Prism is CenturyLink’s fiber to the neighborhood service, similar to AT&T U-verse.

CenturyLink is feuding with the mayor of Colorado Springs, Colorado over whether or not the company intends to roll out its Prism IPTV service in lower income neighborhoods in the city.

The phone company is planning expansion of its fiber-to-the-neighborhood television service in Colorado for the first time, but has run into problems negotiating a franchise agreement with city officials that guarantees equal access to the upgraded broadband, phone, and television service.

“To be candid, CenturyLink does not want to put in the franchise agreement any specificity as to serving lower-income neighborhoods,” Mayor Steve Bach said last Wednesday during a meeting with City Council. “I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t work for me.”

CenturyLink wants to secure a franchise agreement that will permit the company to gradually roll out their Prism service to 22 percent of the city of Colorado Springs. But the company has refused to commit to a specific percentage of homes in lower income neighborhoods the company will wire for the new service.

Bach has the apparent support of incumbent cable operator Comcast, who seems in agreement CenturyLink should deliver its service equitably across the city.

Comcast spokeswoman Cindy Parsons told The Gazette any new cable company should be held to the same standards as Comcast was.

“Just as Comcast was required to make video services available throughout the city, we believe a new entrant into the video business should also be held to those same regulatory requirements,” she said.

“I honestly thought we had reached an understanding about the language that was to be included in the agreement,” Mary LaFave, CenturyLink’s director for public policy told the newspaper. “What we have discussed with the city is something that we have never discussed (in other communities). I’ve never seen it before.”

Bach

The newspaper last week met with CenturyLink executives to discuss the dispute and found them to be unaccommodating.  The newspaper issued an editorial critical of CenturyLink’s apparent unwillingness to get specific:

To lay fiber, the company needs to use public right-of-way. That means it needs permission of city government, in the form of a franchise agreement.

Allocation of right-of-way is a subsidy, given that companies are granted permission to use a public resource in pursuit of profits. As such, some politicians take quite seriously any request for an agreement.

Mayor Steve Bach went public this week with a concern that CenturyLink might choose to serve only the most affluent neighborhoods, giving no assurance to the city that it would invest in less advantaged areas. His concern has led to a proposed agreement in which CenturyLink would provide a “significant” amount of service to low-income areas.

[…] “What we have discussed with the city is something that we have never discussed. I’ve never seen it before,” said Mary LaFave, CenturyLink’s director for public policy.

Welcome to the new Colorado Springs. We don’t try to match best practices elsewhere. We try to surpass them.

In our meeting, a Gazette editorial board member expressed concern about a contract that relies on the wiggle word “significant.” That could mean 10 percent to some, 80 percent to others. It’s a recipe for potential consternation and even litigation. We suggested a contract that specified a percentage of service, even a very low percentage, to low-income neighborhoods. LaFave said no way.

Low-income households often buy cable. So Bach’s concern may be mostly political, as market demand will likely cause CenturyLink to reach into a cross section of neighborhoods.

Given this likelihood, and the heartfelt assurance that CenturyLink will serve a broad socioeconomic spectrum, it is hard to understand why the company balks at committing to a base-level percentage.

We urge City Council and Bach to approve a business-friendly agreement with a specified safety-net percentage of service that will go to low-income households. Set a number slightly below CentryLink’s anticipated service to low-income areas, but achieve contractual specificity.

When local government trades in right-of-way, it allocates a resource that belongs to every resident of Colorado Springs. A reasonable effort to protect them, with a contract that codifies at least the minimal goals stated by CenturyLink, makes good business sense. This is not just any old town, and it should not settle for just any old contract.

CenturyLink was already awarded a cable franchise in Monument and is seeking franchises in Fountain and unincorporated El Paso County. The company currently operates Prism in eight cities nationwide.

While Rogers top-level executives remain safe, hundreds of lower level employees are on the chopping block as Canada’s largest wireless provider announces the second round of job cuts to cut costs, the company confirmed today.

Just under 400 employees will be terminated, many in middle management positions in both the cable and wireless divisions Rogers operates. Rogers slashed at least 300 jobs earlier this year.

Rogers blames increasing competition from Bell, Telus, and smaller wireless carriers for the cost cutting. Rogers position in the market has stalled as other carriers increase their promotional offers to win over Rogers’   customers.

Bell is also cutting into Rogers’ position in cable television and broadband, especially in Ontario where the company’s Fibe TV is eroding Rogers’ margins.

“Where we actually saw the losses in subscribers, again more at the bottom end of the market with bundled offers that were extremely cheap, what we would call unsustainable, aggressive bundled offers with price points down in the mid-$70 range for a triple-play for the first six months,” Robert Bruce, president of communications told investors during an April conference call.

