A California woman is suing Verizon Communications for selling her faster Internet service, at a higher price, the company cannot actually deliver.

Patricia Allen of Santa Monica filed suit in Los Angeles after Verizon sold her an upgrade to her current DSL plan that turned out to be anything but.  Allen was paying $23.99 a month for 768kbps service, but in March, 2011 Verizon promised they could give her a speed upgrade to 1.5Mbps for $11 more per month.

Exactly one year later, Allen learned her “upgraded service” performed no better than her original Internet plan, which itself only managed around 500kbps, and called Verizon to complain.

Verizon technicians quickly responded Allen could never get the benefits of a faster speed plan because she lived at least two miles from her local Verizon central office.  DSL speeds degrade with distance and can also be impacted by the quality of the landline network Verizon maintains in southern California.  Because Allen lives too far away to receive anything better than 700kbps service, she was advised to downgrade her $34.99 DSL plan back to the one she started with.

Allen requested a refund for the extra $11 a month she was paying for the last year for promised speed improvements Verizon never delivered, but the company flatly refused her request.  Allen is now taking her case to the California courts, and her legal representatives are seeking to have the case designated a class action covering all Verizon landline customers in California who, like Allen, are paying for Verizon-marketed speed upgrades they actually cannot receive.

The suit claims Verizon is well aware it is selling speed upgrades to customers who live too far away from the company’s facilities to actually benefit from the enhanced service, and pockets the proceeds without delivering improved service.  The suit alleges Verizon is engaged in unethical, unscrupulous, immoral, and oppressive business conduct in violation of California state law.

Verizon’s spokesman Rich Young called the lawsuit “baseless and without merit.”

Verizon Class Action Copy

If you thought paying an average of $86 a month for basic pay television and premium movie channels in 2011 was out of line, just wait.  A new report predicts you could pay $123 by the year 2015 and $200 by 2020 — and that only includes the TV portion of your bill.

That is in keeping with typical annual rate increases, typically blamed on “increased programming costs,” which currently run an average of six percent a year.

The NPD Group, who published the findings, predicts consumers may not sit still for that kind of monthly cable television bill, especially as household incomes for the middle class continue to remain stagnant, even as high fuel and health care prices continue to march higher.

The pay television industry isn’t entirely responsible for the annual rate hikes that nearly always outpace the rate of inflation.  The real money is in programming production and distribution, which is why giant companies like Comcast, Bell, Rogers, and Viacom are buying up programming studios, distributors, and networks at a rapid pace.

With new players like Netflix, Amazon, and Redbox joining traditional pay television and broadcast network bidders, auctions for exclusive licensing agreements bring higher and higher bids.  Ultimately, consumers pay the price in the form of higher bills.  Even cable networks, sensing an increase in the value of their programming, are extracting higher monthly fees at contract renewal time.

The last to arrive at the programming money party?  Local over-the-air broadcasters that used to beg cable companies to carry their channels on the local lineup.  Now some are demanding as much as $5 or more per month per subscriber to allow the cable operator to keep carrying the stations.

“As pay-TV costs rise and consumers’ spending power stays flat, the traditional affiliate-fee business model for pay-TV companies appears to be unsustainable in the long term,” said Keith Nissen, research director for The NPD Group. “Much needed structural changes to the pay-TV industry will not happen quickly or easily; however, the emerging competition between video on demand and premium-TV suppliers might be the spark that ignites the necessary business-model transformation of the pay-TV industry.”

In other words, the more consumers cut cable’s cord and go find other ways to watch their favorite shows, the more unsustainable the traditional pay television business model will become.  Some industry watchers believe cord-cutting is not a major issue.  Others believe continued rate increases will drive customers to cancel service, particularly when alternatives are available. But NPD believes economic factors are the biggest reason for cable cord-cutting.  Those ex-customers are switching back to free “over the air” television, which now delivers better picture quality and often includes additional channels that increase the number of viewing options.

NPD Group research shows most consumers don’t want to exert too much effort to hunt down online programming. Most will put up with their current provider as long as they deliver the shows they want at a price they can afford.  What could change that?  Easy-to-access to a-la-carte programming, perhaps available from services that may soon come built-in with the newest television sets.

“Pay-TV providers offer a convenient, one-stop shop for subscribers, and the majority of customers like it that way,” said Russ Crupnick, senior vice president of industry analysis for The NPD Group. “There is an open window for the industry to meet consumer needs and become to television what iTunes is to music; however, there is also a definite risk if pay-TV providers don’t capitalize on the opportunity — and soon.”

