History repeats itself. In 1889, it was railroads, steel, iron, and energy. Today it is telecommunications.

My first introduction to the concept of corporate doublespeak — designed to cushion the blow of bad news behind a wall of barely-comprehensible babble came in October 1987 when I heard one Wall Street analyst refer to the great stock market crash that had just befallen the financial district as a “fourth quarter equity retreat.”

Holy euphemism, Batman!

You weren’t fired — you were “made redundant.”  The bankruptcy of Detroit automakers and the layoffs that followed were not as bad as they looked. It was merely “a career-alternative enhancement program.”

And, no, Verizon and AT&T are not engaged in should-be-illegal marketplace collusion on pricing and services. They are just practicing some harmless “price signaling.”

That’s the awe-struck view of management consultant Rags Srinivasan, who just gushes over the marketing “stroke of genius” that threatens to give customers a stroke when they open their monthly bill.

Srinivasan’s piece, worthy of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, turns up instead on GigaOm, where it gets some pretty harsh treatment from tech-lovers who hate the rising prices of wireless service.

Price signaling has always existed between the number one and number two players in any market. Agreeing to not engage in a price war is truly a win-win for the market leaders. Since outright price fixing is illegal, market leaders resorted to signaling to tell the other company their intentions or send a threat about their cost advantages.

But traditionally, it was more like flirting — ambiguous enough that the underlying intentions could be denied. Why are these two not shy about admitting to flirting now? The simple answer is the iPhone.

Not too long ago we worried about running out of talk minutes and paying overage. Service providers offered us tiered plans that offered more minutes for a higher price and unlimited minutes for an even higher price. With the additional revenue flowing directly to their bottom line, these higher priced plans were real cash cows.

For those who have any doubt about the profits from unlimited plans, I’d point out that the costs of a mobile service provider are sunk with zero marginal cost for additional minutes. And texts don’t even consume traffic channels — they piggyback on control channels.

[…] In another genius pricing move, Verizon Wireless is presenting this $100 mobile service plan to customers in a bundle — talk minutes plus data. In the past, around $70 was allocated to talk because consumers valued it more. Now subscribers pay only $40, but they still pay the same $100 total price. This is nothing short of pricing excellence, protecting customer margin while also using strong price signaling to make sure that the next biggest market share leader follows suit.

What Srinivasan calls “business at its best” and “pricing excellence” we call collusion at its most obvious. The GigaOm author says he does not want the government tinkering with this kind of marketplace “signaling,” and it does not appear likely he has much to worry about. AT&T and Verizon executives have grown increasingly brazen (and obvious) with their near-identical pricing and “me-too” plans which leave little to differentiate the two carriers from a pricing perspective. The likely result will be at least 100 million cell phone customers eventually stuck paying for unlimited voice and texting services they neither want or need.

Wireless Wonder Twins Powers Activate: Shape of anti-competitive marketplace for consumers; form of collusion.

True, AT&T charges Cadillac prices but has the customer service image of a used 1995 Kia… but they did have the original exclusive rights to the Apple iPhone and Apple devotees proved they will endure a lot. Verizon Wireless has a better network and has always charged accordingly.

Unfortunately for consumers, the also-rans Sprint and T-Mobile (and the smaller still) depend on AT&T and Verizon for roaming off the city highway and into the countryside, and they are often stuck with devices that are a step down from what the bigger two can offer.

Srinivasan would have a better argument if the wireless marketplace had not become so consolidated. Had AT&T had its way with T-Mobile, America would have just a single national GSM network — AT&T. Verizon does not consider its CDMA competitor much of a bother either, and Sprint Nextel CEO Dan Hesse has to divide his time between fighting with Wall Street over why the company has not already sold out to the highest bidder (and now wants to spend a fortune upgrading its network) and customers who consider Sprint too much of a trade-off in coverage and its dismal “4G” Clearwire WiMAX network too slow for 2012.

Srinivasan is probably too young to understand AT&T and Verizon never invented “price signaling.” A century ago, the railroad robber barons did much the same, leveraging their anti-competitive networks-of-a-different-kind to maximize prices in places that had few alternatives. Where competitors did arrive, they were typically bought out to “maximize savings and eliminate market inefficiencies.” The same was true in the steel and energy sector of the early 20th century.

The result is that consumers were turned upside down to shake out the last loose change from their pockets. Eventually, government stepped in and called it marketplace collusion and passed antitrust laws that began a new era for true competition.

