AT&T is buying newspaper ad space to publish a feel good message about Internet Openness that bears no reality to the company’s multi-million dollar lobbying effort to derail broadband reform, taking guarantees of a free and open Internet with it.

The advertisement’s appearance is remarkable, coming at the same time the company’s “government affairs” team of paid lobbyists and friends are browbeating elected officials and the Federal Communications Commission.  AT&T wants the right to allow preferential treatment of its selected content partners while dumping everyone else on the Internet slow lane.

The only opening AT&T supports is a new way to cash in even further on the Internet.  An “open network” to the phone giant means one that is totally deregulated and open to whatever AT&T wants to do with it.

AT&T’s “innovation” is to monetize the traffic that happens to cross their network on its way to AT&T customers.  By manipulating broadband traffic, AT&T will sell its “selected partners” priority access, shoving uncompensated traffic out of the way to make room for whatever AT&T’s special friends want you to see.  While that’s great news for companies that agree to pay AT&T’s tolls, it’s very bad news for everyone else, because the websites you choose to visit may or may not be available on the second rate “free lane.”  Given the choice between AT&T-backed video streaming or a third party provider like Netflix, guess what traffic will never get stuck “buffering” or face glitches.

Investors love the concept because AT&T can collect revenue just by sitting back and demanding tolls from content they neither produce nor host.  It’s not as if they haven’t been paid already — by their customers — to obtain access to that content.  AT&T wants another payday for their shareholders while sticking you with second-rate service.

The problem with AT&T’s world view is… AT&T’s world view.  Real innovation would mean delivering customers a world class broadband service the envy of anyone, delivered on America’s most advanced communications network, not re-purposed copper wire phone lines.  Then, “traffic management” on a mega-sized information highway wouldn’t have to squeeze the speed of some traffic to make room for “premium content.”  There would be plenty of room for one and all.

AT&T’s proposed answer for broadband reform is all about their interests, never yours.

Some examples:

• Net Neutrality has been a part of AT&T’s corporate life for several years as a condition of its 2005 merger with SBC.  It didn’t harm their ability to provide all of the innovation, service, and speeds they could have, but never did.  Nothing about Net Neutrality protection harms AT&T’s ability to deliver broadband service to more of its customers. Giving AT&T whatever it wants won’t change that fact or deliver service to a single new customer;
• The freedom AT&T writes about is their idea of a Corporate Bill of Rights, which grants them the freedom to exchange their ideas and content, but says nothing about protecting your freedom of speech;
• A robust and secure network should exist regardless of Net Neutrality, considering the enormous amount of cash AT&T harvests from their Internet customers month after month.  AT&T is free to innovate all they like, on a level-playing-field, where customers can choose the best applications at the best prices, not the ones AT&T provides to them on a paid fast lane;
• AT&T’s record on competition is laughable when it spends its free cash on an army of lobbyists and “dollar-a-holler” interest groups.  Their mission?  To oppose potential competitors and enthusiastically support AT&T’s competition-busting mergers and acquisitions that further concentrate their market power;
• For AT&T’s customers, transparency alone is hardly the kind of consumer protection Internet users need.  Yes, it’s nice to be told when you are overpaying for broadband service that is “network managed.” Admitting AT&T seeks to throttle broadband speeds and potentially block websites in a monopoly/duopoly market doesn’t help much when customers can’t find another provider.  Disclosing the fact AT&T is sticking it to you is not the same thing as prohibiting them from trying in the first place.

AT&T has no interest in working with anyone that opposes their corporate interests.

The Internet should not be AT&T’s personal playground, ready and able to be “managed” out of its unique ability to deliver ideas equally — to be judged on their merit — not on the money backing them.

Americans have already experienced a corporate-sanitized online service for pre-approved ideas, products, and services.  It was called Prodigy, and by 2000 it was to become the Internet experience for 77 million SBC (later AT&T) customers. By the time the bottom fell out in 2001, SBC owned 100 percent of the service nobody wanted.  In 2005, SBC tried to sell the Prodigy brand in the United States.  There were no buyers.

That should be the outcome of AT&T’s proposal for “an open Internet.”  No deal.