Stop the Cap! has written extensively about the American Legislative Exchange Council’s pervasive influence on state telecommunications policies long before Trayvon Martin and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law put a spotlight on the shadowy corporate-backed group in the national media.

ALEC’s mission is clear.  It acts as a go-between between corporate interests who customize business-friendly state legislation in their favor and the legislators willing to introduce those bills as their own. ALEC provides the cover some legislators need to protect their image in the public eye.

A handful of legislators in safe districts are bold enough to openly admit introducing legislation written by a company like AT&T.  Take Kentucky Republican Sen. Paul Hornback.  He introduced a deregulation measure in Kentucky’s state Senate that would do away with universal landline service and almost entirely deregulate AT&T’s operations in Kentucky.  When the media found out Hornback introduced legislation AT&T actually wrote, he didn’t seem to mind one bit and doubled down on the apparent conflict of interest.

Sen. Paul Hornback (R-AT&T)

“You work with the authorities in any industry to figure out what they need to move that industry forward,” Hornback said, defending his bill that would do exactly that, at the expense of Kentucky consumers facing rate hikes AT&T has pushed in other states where similar measures were passed.

Hornback is the exception to the rule.  For more timid legislators concerned about their next election campaign, ALEC is only too happy to provide cover.

When ALEC’s connection to Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law was exposed, it swept the secretive group into the Martin media tornado.  When reports surfaced connecting the dots between ALEC and some of America’s largest corporations, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Intuit, and Pepsi fled ALEC’s membership roster.  No soft drink company wants to be connected to a controversial Florida gun law.

First Coca-Cola and Kraft Foods, Now AT&T

Today, Color of Change, a group dedicated to amplifying the voice of African-Americans to make government more responsive to minorities set its sights on AT&T, one of ALEC’s most prominent members.

They have a major fight on their hands.  Few corporations have used ALEC as effectively as the descendant of Ma Bell.  AT&T’s enormous lobbying machine has frequently used ALEC to help introduce deregulation measures in states across the country.

“Even after we wrote AT&T to let them know that more than 85,000 ColorOfChange members have asked that they disassociate themselves from ALEC, the company has remained silent,” says Color of Change. “It’s clear that they think we will just go away.”

Throwing away their membership in ALEC would be a major blow to AT&T’s lobbyists who are well-connected inside the group. AT&T has several leadership roles within ALEC’s various state chapters:

ALEC State Chairs Affiliated With AT&T

• Arkansas:
  — Ted Mullenix, AT&T
• California:
  — Pete Anderson, AT&T
• Connecticut:
  — John Emra, AT&T
• Louisiana:
  — Daniel Wilson, AT&T
• Mississippi:
  — Randal Russell, AT&T
• Texas:
  — Holly Reed, AT&T

How do these ALEC-involved lobbyists influence elected officials?  They wine and dine lawmakers and their families, encouraging them to introduce legislation favorable to AT&T.

Everyone Knows Randy Russell – AT&T’s Go-To-Guy in Mississippi

Beckett

AT&T lobbyist Randy Russell has been representing the interests of Big Telecom in Mississippi for more than a decade.  Originally registered as a lobbyist for AT&T predecessor BellSouth, Russell today also serves as ALEC’s state chairman in the Magnolia State.

When he isn’t spending his time in the state capital — Jackson — he’s wining and dining lawmakers who might be future supporters of AT&T’s business agenda in the legislature.

Lucky for AT&T Russell found Rep. Jim Beckett (R-Bruce).  And what a find.  Beckett is in the catbird seat, serving as chairman of the House Public Utilities Committee — the oversight committee responsible for ensuring that when someone in Mississippi picks up a phone, there is actually a dial tone.

Unfortunately for Mississippi consumers Beckett has AT&T’s Russell on his speed dial.

The Cottonmouth Blog discovered both men have spent a lot of time together:

It seems that Russell and AT&T picked up the food tab for Rep. Jim Beckett and his wife at the ALEC meeting in at the Westin Kierland Resort in Scottsdale, Ariz. from November 30 to December 2, 2011.  AT&T also paid for a few rounds of golf for Rep. Beckett while there.  All said and done, AT&T paid $565.39 to cover expenses for Rep. Beckett and his wife on their three day trip to Scottsdale.

But that’s not all.  AT&T also picked up the tab for $151.70 worth of food and tickets while Rep. Beckett and his wife were at the Spring ALEC meeting in Cincinnati, OH in late April of 2011. AT&T also paid $22.62 for food for Rep. Beckett and his wife while he attended the 2011 Summer ALEC meeting in New Orleans.

The total amount AT&T gave to Rep. Jim Beckett and his wife in 2011 through Randy Russell?  $876.85.  The names of the Becketts appear a total of 36 times in AT&T’s 2011 lobbying report, most of it while the Becketts are at ALEC retreats.