How soon some forget.

NOAA caught this ominous derecho cloud front in La Porte, Ind on June 29. The same storm would later cut power for millions all the way to the eastern seaboard.

A series of severe thunderstorms accompanied by near-hurricane-force winds caused millions of customers in several Mid-Atlantic states to lose power and telecommunications services late Friday, and some are expected to remain without service until at least this coming weekend.

The storm, known as a “derecho,” uprooted trees, which in turn knocked down power lines and caused wind-related damage to buildings from Ohio to West Virginia, Virginia to Maryland, and even into North Carolina.

But the storm also is raising questions about the massive failures in commercial telecommunications systems that left entire 911 emergency response systems offline for days, wireless networks non-operational, cell phone systems overwhelmed, and broadband service, deemed a lower priority by emergency officials, down and offline.

Some of the biggest problems remain in and around the nation’s capital and in the states of West Virginia and Virginia, where inadequate infrastructure proved especially susceptible to the storm’s damaging winds.

D.C., Maryland, and northern Virginia

In northern Virginia, calls to 911 were met by silence over the weekend, thanks to a catastrophic failure of Verizon’s landline network. With primary lines down, Verizon’s backup 911 systems also failed, leaving millions with no access to emergency responders.

Fairfax County officials finally put the word out the best way to summon emergency help was to drive (through streets littered with debris and downed power lines) to the nearest fire or police station for assistance.

“It’s just not OK for the entire 911 system in the region to go down for the period of time that we were out, especially after an enormous emergency where people needed to make those calls the most,” Sharon Bulova, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, told the Associated Press.

Verizon spokesman Harry Mitchell was left flat-footed, promising an investigation into Verizon’s latest 911 failure, and called the storm as damaging as a hurricane. He urged local officials to “move forward” beyond the immediate criticism and help make progress to get service restored.

Many emergency response networks also depend on telecommunications services, including fiber cables, to reach transmission towers for radio dispatch and mobile data terminals. In northern Virginia, the city of Alexandria has been managing to handle emergency dispatch services for several counties.

With power lines down, cable and phone lines often went as well. In those cases, electric utilities have first priority to restore service, and then cable and phone companies can begin repairs of their own.

Since cable operators rely on power companies to supply electricity to their amplifiers and other equipment, Comcast and Cox, which dominate the region, are blaming most of their outages on power disruptions, and promise service will be restored when the power returns.

Verizon’s DSL and FiOS broadband networks were both disrupted by the storm, primarily because of downed lines and power losses.Even wireless networks, which some might suspect would be immune to downed lines, were also seriously affected by the storm. Cell towers connect to the provider’s network through fiber optic and T1 lines, and although backup power generators can maintain a cell tower for days in some cases, backhaul line cuts can leave cell towers useless.

In metro D.C., call completion problems were a problem during the storm and sometime after as local residents turned to cell phones to communicate. Over the weekend, customers in and around Richmond, Va., found Verizon Wireless useless for text messages because of a service disruption. As backup generators ran dry of fuel, some cell towers that survived the initial storm have been shutting down until maintenance crews arrive and refuel.

The harshest criticism has so far escaped phone and cable companies. Instead, local officials and residents remain focused on Pepco, the power utility serving the Washington area. Pepco has learned from previous storms to become a master of lowered expectations, and is promising to do its best to restore power a week or more after the storm was a memory.

West Virginia and western Virginia

The state of West Virginia, and western rural Virginia state, have illustrated what happens when deteriorating infrastructure is asked to withstand winds of up to 100mph. Frontier’s operations in West Virginia were hit especially hard. Landline networks in that state had been allowed to deteriorate for years by former owner Verizon Communications. Frontier had its hands full trying to keep up with repairs, calling in additional staff and trying to maintain landline service in some areas with the help of generators.

That job was made much harder by a rash of generator thefts that impacted the phone company, and local authorities are still looking for those responsible. At least one-third of all central switching offices operated by Frontier in West Virginia remain on generator power as of yesterday. As of July 3, the company reported it has 12,000 repair requests still waiting for action.

It was a similar story in the western half of Virginia where independent phone companies and Verizon were faced with an enormous number of downed trees and power lines, many in rural areas. More than 108,000 Virginia residents are still without power as of this afternoon, and many will not see it restored until the weekend.