AT&T wireless broadband customers who thought they could survive a smartphone data plan with only a 200MB usage allowance are discovering $15 overlimit fees applied to their bill because of mystery data usage consumed while they were asleep.

Stop the Cap! reader Pat dropped us a note to say she accumulated a whopping $45 in overlimit fees on her August bill for her family’s three iPhones because they exceeded their 200MB usage allowances while the family was unconscious:

At around 2AM most mornings, our phones regularly show usage of around 5-10MB each even though they are being charged and are not used by anyone in the family.  At first my husband thought an application on the phone was automatically exchanging data so we tried switching off 3G access and relied exclusively on Wi-Fi access, to no avail.  Sure enough, for the next seven days in a row, the phones all used between 5-10MB of usage.  We tried disabling and removing various applications and told others only to communicate manually.  That didn’t work either.  The mystery usage remained.

We contacted AT&T multiple times about this issue, because this usage easily put us over the limit, at which point AT&T bills a $15 penalty to buy you another 200MB of usage.  We got a lot of excuses, one month’s credit, but no answers.  One representative used the opportunity to try and upsell us on the 2GB plan to “avoid this from happening.”  It sounds like a nice scam.

Pat, it turns out this has been a significant issue for many AT&T customers dating back to the June introduction of the usage-limited smartphone data plans from AT&T.  We found threads on both AT&T and Apple’s websites running well into the dozens of pages, with nobody getting a definitive, consistent answer as to why this keeps happening.

In late July, the folks at Gizmodo got a statement from AT&T about the problem:

This is a routine update of your daily data activity on your device to ensure the accuracy of your data billing. Customers are not charged for data usage, given that no data session is generated. It’s not uncommon for devices that are ‘always on’, like iPhone, to process data event records for billing purposes after a certain amount of inactivity or after long periods of time. It’s also separate from how our system lets you monitor your data consumption.

Unfortunately, it’s also apparently inaccurate because subsequent comments indicate customers were, in fact, billed for that usage.

Customers have been told a variety of things to justify AT&T’s usage billing:

1. It’s an application on your phone polling for data and/or updates;
2. Your phone is sending and receiving e-mail;
3. If your phone goes “to sleep” it switches away from Wi-Fi and back to AT&T’s 3G usage, incurring data usage fees;
4. In the early morning, AT&T communicates with phones to exchange updates and data;
5. The usage reports represent cumulative usage made during the day but only later reported to AT&T;
6. It’s iTunes diagnostic information you agreed to share with Apple being sent to them every night;
7. It’s Apple’s fault.

The biggest problem? AT&T’s stingy usage allowances.  Many customers do not understand what a megabyte represents, but 200 of them sounds like a lot… until you browse to a page with multimedia content or utilize an application that exchanges a lot of data during the day.  AT&T has really not addressed the problem, other than to throw $10 credits to customers who complain the loudest.  Many just upgrade to the higher priced 2GB plan and hope the problem goes away.

AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme for wireless has trained customers to use less of a service they pay good money to receive:

• Customers think twice before installing and using data applications that could consume too much of their allowance;
• Customers train themselves to jump off of AT&T’s 3G network and switch to Wi-Fi wherever possible, despite paying for AT&T’s wireless data network;
• Customers quickly learn paying more for a more “generous allowance” is a “better value,” saving them the time and hassle of worrying about overlimit fees;
• Customers can complain all they like, but in the end they’ll grumble and pay the bill, facing exorbitant early termination fees if they want out of AT&T’s fee maze.

Unfortunately, without a team of lawyers or regulatory agencies breathing down AT&T’s neck to deliver a credible response to these overcharges, they are very likely to continue.  Although AT&T claims the 200MB usage plan was designed to save customers money and attract new users to smartphones, it’s no mistake the cheapest plan delivers a minuscule allowance.

The company knows very well that smartphone data usage increases as the phones and the software that runs on them become more sophisticated.  Customers delivered a tasty sample of 3G usage are likely to enjoy it and find themselves upgrading to a more profitable data plan with a comparatively larger allowance.  If they don’t, AT&T wins again because customers face paying at least $30 for 400MB of usage, even though a 2GB plan would have only set them back $25.