Rogers’ knife-wielder is its new chief financial officer Tony Staffieri, a former executive vice-president of finance at Bell. Staffieri was hired earlier this year to launch a new cost-cutting philosophy. But top executives at Rogers have been largely immune to the job and cost cuts.

Smoke signals achieve a faster transmission rate than DSL can manage in the Scottish village of Kettleholm.

The village of Kettleholm, near Lockerbie in Scotland has effectively given up on DSL service from British Telecom and has upgraded the community’s telecommunications service to technologies including smoke signals, messages inserted into bottles and thrown into nearby streams, carrier pigeons, and for urgent communications — the village’s pony express.

All of these communications methods have proven much more effective than the area’s copper wire-based DSL service, which villagers report is often less than useless. In fact, it can take at least 10 minutes to load Google’s home page in Kettleholm on a bad day, and Apple software updates require additional patience — more than 4,525 hours worth (that is more than 188 days) for the latest version of iMovie to arrive.

BT engineers sent to the area to investigate found nothing wrong with the service, which they initially said was operating within normal expectations for DSL “broadband.” But at least 150 local residents strongly disagree, and several made their point producing a video demonstrating how two yogurt cups attached by string provide more reliable communications than BT was managing in their part of Scotland.

The problem, according to local residents, is the decrepit state of the copper-wire based telephone exchange, installed just after World War 2. Broadband advocates say the solution is rubbishing the ancient copper wiring and replacing it with optical fiber that is spreading across the rest of Great Britain. But neither BT or Virgin Media consider Kettleholm worth the investment, placing the village squarely in the undistinguished category of last priority — the one-third of the United Kingdom deemed economically unsuitable for fiber broadband.

UK residents are paying for broadband improvements as part of their TV License Fee, and the government has amassed at least £800 million for upgrades. It irritates some residents that their portion of the license fee is paying for someone else’s broadband upgrades, and salt is rubbed in those wounds when viewers see BT — the largest recipient of government money — spending it on advertisements mailed to Kettleholm residents for services they can never get.

Even worse, the BBC recently learned the phone company isn’t exactly spending every resource on better broadband in the UK. BT recently found £738 million laying around to pay for the rights to Premier League football games for the next three years.

Where there is smoke (signals) there is fire, especially after the BBC picked up the story. BT suddenly had a change of heart about the state of their network in Dumfries and Galloway:

“Kettleholm telephone exchange is a modern digital exchange, System X and offers broadband speeds of up to 8mb/s. We were not initially aware of a problem with broadband in Kettleholm as only a small number of the 120 end users reported problems with their service. The service appears to have gradually degraded over time without triggering any of our alarms. Engineers recently reset equipment in the exchange and tests show that broadband speeds have risen. We will continue to monitor the situation and would like to apologise to everyone for the frustration and inconvenience they have experienced.”

Kettleholm residents appreciate the new attention BT is paying to their network, but the village has been reminding everyone they can find that BT is their sole provider and when they stop paying attention to their DSL facilities, the entire community suffers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Kettleholm Poor Broadband 6-2012.flv[/flv]

The village of Kettleholm shows off their new telecommunications systems: smoke signals, carrier pigeons, messages inserted into bottles, semaphores, the pony express, and yogurt cups attached by string.  All perform better than BT’s DSL service.  (2 minutes)

The Communications Workers of America says when it comes to “stealthy” bills like S.B. 1611 that deregulate telecommunications in California, “no price is too high — no lie is too big.”

AT&T and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are back again fighting for more deregulation of California’s telecommunications industry with a bill that will strip oversight of vital telecommunications services and stop punishing bad actors that leave customers without telephone service, sometimes for weeks.

California legislators are typically not responsive to the wholesale deregulation efforts that seem to draw support in more conservative states, so AT&T’s lobbyists are trying a more “incremental” approach in the state. But AT&T has also inserted “stealth” language into the bill that would dismantle consumer protections, allow companies to abandon unprofitable landlines, and strip away important oversight “checks and balances” needed to ensure good service.

Sen. Padilla’s top corporate contributor is AT&T.

S.B. 1611 illustrates that AT&T can buy its way into any legislator’s office, Democrat or Republican. The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Alex Padilla (D-20th Senate District) has received more contributions from AT&T than from any other corporation in both the 2006 and 2010 elections.

The bill ostensibly claims to limit its scope narrowly to “Voice over Internet Protocol” (VoIP) and “Internet Protocol enabled service.” That brings to mind services like “digital phone service” from cable companies or alternative telephone services like Vonage, magicJack or Skype.