Because the derecho swept across a large area encompassing the entire state, it has been difficult for utility crews to respond from unaffected areas to assist in repairs because the damage was so widespread. Logistically, just coordinating repair operations has proved difficult because cell service has been spotty (or networks have been jammed with calls) in some of the worst-affected areas.

“Derechos are nothing to fool with, but still this was not the most serious storm Virginia has ever dealt with, and the impacts on our telecommunications networks seem to indicate they’ve been allowed to fall apart over the last several years,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Edward Klein, who lives near Roanoke. “I think an investigation is needed to make sure utilities are spending enough money to keep these networks in good shape so this kind of thing doesn’t happen everytime a storm sweeps through.”

Comcast is running “welcome back” ads in Chattanooga that still claim they run America’s fastest ISP, when they don’t.

EPB, Chattanooga’s publicly-owned utility that operates the nation’s fastest gigabit broadband network, has already won the speed war, delivering consistently faster broadband service than any of its Tennessee competitors. So when facts are not on their side, competitors like Comcast and a conservative “watchdog” group simply make them up as they go along.

Comcast is running tear-jerker ads in Chattanooga featuring professional actors pretending to be ex-customers looking to own up to their “mistake” of turning their back on Comcast’s 250GB usage cap (now temporarily paroled), high prices, and questionable service.

“It turns out that the speeds I was looking for, Xfinity Internet had all along,” says the actor, before hugging an “Xfinity service technician” in the pouring rain. “But you knew that, didn’t you?”

The ad closes repeating the demonstrably false claim Comcast operates “the nation’s fastest Internet Service Provider.”

“I see those commercials on television and I’m thinking, I wonder how much did they pay you to say that,” says an actual EPB customer in a response ad from the public utility.

It turns out quite a lot. The high-priced campaign is just the latest work from professional advertising agency Goodby Silverstein & Partners of San Francisco, which is quite a distance from Tennessee. Goodby has produced Comcast ads for years. The ad campaign also targets the cable company’s other rival that consistently beats its broadband speeds — Verizon FiOS.

EPB provides municipal power, broadband, television, and telephone service for residents in Chattanooga, Tennessee

Comcast tried to ram their “welcome back” message home further in a newspaper interview with the Times Free Press, claiming “a lot of customers are coming back to Xfinity” because Comcast has a larger OnDemand library, “integrated applications and greater array of choices.”

Comcast does not provide any statistics or evidence to back up its claims, but EPB president and CEO Harold DePriest has already seen enough deception from the cable company to call the latest claims “totally false.”

In fact, DePriest notes, customers come and go from EPB just as they do with Comcast. The real story, in his view, is how many more customers arrive at EPB’s door than leave, and DePriest says they are keeping more customers than they lose.

EPB fully launched in Chattanooga in 2010, and despite Comcast and AT&T’s best customer retention efforts, EPB has signed up 37,000 customers so far, with about 20 new ones arriving every day. (Comcast still has more than 100,000 customers in the area.)

Many come for the EPB’s far superior broadband speeds, made possible on the utility’s fiber to the home network. EPB also does not use Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, which Charter, AT&T, and Comcast have all adopted to varying degrees. Although the utility avoids cut-rate promotional offers that its competitors hand out to new customers (EPB needs to responsibly pay off its fiber network’s construction costs), its pricing is lower than what the cable and phone companies offer at their usual prices.

Comcast claims customers really don’t need super high speed Internet service, underlined by the fact they don’t offer it. But some businesses (including home-based entrepreneurs) do care about the fact they can grow their broadband speeds as needed with EPB’s fiber network. Large business clients receiving quotes from EPB are often shocked by how much lower the utility charges for service that AT&T and Comcast price much higher. It costs EPB next to nothing to offer higher speeds on its fiber network, designed to accommodate the speed needs of customers today and tomorrow.

The competition is less able. AT&T cannot compete on its U-verse platform, which tops out shy of 30Mbps. Comcast has to move most of its analog TV channels to digital, inconveniencing customers with extra-cost set top boxes to boost speeds further.

The fact EPB built Chattanooga’s best network, designed for the present and future, seems to bother some conservative “watchdog” groups. The Beacon Center of Tennesee, a group partially funded by conservative activists like Richard Mellon Scaife through a network of umbrella organizations, considers the entire fiber project a giant waste of money. They agree with Comcast, suggesting nobody needs fast broadband speeds:

EPB also offers something called ultra high-speed Internet. Consumers have to pay more than seven times what they would pay for the traditional service — $350 a month. Right now, only residents of a select few cities worldwide (such as Hong Kong) even use this technology, and that is because most consumers will likely not demand it for another 10 years.

