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.

In an effort to tap into the credit-challenged market, Comcast has unveiled a prepaid Internet service in Philadelphia that requires no credit check or ongoing service contract.

Similar to prepaid cellphone service, would-be customers can buy a “starter kit” that includes a DOCSIS 3 cable modem and a unique sign-up PIN code for a suggested retail price of $70.

The offer is most likely to appear in wireless retail outlets that specialize in prepaid service, but will also be sold online. At present, the service is available in parts of Philadephia, Delaware, and New Jersey.

Light Reading notes there are some important restrictions on the offer:

1. You must live in an area where Comcast provides service;
2. The address where you hook up the modem must not currently receive Comcast broadband service;
3. You must use the cable modem in the startup kit;
4. The maximum available speed is 3Mbps down, 768kbps up;
5. The price is just a few dollars less than faster connections available from the cable operator.

The service is presently undergoing a trial in Philadelphia and it is unknown if or when the prepaid offer will expand to other cities.

Comcast is targeting low-income customers and those without bank accounts or a healthy credit profile. The prepaid offer requires a customer to pay in advance for service, and refill PIN cards will be available from retailers, or the customer can renew with a debit or credit card.

Comcast has little to fear from its prepaid service cannibalizing its traditional broadband offers. Comcast’s 6Mbps Performance Starter service runs $49.95 per month, just four dollars more than 30 days of prepaid 3Mbps service.

There is no mention of any usage caps with the prepaid service.

If an unexpected technician arrives on your doorstep without proper ID, keep them outside. When in doubt, call authorities.

Phony AT&T workers ransacked a metro Oklahoma City home earlier this month looking for cash and jewelry while distracting the homeowners with stories of network upgrades and repairs designed to improve service. Instead, the crooks improved their personal jewelry collection and bank accounts.

At least three men were in on the scheme. The first two, both wearing jumpsuits, rang the doorbell of the elderly homeowner claiming they needed access to her property to complete work in the neighborhood.

“[They said we’d have] less static and our lights wouldn’t dim, all these other wonderful things, that our bills would be less because we’re using so much electricity just to keep the phone system going,” or so the story went, according to the daughter of the homeowner who was also at home at the time.

Bizarrely, the workers instructed they turn off all the lights and the television inside the home so work could proceed, and both women were then lured outside to keep them distracted.

A third “employee” later joined the pair, but just as quickly disappeared. More about him in a moment.

About 30 minutes later, the “work” was complete.

“After they left we came back into the house, and that’s when we discovered somebody else had been in the house and ransacked the bedroom looking for things,” the women said.

In all the thieves walked away with an heirloom wedding ring and at least $300 in cash.

“It makes you feel very vulnerable,” the woman told a reporter from KWTV. “It makes you feel like, ‘why didn’t I see what was going on here?'”

It is not the first time phony telecommunications company workers have gained false entry into customers’ homes. AT&T says it does not dispatch technicians without proper identification, plainly visible and available for inspection when requested.

If technicians suddenly arrive on your doorstep without warning, ask them to produce identification and contact the provider for verification. If in doubt, keep them out and call authorities.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KWTV Oklahoma City Thieves Pose As ATT Workers, Ransack OKC Family’s Home 2-3-13.mp4[/flv]

KWTV in Oklahoma City talked with two women who were victimized by phony AT&T technicians who claimed they were there to improve service. Instead, the men robbed their home.  (2 minutes)

CenturyLink investors got the shock of their investment lives last week after company executives announced the phone company was slashing its dividend by 26 percent from 72.5 cents to 54 cents per share. The stock immediately tanked, tumbling the most in more than three decades, according to Bloomberg News.

The stock price crash wiped out about $6 billion in market value after the dividend cut was announced and stock analysts lambasted executives for the decision.

But CenturyLink’s move to stop paying out large sums to investors does not mean the company is going to spend the money on network and service upgrades. Instead, CenturyLink executives plan to spend $2 billion in stock purchase buybacks over the next two years.

“This is one of the most unusual capital allocation decisions I have ever seen,”  Todd Rethemeier, an analyst with Hudson Square Research in New York told Bloomberg.

CenturyLink, like Frontier Communications and Windstream, have all been popular “investment-grade” stocks for investors that rely on dividend payouts. Many investors explore various platforms for trading these stocks, often seeking resources that provide in-depth analyses, such as a Kraken review, to make informed decisions. All three phone companies have paid extremely high dividends to attract shareholder investment, but the ongoing decline in revenue from landline customers disconnecting service has made high dividend payouts financially untenable. CenturyLink has lost six percent of its landline customers in the 12 months ending last September, a decline of 857,000 lines. In the last two years, the dividend payout has cost CenturyLink 50-55 percent of its free cash flow. That is unsustainable at a time the company is losing upwards of $25 million in operating revenue every quarter.

From: Seeking Alpha

CenturyLink executives told shareholders in the company’s latest quarterly conference call that much of CenturyLink’s investment will continue to build fiber links to serve highly profitable cell towers. The company also plans to further expand its fiber-to-the-neighborhood service Prism, which works similarly to AT&T’s U-verse. Phoenix, Arizona is the company’s next major target for rollout, with the service already soft-launched in certain neighborhoods. But do not expect CenturyLink to begin a spending spree to expand Prism rapidly into other communities, even if it means losing more landline customers.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports CenturyLink, the city’s primary phone company, is now in a race against time in a country where more than a third of Americans rely on cellphones — a service CenturyLink does not provide. In response, CenturyLink has relied on its multi-platform Prism service, which can provide phone, broadband, and cable-TV in its bid to stay relevant and help improve earnings growth. The company also sees corporate customers as a major income source, and has expanded into the business of cloud computing with its acquisition of Savvis.

But the company has a more immediate potential challenge. The Communications Workers of America (CWA), the union representing as many as 13,000 CenturyLink employees, has authorized its executive board to set a strike date. The company’s labor contract expired in October and bargaining has yet to achieve a renewal. Workers are complaining about significant benefits cuts, especially to health care plans.