S.B. 1611:

The bill would prohibit any department, agency, commission, or political subdivision of the state from enacting, adopting, or enforcing any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, standard, order, or other provision having the force or effect of law, that regulates VoIP or other IP enabled service, unless required or delegated by federal law or expressly authorized by statute. The bill would specify certain areas of law that are expressly applicable to VoIP and IP enabled service providers. The bill would provide that its limitations upon the commission’s regulation of VoIP and IP enabled services do not affect the commission’s existing authority over non-VoIP and other non-IP enabled wireline or wireless service….

To the layperson who generally believes services like Skype and Vonage might not deserve the same oversight as AT&T, Frontier, or Verizon — which provide Californians traditional landline service, consider Section 2 (a)(2) of the bill, which describes and defines VoIP and IP enabled service as anything that:

“Permits a user generally to receive a call that originates on the public switched telephone network and to terminate a call to the public switched telephone network” and “any service, capability, functionality, or application using existing Internet Protocol, or any successor Internet Protocol, that enables an end user to send or receive a communication in existing Internet Protocol format, or any successor Internet Protocol format through a broadband connection, regardless of whether the communication is voice, data, or video.”

This “narrow” deregulation bill just grew as wide as the Gulf of Mexico and can realistically allow any phone company in California to ignore state oversight and regulation forever.

Traditional telephone companies increasingly utilize exactly these technologies for calls placed over ordinary landline phones. Using broadband service to engage in two-way communications also qualifies. With this kind of defining language, virtually every telecommunications service in the state of California would win near-total deregulation and walk away from important oversight. The California Public Utilities Commission certainly understood the implications of this bill when the majority of commissioners came out in opposition to S.B. 1611.

Goodbye Universal Service: S.B. 1611 Allows Phone Companies to Abandon Rural and Economically Distressed California Communities

Several public interest groups also discovered language in the bill that is a perennial favorite of AT&T — eliminating universal service requirements that assure every citizen that wants a telephone line can get one. S.B. 1611 lays waste to Section 709 of the California Code which guarantees: “our universal service commitment by assuring the continued affordability and widespread availability of high-quality telecommunications services to all Californians.”

With that language gone, the state’s phone companies can unilaterally decide to abandon the customers they no longer want to serve. That could spell disaster in rural northern and eastern California, and leave low income residents with nothing but a dead phone line, unable even to call 911 in an emergency.

One AT&T Lobbyist for Every California Lawmaker

The importance AT&T places on influencing lawmakers is readily apparent when one realizes there are at least 120 AT&T lobbyists working in the state capital Sacramento, one for every California lawmaker.

But when one considers the track record of California phone and cable companies in the last few years, is less oversight and regulation the right answer?

• Verizon Sued for Providing DSL Speeds (Suitable for VoIP) They Can’t Deliver
• AT&T Gouges California With 25% Rate Increase
• California Landline Nightmare: Residents in Bakersfield in Tears Over Lousy Service
• Southern California Power & Phone Companies Blamed for Devastating Wildfires
• Verizon Bills Dead People: We’ll Settle for Half Because She’s No Longer Among the Living
• Frontier’s Goodbye Kiss: A $680 Final Bill for a Departing Customer
• Calabasas Residents Annoyed by “Corrupt and Deceptive” Charter Cable; Time Warner Cable Also Called Out
• Time Warner Cable Guy Arrives Late to Service Call, Leaves Claiming Homeowner Had “Bad Air”
• More Frontier Problems: Californians Wait Months on Refunds for Disconnected Landlines
• The Many Challenges of Charter Cable: Rate Increases for Seniors, Bankruptcy, Employees Attacked, Customers Hassled
• AT&T’s California Gold Rush: Company Lobbyists Spread the Money Far and Wide

“SB 1161 is a stealth vehicle for the gradual deregulation of telecommunications in California,” the Consumer Federation of California declared on their website. “Consumers need the CPUC to have the power to investigate complaints of bad service or unfair charges on bills, regardless of the technology used to provide phone service.”

Call to Action!

Consumers across California need to get on board immediately to stop S.B. 1611. You can file online opposition courtesy of Free Press, but it is far more effective to also directly phone your own legislator and leave a message to urge this bill be defeated. It literally takes only 2-3 minutes to call and the money and phone service you could save will be your own. Use this district finder to contact your representatives.

S.B. 1161 is scheduled for hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee this Wednesday, so time is of the essence!

Your modem needs an expensive upgrade, even if you own your own.