Actually, residents in Hong Kong, Japan, and Korea do expect the faster broadband speeds they receive from their broadband providers. Americans have settled for what they can get (and afford). DePriest openly admits he does not expect a lot of his customers to pay $350 a month for any kind of broadband, but the gigabit-capable network proves a point — the faster speeds are available today on EPB at a fraction of price other providers would charge, if they could supply the service at all. Most EPB customers choose lower speed packages that still deliver better performance at a lower price than either Comcast or AT&T offer.

The Beacon Center doesn’t have a lot of facts to help them make their case. But that does not stop them:

• They claim EPB’s network is paid for at taxpayer expense. It is not.
• They quote an “academic study” that claims 75 percent of “government-run” broadband networks lose money, without disclosing the fact the study was bought and paid for by the same industry that wants to keep communities from running broadband networks. Its author, Ron Rizzuto, was inducted into the Cable TV Pioneers in 2004 for service to the cable industry. The study threw in failed Wi-Fi networks built years ago with modern fiber broadband networks to help sour readers on the concept of community broadband.
• Beacon bizarrely claims the fiber network cannot operate without a $300 million Smart Grid. (Did someone inform Verizon of this before they wasted all that money on FiOS? Who knew fiber broadband providers were also in the electricity business?)

The “watchdog” group even claims big, bad EPB is going to drive AT&T, Comcast, and Charter Cable out of business in Chattanooga (apparently they missed those Comcast/Xfinity ads with customers returning to Kabletown in droves):

Fewer and fewer private companies wish to compete against EPB, which will soon have a monopoly in the Chattanooga market, according to private Internet Service Provider David Snyder. “They have built a solution looking for a problem. It makes for great marketing, but there is no demand for this service. By the time service is needed, the private sector will have established this for pennies on the dollar.”

Ironically, Snyder’s claim there is no demand for EPB’s service fall flat when one considers his company, VolState, has been trying to do business with EPB for two years. He needs EPB because he is having trouble affording the “pennies on the dollar” his suppliers are (not) charging.

Snyder tells “Nooganomics” his company wants an interconnection agreement with EPB, because the private companies he is forced to buy service from — including presumably AT&T, want to charge him a wholesale rate twice as much as EPB currently bills consumers. Snyder calls EPB’s competition “disruptive.”

Nooganomics calls EPB’s low priced service a “charity” in comparison to what AT&T and Comcast charge local residents, and the free market can do no wrong-website seems upset consumers are enjoying the benefits of lower priced service, now that the local phone company and cable operator can’t get away with charging their usual high prices any longer.

Deborah Dwyer, an EPB spokeswoman, told the website the company got into the business with state and city approval, followed the rules for obtaining capital and pays the taxes or payments-in-lieu of taxes as the same rate as corporate players. “We believe that public utilities like EPB exist to help improve the quality of life in our community, and the fiber optic network was built to do just that. One of government’s key responsibilities is to provide communities with infrastructure, and fiber to the home is a key infrastructure much like roads, sewer systems and the electric system.”

Snyder can’t dispute EPB delivers great service. He also walks away from the competition-is-good-for-the-free-market rhetoric that should allow the best company with the lowest rates to win, instead declaring customers should only do business with his company to support free market economics (?):

“If you are a free market capitalist and you believe in free markets, you need to do business with VolState,” Mr. Snyder says. “And if you’re highly principled, every time you buy from a government competitor, what you’re voting for with your dollars is, you’re saying, ‘It’s OK for the government come in to private enterprise and start to take over a vast part of what we used to operate in as a free market.’”

Perhaps Snyder and his friends at the Beacon Center have a future in the vinegar business. They certainly have experience with sour grapes.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast Ad Welcome Back.flv[/flv]

Comcast’s emotionally charged ad, using paid actors, was produced by advertising firm Goodby Silverstein & Partners. The commercial running in Chattanooga is a slight variation on this one, which targets Verizon FiOS. (1 minute)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/EPB Ad.flv[/flv]

EPB uses actual customers, not paid actors, in its own advertising that calls out Comcast’s false advertising.  (1 minute)

Squadron

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative business-funded lobbying group, has been sneaking around New York’s state capital pretending to be a charity when it is in reality responsible for authoring at least 39 bills during the current session of the legislature.