For now, the best we can recommend is completely powering off the phone overnight and seeing if it still incurs any phantom charges.  You should also complain, regularly and loudly, to AT&T each time it happens.  Contact your state Attorney General and file a complaint if AT&T’s answers are unsatisfactory and urge their office to begin an investigation.

As Stop the Cap! has said from day one, Internet Overcharging schemes force customers to spend time and energy doublechecking usage gauges that may or may not be accurate and make you think twice about everything you do online, wondering what it will ultimately do to your bill at the end of the month.  It’s all a win for service providers, who get the benefit of conservative usage from the “think-twice” mindset and revenue enhancing overlimit fees from those who never worry.  You lose either way.

EPB’s new 1Gbps municipal broadband service is causing some serious embarrassment to the telecom industry.  Since last week’s unveiling, several “dollar-a-holler” telecom-funded front groups and trade publications friendly to the industry have come forward to dismiss the service as “too expensive,” delivering speeds nobody wants, and out of touch with the market.

The “Information Technology and Innovation Federation,” which has historically supported the agenda of big telecom companies, has been particularly noisy in its condescending dismissal of the mega-speed service delivered in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Robert Atkinson, president of ITIF, undermines the very “innovation” their group is supposed to celebrate.  Because it doesn’t come from AT&T or Verizon, it’s not their kind of “innovation” at all.

“I can’t imagine a for-profit company doing what they are doing in Chattanooga, because it’s so far ahead of where the market is,” Atkinson told the New York Times.

“Chattanooga definitely is ahead of the curve,” Atkinson told the Times Free Press. “It’s like they are building a 16-lane highway when there is a demand for only four at this point. The private companies probably can’t afford to get that far ahead of the market.”

Bernie Arnason, formerly with Verizon and a cable industry trade association also dismissed EPB’s new service in his current role as managing editor for Telecompetitor, a telecom industry trade website:

Does anyone need that speed today? Will they in the next few years? The short answer is no. It’s kind of akin to people in the U.S. that buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini – all that power and speed, and nowhere to really use it. A more apropos question, is how many people can afford it – especially in a city the size of Chattanooga?

[…]Will there be a time when 1 Gb/s is an offer that is truly in demand? More than likely, although I still find it hard to imagine it being really necessary in a residential setting – I mean how many 3D movies can you watch at one time? Maybe a service that bursts to 1 Gb/s in times of need, but an always on symmetrical 1 Gb/s connection? Truth be told, no one really knows what the future holds, especially from a bandwidth demand perspective.

Arnason admits he doesn’t know what the future holds, but he and his industry friends have already made up their minds about what level of service and pricing is good enough for “a city the size of Chattanooga.”

Comcast’s Business Class broadband alternative is priced at around $370 a month and only provides 100/15Mbps service in some areas.  Atkinson and Arnason have no problems with that kind of innovation… the one that charges more and delivers less.

For groups like the ITIF, it’s hardly a surprise to see them mount a “nobody wants it or needs it”-dismissive posture towards fiber, because they represent the commercial providers who don’t have it.

Fiber Embargo

The Fiber-to-the-Home Council, perhaps the biggest promoter of fiber broadband delivered straight to customer homes, currently has 277 service provider members. With the exception of TDS Telecom, which owns and operates small phone companies serving a total of 1.1 million customers in 30 states, the FTTH Council’s American provider members are almost entirely family-run, independent, co-op, or municipally-owned.

Companies like American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Hiawatha Broadband Communications, KanOkla Telephone Association Inc., and the Palmetto Rural Telephone Cooperative all belong.  AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, Verizon, and Windstream do not.  Neither do any large cable operators.

While not every member of the Council has deployed fiber to the home to its customers, many appreciate their future, and that of their communities, relies on a high-fiber diet.

EPB’s announcement of 1Gbps service was made possible because it operates its service over an entirely fiber optic network.  Company officials, when asked why they were introducing such a fast service in Chattanooga, answered simply, “because we can.”

The same question should have been directed to the city’s other providers, Comcast and AT&T.  Their answer would be “because we can’t… and won’t.”