AT&T also helped more directly with $2,500 in campaign contributions to Beckett’s campaign fund.  What did all of AT&T’s money and travel vouchers buy them?

Dialing for Deregulation

House Bill 825 — ‘The AT&T Total Deregulation Act’: A bill introduced by none other than Rep. Beckett that would effectively strip what remaining oversight exists over AT&T’s operations in Mississippi.  It’s a bill very familiar to Stop the Cap!, because it includes all of the usual “bullet points” found in ALEC’s own legislative database — all of enormous interest and importance to AT&T.

Northern District Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley, who deals with consumer complaints about AT&T’s service in the state, effectively called HB 825 an unmitigated disaster for ratepayers from Corinth in the north to Biloxi in the south:

[…] House Bill 825 would totally strip the PSC of any authority to hold AT&T accountable for rate increases and lousy landline and cell phone coverage. Presley said the bill was requested by AT&T as retaliation against the PSC for denying a rate increase and for complaining of poor cellular and residential phone service. The PSC won a case in the Mississippi Supreme Court to limit charges to customers after AT&T appealed the PSC’s ruling.

[…] Presley said the Legislature passed the first phase of deregulation in 2006 and since then complaints to the Commission about billing errors, poor service and the like have risen from 1,735 in 2006 to 4,361 in 2011 an increase of over 150%. “This is evidence enough of why this bill is bad for consumers.”

[…] Along with removing all of the Public Service Commission’s authority to investigate abuses, extortion and customer complaints, House Bill 825 also removes the Commission’s authority to designate conditions for AT&T’s receiving of millions in federal funds to promote rural cell phone service. Presley said the Commission’s authority to place conditions on those dollars has been the main tool to increase cell phone coverage in rural counties. “Rural Mississippi’s interests are gutted in this bill.” Presley said.

Cottonmouth reminds readers who may not be familiar with Mississippi that Beckett’s home district — Bruce — puts his AT&T ghost-written legislation at odds with his own constituents:

“Bruce [isn’t] exactly urban,” the blogger writes. “Matter of fact, anyone who has driven on Highway 7 right outside of Bruce and tried to make an AT&T cell phone call could tell you just how much this bill will hurt Rep. Beckett’s constituents.”

Even Beckett’s fellow Republicans serving the state PSC couldn’t stomach the legislation that guaranteed even more customer complaints.  Southern District Public Service Commissioner Leonard Bentz issued his own press release attacking the bill:

“This is a very bad bill for consumers in Mississippi,” Commissioner Bentz stated. “Even though AT&T will tell you that the oversight that we [PSC] have is limited, the little we do have is piece of mind for the consumers.”

“You don’t have to think very long to understand why this bill is bad. Think back to last time you called  in a problem to AT&T and the lack of customer service you received. This bill would make it worse. It is important to understand AT&T will lead you to believe this bill will affect only a small number of customers, but that is not so. As it stands right now, all customers with AT&T have the ability to file complaints with the Public Service Commission, and have the PSC on their side to help them navigate the system. The bill clearly states customer appeals will be removed from the PSC jurisdiction.

The third commissioner on the PSC, Republican Central District Public Service Commissioner Lynn Posey, hoped HB 825 would simply go away, seeking to bury it in a “study committee.”

Despite the universal opposition to the measure among those tasked with overseeing the state’s phone companies, Beckett decided AT&T knew better and quickly pushed HB 825 through his committee.  What makes Beckett an expert in telecommunications policy?  Not too much: He calls himself a lawyer on his biography page, but he’s also the owner of Beckett Oil & Gas.

Despite efforts by consumer advocates, a slightly-amended measure passed both the Republican-controlled state House and Senate and this week will be sent to the desk Gov. Phil Bryant for his signature.

“The small telephone companies in this state, many of them are opposed to this,” said Rep. Cecil Brown (D-Jackson). “If it hurts their business, it’s going to hurt your local communities. That’s all there is to it.”

The price the phone company paid to get Rep. Beckett on Team AT&T?: $2,500 + ALEC-sponsored free meals and travel.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTTC Rochester ALEC 2-3-12.mp4[/flv]

KTTP in Rochester, Minn. explores the influence of state lobbyists working with ALEC who push lawmakers to introduce legislation corporations wrote themselves.  (4 minutes)

Vranish says the community's free Wi-Fi has to go because of a "complaint-happy climate." (Image: KVIA-TV)

A bizarre political dispute involving board members of the Tornillo, Tex. Independent School District threatens to shut off community-owned Wi-Fi service for more than 500 subscribers.