Sen. Dan Squadron, the ranking Democrat on the state Senate Investigations and Government Operations Committee told the Wall Street Journal the corporate-backed group should be registered a lobbying group and not a charity.

“You know they say if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck, it must be a lobbyist,” said Sen. Bill Perkins, a Manhattan Democrat. “As such it is required to be registered, and its activities are required to be transparent, and apparently that is not what’s happening right now.”

ALEC provides legislators with corporate-written sample legislation that elected officials can use as templates to produce their own bills that favor corporate interests. The group claims a 20 percent success rate getting bills passed through the New York State Legislature, which is not bad in a legislative body legendary for its dysfunction.

Maziarz

Common Cause New York says it will file a formal complaint next week with state ethics officials about ALEC’s failure to properly register itself as a lobbying group.

That brought a strong response from ALEC, which accused Common Cause of being part of a grand liberal conspiracy with George Soros to harass and silence the group.

Two state senators with reportedly close ties to ALEC are Sen. George Maziarz, a Republican from Niagara County, and ALEC state chairman Sen. Owen Johnson, a Long Island Republican.

Maziarz, who accepts campaign contributions from Verizon Communications, was in the middle of a 2010 dispute over a proposed Verizon data center to be built in Somerset, N.Y. Maziarz sided with Verizon and verbally attacked one of his constituents who opposed the pace of the project, and its lack of a complete environmental impact review.

Verizon ultimately changed its mind about the project after purchasing Terremark, which operates data centers.

Phillip “We’re Still Here to Fight” Dampier

“We’re moving away from one-size-fits-all,” admits Jon Gary Herrera, a Texas spokesman for Time Warner Cable, which has introduced a usage-limited plan called “Internet Essentials” that limits customers to a paltry 5GB of usage per month in return for a $5 discount.

Time Warner Cable has learned from its mistakes in 2009, when the company attempted to force usage limits on broadband customers that would have left those seeking an unlimited experience with a broadband bill of $150 a month. After a consumer backlash organized by Stop the Cap!, the company quickly pulled back and put the plans on hold.

After three years, the playbook is off the shelf once again and being dusted off, although the nation’s second largest cable company is taking things a lot more slowly the second time around.

Lesson one: Broadband pricing and usage plan changes must happen gradually and carefully.

The New York Times reports that cable executives privately admit they are working to charge consumer expectations, starting with the notion that “all you can eat” broadband is what customers want or need.

Time Warner telemarketers have begun re-educating consumers when calling to sign up for broadband, now asking them what they do with their Internet connection and suggesting different plans based on their anticipated usage, not their speed expectations.

So far, sources working for Time Warner Cable in South Texas tell Stop the Cap! the plan is not working too well and few customers are interested in the usage-capped “Internet Essentials” plan that has been marketed in several markets in the state.

“Overage charges will be capped at $75 per month. That means that for $150 per month customers could have virtually unlimited usage at Turbo speeds.” — (April 9, 2009) Landel Hobbs, then chief operating officer of Time Warner Cable

“Customers really are not interested in understanding what their usage level is and don’t see much benefit from the small discount our company is offering those who sign up,” one Time Warner customer service agent privately tells us. “A lot of them have learned lessons from what AT&T and Verizon Wireless are doing with wireless data plans, and they don’t want their home broadband accounts measured.”

Another source tells us those consumers most likely to consider the “Internet Essentials” plan are casual Internet users, particularly older customers on fixed incomes. But they are also the least likely to understand how to measure their usage.

“If you tell people what a gigabyte is, it goes in one ear and out the other and they really have no comprehension about it, and when their family members find out what they signed up for, we inevitably get a call back asking to switch to something else,” another agent tells Stop the Cap! “There is a real hostility about usage limits on home broadband out there, at least among those that understand what they are.”

Lesson Two: Forgive overlimit fees or overages liberally, because consumers will adjust their behavior to use less Internet just by threatening to charge them more.

Time Warner has been very liberal about forgiving customers who exceed their 5GB limit. AT&T has yet to enforce its limits in many markets, in part because of a defective usage meter. Other ISPs with usage limits are also wary about imposing overage fees on customers because of the potential political backlash. In short, the industry hopes the threat of overlimit fees will be sufficient to get customers thinking about their usage and self-limit what they do online, an important tool to wield against customers considering cord-cutting traditional cable TV to watch everything online. Efforts to earn additional revenue from more expensive usage-based broadband plans will come later.