Among large providers, only Verizon has the potential to deliver that level of service to its residential customers because it invested in fiber.  It was also punished by Wall Street for those investments, repeatedly criticized for spending too much money chasing longer term revenue.  Wall Street may have ultimately won that argument, because Verizon indefinitely suspended its FiOS expansion plans earlier this year, despite overwhelmingly positive reviews of the service.

So among these players, who are the real innovators?

The Phone Company: Holding On to Alexander Graham Bell for Dear Life

Last week, Frontier Communications told customers in western New York they don’t need FiOS-like broadband speeds delivered over fiber connections, so they’re not going to get them.  For Frontier, yesterday’s ADSL technology providing 1-3Mbps service in rural areas and somewhat faster speeds in urban ones is ‘more than enough.’

That “good enough for you” attitude is pervasive among many providers, especially large independent phone companies that are riding out their legacy copper wire networks as long as they’ll last.

What makes them different from locally-owned phone companies and co-ops that believe in fiber-t0-the-home?  Simply put, their business plans.

Companies like Frontier, FairPoint, Windstream, and CenturyLink all share one thing in common — their dependence on propping up their stock values with high dividend payouts and limited investments in network upgrades (capital expenditures):

Perhaps the most important metric for judging dividend sustainability, the payout compares how much money a company pays out in dividends to how much money it generates. A ratio that’s too high, say, above 80% of earnings, indicates the company may be stretching to make payouts it can’t afford.

Frontier’s payout ratio is 233%, which means the company pays out more than $2 in dividends for every $1 of earnings! But this ignores Frontier’s huge deferred tax benefit and the fact that depreciation and amortization exceed capital expenditures — the company’s actual free cash flow payout ratio is a much more manageable 73%. Dividend investors should ensure that benefit and Frontier’s cash-generating ability are sustainable.

In other words, Frontier’s balance sheet benefits from the ability to write off the declining value of much of its aging copper-wire network and from creative tax benefits that might be eliminated through legislative reform.

The nightmare scenario at Frontier is heavily investing in widespread network upgrades and improvements beyond DSL.  The company recently was forced to cut its $1 dividend payout to $0.75 to fund the recent acquisition of some Verizon landlines and for limited investment in DSL broadband expansion.

Frontier won’t seek to deploy fiber in a big way because it would be forced to take on more debt and potentially cut that dividend payout even further.  That’s something the company won’t risk, even if it means earning back customers who fled to cable competitors.  Long term investments in future proof fiber are not on the menu.  “That would be then and this is now,” demand shareholders insistent on short term results.

The broadband expansion Frontier has designed increases the amount of revenue it earns per customer while spending as little as possible to achieve it.  Slow speed, expensive DSL fits the bill nicely.

The story is largely the same among the other players.  One, FairPoint Communications, ended up in bankruptcy when it tried to integrate Verizon’s operations in northern New England and found it didn’t have the resources to pull it off, and delivered high speed broken promises, not broadband.

Meanwhile, many municipal providers, including EPB, are constructing fiber networks that deliver for their customers instead of focusing on dividend checks for shareholders.

Which is more innovative — mailing checks to shareholders or delivering world class broadband that doesn’t cost taxpayers a cent?

Cable: “People Don’t Realize the Days of Cable Company Upgrades are Basically Over”

While municipal providers like EPB appear in major national newspapers and on cable news breaking speed records and delivering service not seen elsewhere in the United States, the cable industry has a different story to share.

Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent let the cat out of the bag when he told investors on CNBC that the days of cable companies spending capital on system upgrades are basically over.

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Both cable and phone companies have called a technology truce in the broadband speed war.  Where phone companies rely on traditional DSL service to provide broadband, most cable companies raise their speeds one level higher and then vilify the competition with ads promoting cable’s speed advantages.  Phone companies blast cable for high priced broadband service they’re willing to sell for less, if you don’t need the fastest possible speeds.  But with the pervasiveness of service bundling, where consumers pay one price for phone, Internet, and television service, many customers don’t shop for individual services any longer.

