Small town media, always eager for an easy story to tell, is notorious for rewriting industry press releases and calling it news, but when a major “news radio” station in Chicago does it, it’s simply sloppy and embarrassing.

WBBM Radio decided AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile, announced several months ago, has suddenly become newsworthy.  Why?  Because AT&T has been sending out press releases touting the merger’s benefits for Illinois customers.

News that a merger with America’s fourth largest wireless carrier would suddenly bring widespread 4G coverage to communities large and small has become catnip for lazy reporters who never bother to research the claims.  Even AT&T’s attorneys are on a different page from AT&T’s public relations department.

But the extent of WBBM’s investigation by reporter Alex Degman began and ended with a proposed AT&T coverage map:

A coverage map of the proposed network coverage shows most of the state would indeed be covered, minus large sections of the Shawnee National Forest in southeastern Illinois and scattered pockets in west central Illinois. The merger is expected to be approved in January.

Degman’s report was little more than a disguised advertisement for AT&T, completely reliant on the company’s claims and ignorant of the fact AT&T would bring 4G service to anyone in WBBM’s local coverage area with or without T-Mobile.

Apparently there was no time for merger opponents.

WBBM Reporter Alex Degman “covers” the impact of the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile on Illinois. August 22, 2011. (1 minute)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Listener Seth Weintraub was not impressed.

“Are you kidding?” Weintraub wrote. “Is AT&T writing your copy now?”

“How about reporting on the FCC document filings instead of unsubstantiated claims made by the company,” writes listener Patrick Dailey. “This is what is wrong with media today.”

The telecommunications industry better not take a tip from some Texas power companies that have found new ways to increase profits: charging customers a penalty when they do not use enough electricity during the month.  Imagine if broadband providers with Internet Overcharging schemes followed suit.

After Texas deregulated electric utilities, an increasing number of companies are using their freedom to find new, creative ways to tack on additional fees and surcharges that might normally be considered the cost of doing business.

CenterPoint Energy, a Fortune 500 corporation providing service in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas would like to introduce you to its Minimum Usage Penalty — a $9.95 fee applied to Texans caught using too little electricity from the company.

While most utility companies set a basic customer charge applicable to everyone, which covers the cost of your electric meter, power lines and their upkeep, billing, and other administrative expenses, many Texas power companies are billing consumers a monthly fee for conserving too much electricity.

The concept flies in the face of common sense, especially as the state contends with dozens of 100+ degree summer days and pleas from utilities for customers to cut back on energy use.  But if some do, especially low-consumption customers in apartments or those who maintain part-time residences, they’ll pay a penalty for doing so.

The Texas Electricity Ratings Blog found more than a dozen power companies with similar policies, with penalties as high as $12.96 for using less than 1,000 kWh per month:

Ambit Energy: $9.99 for less than 1000 kWh per month
Amigo Energy: Depending on the plan it is $9.95 of $6.95 for less than 1000 kWh per month
Bounce Energy: $4.95 for less than 1000 kWh per month for almost all of their plans, except intro plans are $6.96 per month for less than 1000 kWh.
Champion Energy: $4.95 for less than 500 kWh per month
Cirro Energy: $5.25 for less than 1000 kWh per month
Direct Energy: I couldn’t find a Monthly Fee in their Terms of Service or EFLs
Dynowatt: $6.95 for less than 1000 kWh per month
First Choice Power: $5 for less than 650 kWh per month, plus a $4.95 base charge
GEXA Energy: Seems to simply use a sliding rate per plan for different usage w/o a minimum charge
Green Mountain Energy: Didn’t seem to see any minimum usage charge in the EFL or Terms of Service
Mega Energy: $12.96 for less than 1000 kWh per month
MX Energy: Seems to simply use a sliding rate per plan for different usage w/o minimum charge
Reliant Energy: $9.95 for less than 800 kWh per month
Southwest Power & Light: I didn’t see minimum usage but they had a $7.95 monthly meter fee.
Spark Energy: $8.99 for less than 1000 kWh per month
StarTex Power: $4.99 for less than 500 kWh per month
Tara Energy: $6.95 for less than 500 kWh per month
Texas Power: $10.00 for less than 1000 kWh per month
TXU Energy: TXU uses a base $4.95 charge and sliding rates for less or greater than 1000 kWh, per plan.