Cable to Netflix: You better think about going back to the U.S. Post Office and mailing DVDs. Our customers can’t afford to throw away their usage allowance on your streamed movies.

The Justice Department’s antitrust lawyers are conducting an investigation into the cable industry’s treatment of online video companies, especially with the increasing number of usage caps coming into the market. With most consumers confronted with a broadband monopoly or duopoly, it is easy for providers to slap limits on usage if the competition follows suit. The new found love of usage caps and usage billing is proving curious to those abroad, because the rest of the world is moving away from consumption limits and towards flat rate broadband.

One Wall Street analyst wants the industry to adopt the meme that if the Justice Department gets away with banning usage limits, the industry should retaliate with usage-based billing, which is just another version of Internet Overcharging.

As with the wireless industry, Wall Street is the primary driving force pushing broadband providers to adopt usage billing and other price increases on broadband to boost earnings. Verizon Wireless and AT&T, responding to investor concerns about slowing growth, see endless profits in their future monetizing broadband usage. With broadband usage rising, charging customers more for using more can bring in endless profits, even as the costs to provide the service continue to decline. Without competition and with no organized opposition by consumers, regulators, or legislators, there is nothing to stop prices from skyrocketing.

Lesson Three: Try to convince customers upgrades are expensive and difficult.

A major enemy of the forces working to adopt income-increasing usage billing are broadband advocates who regularly analyze quarterly earnings of major providers, the costs of upgrades, the price of backbone connections, and the ever-increasing prices for Internet service.

In every case, cable and phone broadband providers adopting the latest broadband technologies are seeing major increases in revenue and profits even as their costs to upgrade and manage their networks decline overall. With providers like Comcast and Time Warner Cable now regularly increasing broadband prices, earnings are higher than ever for flat rate broadband sold in speed-based tiers, and consumers are gravitating towards higher speed service, which brings even more profit.

In 2009, Time Warner Cable faced protesters opposed to usage limits at this rally in front of the company’s headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Unfortunately, when cable and phone companies control the pipes that deliver broadband service and monetize their use, the threat to high bandwidth innovation has never been greater.

Netflix tells the New York Times there may be little they can do to stem to tide of usage limits.  Sony, a potential online video competitor, has already pulled the plug on its plan to sell cable channels over the Internet because usage limits will destroy the market for online video.

Netflix has been desperate enough to explore a concessionary move — partnering with the very providers that seem ready to limit customers’ access to their service. Netflix hopes it can find a way to be exempt from the industry’s usage limits, much the same way Comcast has given a free pass to Microsoft Xbox streamed video.

Lesson Four: Control the voices that claim to speak for consumers.

Consumers still overwhelmingly despise usage limits, but without unified action against Internet Overcharging schemes like usage limits and usage billing, the drumbeat of industry voices and the dollar-a-holler groups that parrot their beliefs in Washington will have the upper hand.

Consider the FCC’s “voice of the people” Consumer Advisory Council, infested with corporate interests and groups that would not exist without Big Telecom money paying to keep the lights on.

While the CAC has several authentic voices for consumers, they are practically outnumbered by industry sock puppets like the “American Consumer Institute” run by Stephen Pociask, who happens to be a telecom industry consultant and former chief economist for what is now Verizon. ACI represents the interests of AT&T and Verizon, not consumers. Call For Action is aptly named. It cashed checks written by AT&T.  “Consumer Action” relies on AT&T “grants.”  Many of the other “consumer voices” on the CAC are nothing of the sort. The CTIA Wireless Association is the giant lobbying group for the wireless industry. Not to be outdone, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) is there too, representing the cable industry. Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon are there in person as well, along with the billion dollar broadcast industry in the form of the National Association of Broadcasters. So much for the “Consumer” Advisory Council.

Is it any surprise that with “consumers” like this providing advice, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski opined he thought such billing schemes were useful.

It is more urgent than ever for customers to prepare for another round of battle against major broadband providers. Time Warner Cable itself fears a repeat of the 2009 public relations disaster, and promises it will always have an unlimited tier available for customers, even if it remains quiet on how much the company would charge for the service. If the cable operator still believes in its former chief operating officer Landel Hobbs, we can give you a clue. In April 2009, Hobbs thought he was delivering a major concession to protesters by offering to bring back unlimited broadband… for $150 a month.

An all-out consumer backlash can bring additional consumer victories, but only if customers are willing to get involved in the fight.

Stay tuned.