With the advent of DOCSIS 3, the latest standard for cable broadband networks, many in the cable industry believe the days of investing in new infrastructure are over.  They believe their hybrid fiber-coaxial cable systems deliver everything broadband consumers will want and don’t see a need for fiber to the home service.

Their balance sheets prove it, as many of the nation’s largest cable companies reduce capital expenses and investments in system expansion.  Coming at the same time Internet usage is growing, the disparity between investment and demand on broadband network capacity sets the perfect stage for rate increases and other revenue enhancers like Internet Overcharging schemes.

Unfortunately for the cable industry, without a mass-conversion of cable-TV lineups to digital, which greatly increases available bandwidth for other services, their existing network infrastructure does not excuse required network upgrades.

EPB’s fiber optic system delivers significantly more capacity than any cable system, and with advances in laser technology, the expansion possibilities are almost endless.  EPB is also not constrained with the asynchronous broadband cable delivers — reasonably fast downstream speeds coupled with paltry upstream rates.  EPB delivers the same speed coming and going.  In fact, the biggest bottlenecks EPB customers are likely to face are those on the websites they visit.

EPB also delivered significant free speed upgrades to its customers earlier this year… and no broadband rate hike or usage limits.  In fact, EPB cut its price for 100Mbps service from $175 to $140.  Many cable companies are increasing broadband pricing, while major speed upgrades come to those who agree to pay plenty more to get them.

Which company has the kind of innovation you want — the one that delivers faster speeds for free or the one that experiments with usage limits and higher prices for what you already have?

No wonder Big Telecom is embarrassed.  They should be.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/EPB Interviews 9-20-10.flv[/flv]

EPB and Chattanooga city officials appeared in interviews on Bloomberg News and the Fox Business Channel.  CNET News also covered EPB’s 1Gbps service, introduced last week.  (12 minutes)

Color of Change needs everyone to take a moment and let members of the Congressional Black Caucus know we need them to stand up for Net Neutrality and broadband reform to help Black communities harness the political, economic, educational, and cultural power of the Internet.

While several members are already on board, there are many who either haven’t gotten the message or are on the wrong side of consumers.  Color of Change writes:

Most on the wrong side have simply been taken in by the lies of telecommunications industry lobbyists. But others have taken large financial contributions from telecoms and appear to be willingly carrying water for their biggest donors.

It’s unacceptable, whatever the reason. The CBC needs to understand that Internet freedom is in the vital interest of Black communities. Please join us in calling on the Congressional Black Caucus to support a free and open Internet, and then ask your friends and family to do the same.

First, please thank these members who are strong advocates of Net Neutrality and broadband reform that favors consumers:

• Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California)
  
• Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California)
  
• Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan)
• Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Maryland)
• Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL-Minnesota)
• Rep. Donald Payne (D-New Jersey)

Second, take note of these two Big Telecom bad actors effectively on AT&T and Verizon’s payroll:

• Rep. Greg Meeks (D-New York) – For years, AT&T and Verizon have been among Meeks’ biggest donors. In October 2009, he collected 70 signatures from his colleagues on an industry-backed letter — written after consulting AT&T — designed to weaken support for Internet freedom.  Meeks may claim that his major motivation is protecting jobs. But there’s no credible evidence that protecting Internet freedom will lead to job losses or decreased investment — in fact, evidence suggests the contrary. But in the face of massive support from telecoms, it appears that Meeks has only truly considered one side of the argument — the one that earns him fat checks.
• 

  Rush

  Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Illinois) – AT&T has long been one of Rush’s largest donors. Then, from 2001 – 2004, they donated $1 million to a community center Rush founded in Chicago. Since then, Rush has been a leader in the effort to eliminate Internet freedom. In 2006, Rush helped convince many members of the CBC to kill a measure that would have enshrined Internet freedom into law. And since that time, he has supported other efforts to weaken Internet freedom protections.  It’s wonderful AT&T donated the money to a community center Rush started, but that doesn’t mean AT&T is his only constituent.  Or does Congressman Rush need at least a million dollars from you to represent -your- interests before he’ll vote your way.