The Tornillo school board is no stranger to controversy, and evenly divided factions often create at atmosphere some local residents describe as the best political theater in town.

Unfortunately, the town’s Internet access may be a casualty of the school board’s latest dispute.

Tornillo, a small community of 1,600 in southeast El Paso County, needs Internet access.  With 36.8% of the population below the poverty line, commercial providers have shown little interest in selling broadband to the community, more than 99% of which are Latino-American.

Since 2004, the local school district has provided free wireless access for a one-time setup fee of $275.

Now school Superintendant Paul Vranish has said he will shut off the service because a majority of the school board failed to vote for a resolution that would pay for any legal fees incurred by school district employees respecting any potential complaints about the service.

Vranish blamed a local “complaint-happy climate” for necessitating legal protection, but some local residents suspect the real issue is a political dispute between Vranish, the rest of the school board, and Tornillo resident Ricardo Hernandez, who separately filed an unrelated complaint against Vranish with the Texas Education Agency.  Two state agencies are presently conducting investigations into allegations Vranish misused district funds for personal gain.

Hernandez, according to the resolution, has “questioned a former employee as to the legality” of the Wi-Fi service. Vranish apparently is unwilling to find out whether the service is legal or not, declaring he would simply terminate the service at an unspecified future date.

“It’s a simple personal and political dispute that may well cost Tornillo its Internet access and leave 500 residents in the dark, all because Mr. Vranish thinks the community will turn against Mr. Hernandez if the service does close down,” writes Maria, a local Tornillo resident. “What are these people hiding because this is certainly not about Wi-Fi.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KVIA El Paso Tornillo ISD To Discontinue Free Community Wireless Internet 4-4-12.mp4[/flv]

El Paso’s KVIA sought answers to the Wi-Fi dispute, but found themselves chasing the school district superintendent down a hallway, unwilling to address questions about the matter.  (3 minutes)

Verizon Communications will stop selling DSL broadband-only service to its customers May 6th in what the company is calling an effort to control costs “enabling us to continue providing competitively priced services to existing and new customers.”

Broadband Reports readers first reported receiving written notice of Verizon’s plans to discard “naked DSL” service, although existing customers who don’t move or make any changes to their account will be able to keep the broadband-only service for now.

Verizon provides the details:

Beginning May 6, 2012, we will no longer offer High Speed Internet without local voice service on the same account.

What does this mean for you?

• If you currently have High Speed Internet without local voice service on the same account, there is no action required on your part to continue enjoying your internet service. You will not experience any disruption of service.
• Prior to May 6, 2012, you can still make speed upgrades or downgrades to your existing service.
• Prior to May 6, 2012, you can receive bundle discounts by adding DIRECTV service or Verizon Wireless service to your current internet service.

What this means if you change or disconnect your High Speed Internet Service as of May 6, 2012 or after:

• You can make changes to and retain your Verizon High Speed Internet Service on or after the above date, by adding Verizon’s local voice service to the same account.
• If you are moving your service from one location to another on or after the above date, you may subscribe to internet service at your new location if you also subscribe to Verizon’s local voice service on the same account.
• If you choose to subscribe to additional Verizon services you could be eligible for a bundled discount when you also subscribe to Verizon’s local voice service on the same account.

There is speculation Verizon is eliminating its DSL-only service in an effort to boost revenue and push subscribers in FiOS-enabled areas to Verizon’s fiber optic network.  A decade earlier, many phone companies fought to avoid selling “broadband-only” DSL service without a voice landline because of revenue losses.  Landline customers continue to drop voice service from traditional phone companies at an alarming rate — choosing competing cable or Voice over IP service or a cell phone.  By requiring voice service, Verizon can boost average revenue from each customer, whether those customers want the service or not.

Customers who currently subscribe to broadband-only DSL service from Verizon are advised that virtually any account change of significance can disqualify them from continuing with the service.  That includes address changes and speed adjustments.  Stop the Cap! recommends customers make any changes prior to May 6th.

Large sections of Verizon’s service area are not FiOS-eligible,  so current DSL customers with no other broadband choices may find themselves stuck with adding voice service. Verizon sells Basic Home Telephone Service with no local calling allowance at prices ranging from $7 in some communities to $16 or higher in others, excluding the FCC-mandated line fee, which runs an extra $6.50 a month.

One thing Verizon’s higher bills will accomplish is making Verizon Wireless’ new 4G LTE Home Fusion wireless broadband service look slightly more price competitive.  If a Verizon landline customer has to pay for both voice and data service, paying $60 a month for 10GB of wireless broadband may not seem that expensive in comparison.