landlord shall be entitled to the payment of just compensation for property taken by a cable television company for the installation of cable television service or facilities. The amount of just compensation shall be determined by the commission in accordance with section 228 (1)(b) of the Public Service Law upon application by the landlord pursuant to section 898.5 of this Part.

The New York State Public Service Commission has once again delayed final action on Comcast’s request to acquire Time Warner Cable systems operating in the state.

The further delay was accepted by Comcast and Time Warner Cable, citing a request from the staff of the PSC.

The next scheduled date for action is at the Commission Session scheduled for Jan. 22, with a final order issued no later than Jan. 27, 2015.