[flv width=”600″ height=”358″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTRK Houston Higher Bills for Not Using Enough 7-11.flv[/flv]

KTRK in Houston provides surprising information about Texas utility usage-based-billing rates — power companies will charge you a penalty for not consuming enough electricity.  Better hope broadband providers angling for UBB don’t catch on.  (3 minutes)

When Time Warner Cable introduced its SignatureHome service, the company claimed it wanted to deliver a comprehensive experience to its most premium-customers.  But oddly, the best broadband speeds, phone service, and digital cable TV lineup from the cable company didn’t include any premium movie channels.

“I was ready to sign up for SignatureHome, but I assumed it included major premium channels, and it didn’t,” says Stop the Cap! reader Liam in Los Angeles.  “I thought it would be a real money-saver but I would rather have the premium channels than their phone service, which I don’t actually use as I depend on my cellphone.”

Scott elected for a cheaper promotional bundle foregoing phone service and the fastest Internet speeds, choosing to stick with Road Runner Turbo service.

“Powerboost on their Turbo product is more than enough for me and I don’t need faster upload speed — if SignatureHome included the premiums I would have taken it,” he says.

Now Time Warner has introduced an addition to their super-deluxe package — SignatureHome Premium View, which bundles HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, The Movie Channel and Moviepass with everything else on offer for $30 more a month — $229.99.  The package excludes Starz!, a premium movie channel Time Warner has barely promoted over the years.

With many markets increasing prices to as high as $15 for channels like HBO, getting five premium networks for just under $30 isn’t a bad deal, assuming you watch them and benefit from SignatureHome‘s other features.

“When my promotion expires, I’ll consider this new option,” Scott says.  “Yes, I realize $230 for cable service should really be an outrage, but the way the company is pricing services these days, the more you bundle, the less you ultimately pay compared to trying to build your own package of services.”

That may be exactly the point.  For customers who rely on Time Warner for phone, broadband, and cable-TV, SignatureHome can be a reasonable value if you crave the company’s highest 50/5Mbps broadband speeds.  Building a comparable bundle on your own is much more expensive.  Now the same is true for premium movie channels, which run between $11-15 a month each a-la-carte.

[flv width=”534″ height=”320″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY1 Signature Home Arrives 12-9-10.mp4[/flv]

NY1, Time Warner Cable’s 24 hour news channel in New York City, talked about the introduction of SignatureHome last December.  (2 minutes)

Some proponents for AT&T U-verse suggest people will quickly get used to AT&T's metal cabinets.

A coalition of neighborhoods opposed to the installation of more than 700 4-foot tall metal cabinets across the city of San Francisco have filed suit against AT&T in Superior Court demanding the city follow its own environmental codes and conduct an environmental impact assessment.

The suit comes in response to last month’s close 6-5 vote by the Board of Supervisors permitting AT&T to install up to 726 boxes on the public-right-of-way — typically street corners and sidewalks — to support expansion of its U-verse television, broadband, and phone service.

San Francisco Beautiful, San Francisco Tomorrow, the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association, the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association, and the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association are all parties to the lawsuit filed Wednesday, which calls the boxes graffiti targets, a safety problem for traffic and pedestrians, and just plain ugly.

Milo Hanke, past president of San Francisco Beautiful, accuses the city of ignoring its own rules to give a green light to AT&T.

“We really don’t want to sue, but we are left with no choice when the city refuses to uphold its own environment codes and is about to give away our sidewalks for the benefit of a private company without objective review,” Hanke told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Long time observers of city politics are frankly surprised AT&T won permission for the controversial boxes.

“It wasn’t that long ago that something like this would have been stopped dead in its tracks in [one] environmental review [after another],” said KCBS-TV reporter Phil Matier.  “But this year, whether it’s a change in the tone for business or for jobs it actually got the six votes needed, and that is going to be interesting as this plays out in an election year in San Francisco.”

Lane Kasselman, an AT&T spokesman countered: “This is about choice and competition for San Francisco residents. It’s about new, better technology that enhances peoples’ lives. AT&T thanks the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for supporting the deployment of U-verse throughout San Francisco. We’ve already started construction and are working as quickly as possible to bring next generation IP network services to every block and household that wants it.”

But Hanke thinks the city has gone too far for the benefit of AT&T at the expense of local residents.