By signing the online petition and contacting members of the Congressional Black Caucus on these issues, you are delivering a wake-up call that lets Congress know these issues are critically important to you and they need to pay attention.  More importantly, it will expose those who feel safe taking big checks from phone and cable companies as a reward for voting against your interests.  If they know you are watching and their votes can make a difference in how you will vote in the next election, many will have the courage to leave Big Telecom’s money on the table and walk away.

AT&T unveiled it’s U-verse system Monday in the Triad region of North Carolina, hoping to poach customers from Time Warner Cable’s “triple play” package of phone, broadband, and cable service.

AT&T U-verse services, which are delivered over AT&T’s Internet Protocol (IP) hybrid fiber-copper network, offer an alternative to cable with a DVR that can record more programming than the competition, features and apps not available from the local cable company, and additional channels new to the region. AT&T U-verse can combine every AT&T service a customer subscribes to onto a single monthly bill.

The most popular Internet-only tier of service has somewhat anemic download speeds up to 6 Mbps for $43 a month — other packages range from $38 for 3 Mbps to $65 for 24 Mbps.

U-verse TV packages include “local-channel only” service for $19 a month (with a stinging $199 installation fee), to more than 390 channels for $112 a month, with a $29 activation fee.  Other packages include U-100 with 130 channels for $54 a month and U-200 with 230 channels for $67.  High definition channels, now numbering more than 130, cost $10 extra per month.  Want premium channels in HD?  That’s another $5 a month.

Like other providers, AT&T has tinkered with pricing to deliver the most savings to customers who bring all of their business to AT&T with a triple-play bundle subscription.

“Today’s expansion of AT&T U-verse reflects our commitment to make the investments necessary to bring consumers across the Piedmont Triad a new era of true video competition,” Cynthia Marshall, AT&T North Carolina president said in a statement. “Local residents have asked for more choices in television service and today we’re delivering.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT U-verse introduction.flv[/flv]

Watch this comprehensive video from AT&T explaining the many types of services U-verse offers and helpful tips to prepare for service installation.  Then view an actual installation in a customer’s home who shows off the equipment.  Stop the Cap! recommends you let AT&T do all of the required wiring for you.  That’s why you are paying that installation fee!  (22 minutes)

But despite the company’s claims that competition will deliver lower prices for consumers, the evidence suggests otherwise.

AT&T credits a statewide video franchising bill passed in the North Carolina legislature for making U-verse possible in the state.  Company officials showed their thanks by inviting the two state legislators instrumental in shepherding AT&T’s agenda through the General Assembly to be on hand to take credit for introducing cable competition in the state.  They also publicly thanked them in their press release.

Seventeen term House Rep. Harold Brubaker (R-Randolph) congratulated AT&T for its accomplishments.  Brubaker received $4,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T in the first quarter of 2010.

The representative from Asheboro co-sponsored the 2006 Video Service Competition Act which stripped local oversight of cable operators and made AT&T’s entry into North Carolina effortless.  For other would-be competitors, especially municipalities seeking to build their own fiber networks, Brubaker has been far less helpful.  Most recently, he voted against an effort to bring broadband service to Caswell County in areas incumbent provider CenturyLink has ignored for years.

“Prior to the legislation, you had geographic areas where you operated in, so it kind of like took the walls down. The legislation took the walls down to allow for more direct competition for the consumer. Competition is great.  The consumer’s the one that benefits,” said Brubaker.  “AT&T’s presence in the market will very definitely save customers money.”

Rep. Alma Adams (D-Guilford), another co-sponsor, said AT&T’s arrival was exactly what she hoped for when she supported the legislation.

“As policymakers, our goal was to increase investment in North Carolina and give consumers more choices and innovative new services,” said Adams. “Today’s announcement makes that goal a reality for Triad residents.”

Adams added that AT&T U-verse also provided a safety valve for consumers who want an alternative to incumbent provider Time Warner Cable.

“Even if they like a particular company, they always like to know that there’s some other opportunities out there that they can look at as well, so they can do some comparing,” she said.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Important Information about ATT U-Verse system.flv[/flv]

AT&T delivered more time and attention to North Carolina legislators at their launch event than they ever will on U-verse.  AT&T segregates Public Access, Educational, and Government channels on a single U-verse TV channel that makes for tedious viewing.  Watch this demonstration from the California Public Utilities Commission.  (4 minutes)

AT&T announced the service would initially be available in limited areas of Forsyth, Davidson, Guilford, Rockingham and Alamance counties, and we do mean “limited.”  Many Triad residents who checked to see if the service was available in their area found it was not.  In fact, AT&T refuses to disclose exactly how many customers in the region can actually sign up for the service.  We couldn’t find anyone who could order the service when it officially launched.