Frontier Communications customers may get less than they bargained for when calling the company about a malfunctioning modem or problem with service. Andrew, a Stop the Cap! reader from Tennessee discovered a simple service call left him stuck with two separate contracts for phone and Internet service, a major broadband speed reduction, and a sense that Frontier is willing to sign up customers without fully disclosing what they are selling.

Andrew reports he originally called Frontier to discuss a possibly damaged DSL modem. Upon hearing the model number, a Frontier customer service representative needed to hear no more — the modem “needed to be upgraded.” In fact, Frontier has been mailing postcards to customers with older modems not subject to monthly rental fees telling them their existing modem was “no longer supported” and needed to be replaced with a new model. In the fine print, the customer learns if they proceed, they will end up paying a monthly modem rental fee starting at $6.99… forever.

But things got much worse for this Frontier customer after he contacted the company to say he’d be keeping his current DSL modem, which turned out to be working just fine:

I was then told there would be about a $20 price drop on my next bill (for July). I asked the agent why and her response was, “oh, our prices are going down.” I said okay, thanked her and hung up the phone.

The next morning, I got an email from Frontier thanking me for my ”recent purchase or renewal of services,” further asking me to click and view the Terms of Service agreement for High Speed Internet (and to submit the PIN number associated with my account).

I then called Customer Service about the email. I was told that I had upgraded my phone service the previous day. It turned out that the agent upgraded my phone service to include their ”Digital Essentials” phone features package and had locked me into two price protection plans for both services. There was a one-year plan regarding the phone service and a two-year plan for the High Speed Internet.

I was shocked and informed the agent that I had made no such changes to my phone/Internet services and that I had simply called about cancelling a support ticket on my account regarding the modem.

He later tried to claim that I had given the previous agent authorization when I said okay after she had informed me about the price drop. I told him that was absolutely ridiculous, especially since she never discussed any upgrades to my phone service or any changes regarding my Internet. I asked him how it could be an authorization when what was done to my account was never fully explained (or asked for).

We’ve got a deal too good to refuse.

The Frontier agent then proceeded to hard-sell Andrew the same plan the former agent already applied to his account. The Frontier representative did not bother to mention the “upgrade” and “savings” he was getting included a drastic speed reduction. Frontier sold Andrew a package that included just 1.2Mbps broadband.   That is less than half the speed of his original 3Mbps service, for which he paid $40 a month with no modem rental fee.

Now Andrew is stuck with two contracts, both which carry early termination fees that will total well in excess of $100, the likelihood of a modem rental fee for a new modem he has never received and does not want, and less than half the broadband speed he used to get.

“I was never told by either agent I spoke with that my Internet speed would be [reduced] once the ‘upgrade’ was performed,” Andrew writes. “This, in my opinion, is fraud. Had I known a slower speed would be the end result of their price drop, I would have never [signed up].”

Now Andrew wants his old plan back and Frontier is stalling.

Frontier has a track record of retiring older service plans and packages, but leaving existing customers grandfathered on them until a representative can convince a customer to switch to something else. Unfortunately, newer plans often come with higher prices and more surcharges than older ones, which is part of the company’s effort to increase average revenue earned from each customer. Once off a discontinued plan, low level customer service representatives typically cannot re-enroll a customer.

But those who complain the loudest can get back the service they used to have, just by becoming a nuisance. Start by calling Frontier and asking to speak to a supervisor or manager. If that fails, ask to be transferred to the department that handles disconnections and threaten to drop all Frontier services if the company does not relent and put you back on the plan you started with.

Customers can also file complaints with their state utility regulators. In Tennessee, that is the Tenessee Regulatory Authority. Their online complaint form is here. Unfortunately, many states have succumbed to deregulation rhetoric and state regulators lack significant enforcement powers. But utilities that routinely filibuster state officials risk generating enough legislative energy to support a “re-regulation” effort, so most utilities will connect complainers to an executive level customer service department that can cut through red tape.

Customers can also file complaints with the Better Business Bureau and their state’s Attorney General. The more noise you generate, the more likely Frontier will satisfy your request.

Frontier customers are advised that anytime a customer service representative asks you to complete an online agreement using your PIN number, it signals you are about to commit yourself to a term contract or other major change in service that could prove costly to undo.

Always ask the Frontier representative to e-mail you a copy of the terms of the plan you are enrolling in, including broadband speeds, phone features, contract length and early termination fees.

Always read the agreement you are being asked to complete online.

If you have any questions, call Frontier before you sign. Some plans include a 14 or 30 day penalty-free cancellation provision. While this alone may not restore your old service, it can prove an important negotiating tool to win back the service you had before.