“This is a private enterprise with a benefit to private parties,” Hanke told KCBS.  “Why should the public be subsidizing a Dallas-based corporation, and having to look at these ugly boxes in the process.”

Sean Elsbernd, who serves on San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors personally thinks the boxes are a great idea, suggesting Comcast needs competition.

“I have a suspicion that four or five months after they are in, people aren’t going to notice them anymore,” Elsebernd said.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCBS San Francisco Groups Sue ATT 8-24-11.mp4[/flv]

KCBS in San Francisco covers the continuing controversy over AT&T’s 4-foot tall utility boxes and the lawsuit designed to stop or delay their installation.  (3 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KBAK Bakersfield Homeowner fights utility project in her front yard 5-27-10.flv[/flv]

KBAK in Bakersfield shows what happened when AT&T brought their lawn refrigerator-sized boxes to that city in the spring of 2010 — one woman woke up and found AT&T crews tearing up her yard, without any notice, as part of a major construction project.  (3 minutes)

Ford, Jr.: Making his former public service pay-off with dollar-a-holler advocacy on behalf of Big Telecom.

Former U.S. Senator John Sununu and former U.S. Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., share several things in common:

1. Voters tossed them out of their elected offices (or refused to elect them to higher ones) for poorly representing their interests;
2. Both are honorary co-chairs of Broadband for America, the country’s largest Big Telecom-industry-funded astroturf effort;
3. They don’t understand the concept of content provider traffic-hosting, and the traffic expenses they already pay.

Both jointly penned a letter in the San Jose Mercury News accusing Netflix of enjoying undeserved streaming profits, “subsidized” by large cable and phone companies that deliver broadband Internet service to paying customers:

Netflix’s current pricing model allows unlimited downloads for $7.99 per month. Netflix saves, with every download, approximately 40 cents that would otherwise be paid to the U.S. Postal Service. If the average customer downloads 10 movies and TV shows a month, Netflix will save $4 a month for each of its 23 million customers.

Obviously these massive transmissions over the Internet are not really free. Someone is paying for them. That “someone” is the millions of broadband subscribers, whether or not they are Netflix customers.

How is that fair?

Netflix argues that the marginal cost to the network providers of streaming a half-hour TV show to a residential customer is “one penny.” This ignores the hundreds of billions of dollars in sunken network investments needed to create that one-penny marginal cost efficiency at the customer’s end.

[…] It hardly seems fair to make users of these services pay more in order to subsidize Netflix’s costs of delivering their videos online.

This call for a fairer pricing model and a more realistic long-term investment strategy has bipartisan support. In 2010, the FCC said government policy should not discourage “broadband providers from asking subscribers who use the network less to pay less, and subscribers who use the network more to pay more.”

Neither former elected official comes to the debate with any direct experience as a telecommunications specialist, but since when does that matter.  They know how to deliver talking points-on-demand.

Sununu: New Netflix Math

Netflix, like every content producer on the Internet, pays hosting and content delivery fees to place their content online.  Netflix hires a content delivery network to regionally distribute its video streaming to ensure the best, and most efficient route to ensure an uninterrupted viewing experience.  While Netflix’s incremental costs may seem low, they still amount to millions of dollars annually in transport costs.  And the online video streamer already pays extra additional fees to some of the largest broadband providers in the country, including Comcast.

The other factor Ford and Sununu ignore is the bill at the other end — the inflated cost for broadband service consumers already pay.  For $40+ per month, consumers pay for service precisely to obtain the content of their choosing, and millions choose Netflix.  That monthly broadband fee, far in excess of the actual cost to provide the service, more than compensates providers for the “network investments” that are now declining at a rapid rate, even as broadband bills keep rising.

No doubt part of your broadband bill goes to pay for industry astroturf operations like Broadband for America, which doesn’t represent a single consumer, even though you are paying for it.  Of course, the marginal cost to hire industry lobbyists and their former legislative friends who today represent their interests (not yours), is pretty low on a per subscriber basis.  It hardly seems fair to us that subscribers should be footing the bill for groups like Broadband for America, who regularly advocate against consumers’ best interests.

If providers are looking for more money to improve their networks, perhaps they can start by cutting off Broadband for America, an industry mouthpiece that cannot even get its core arguments anywhere near actual facts.