“There will be small pockets around most of the entire area,” Chuck Greene, AT&T’s regional director for the Piedmont Triad told the News-Record. “Once we complete the build-out, it will include parts of Davidson, Caswell and Randolph.”

AT&T lobbied hard to sweep away earlier provisions in local video franchises that committed providers to rapidly expand service to every possible customer in their respective service areas.  Under the Video Services Competition Act, AT&T can take its sweet time, perhaps for years before service becomes widely available across the region.  Some areas will never receive the service.

Time Warner Cable welcomed competition from AT&T U-verse.

“For a long time, Time Warner Cable has faced competition from satellite and dish providers,” Scott Pryzwansky, the company’s local public affairs manager, wrote to the News-Record. “We continue to invest in our network and remain committed to bring the best products and services to the Triad. We are confident we will maintain positive relationships with our customers.”

Time Warner Cable has little to fear from AT&T’s arrival.  Pryzwansky said Time Warner Cable has not lowered its pricing in any of the markets where it faces AT&T U-verse competition.  Both AT&T and Time Warner Cable have raised prices at least annually for their respective subscribers.  The only exception in North Carolina has been in Wilson, where municipal provider Greenlight has kept Time Warner Cable from increasing prices.

Stop the Cap! reader Sam in Greensboro thinks AT&T’s arrival is much ado about nothing.

“AT&T prices their U-verse service nearly the same or more as Time Warner Cable, especially after the introductory rate expires,” he says.  “Few people are going to be bothered switching back to Time Warner after the year is up, so they’ll be paying the same high prices for cable service to AT&T instead of the cable company — a distinction with no difference.”

Sam won’t bother with U-verse because he is disgusted with AT&T’s lobbying efforts to stop consumer broadband reform and Net Neutrality.

“It’s like dealing with the devil,” Sam writes.  “Why would I want to pay AT&T my money so they can turn around and spend it working against my interests as a consumer?”

The only good thing about U-verse’s arrival is that it may stall Time Warner Cable from trying another Internet Overcharging scheme in the area.

“Time Warner has to think twice about another usage cap and overlimit fee ‘experiment’ in the Triad if customers can simply flee to U-verse, although knowing AT&T they’d love to have the same rationing of the Internet they force on their wireless customers,” Sam said.

[flv width=”636″ height=”373″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TWC Fights Back U-verse.flv[/flv]

Time Warner Cable maintains a sometimes-bizarre web campaign to convince customers not to switch to U-verse or satellite.  We’ve put together the various videos so you can watch them all at once.  (4 minutes)

Like Time Warner Cable, AT&T does not offer a-la-carte cable programming, either.  Customers can only choose from large packages of programming, not individual channels.

Triad area cable customers told local media they were tentatively glad U-verse is competing, but many are taking a wait and see approach as to whether they’ll actually see any savings.

WFMY News 2 spoke with cable customers today. One man said he feels like a “hostage” to his cable company because they have a monopoly on TV, Internet and phone bundles. A woman said cable and satellite companies drive her “crazy,” so she gave up and now simply rents movies.

“I am happy, but it’s hard times. I have three children. We live on one income,” Jamie Rettie, a Time Warner Cable customer told News 2. Whether she switches to AT&T or not, she’s said she’s hoping for a change in her bill.

“Hopefully they’ll keep competing against each another and have better and better prices for their services,” she said. “(I’ll) wait out my contract and we’ll see what happens.”

Some residents, like Thomas, are left picking the lesser of two evils:

“I don’t know who’s worse at their game, as Time Warner Cable and AT&T are both evil corporate entities that care only about their bottom line,” he writes. “Search the Internet and understand this service limits the amount of TV’s that can be used at one time.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Greensboro Media Cover U-Verse Launch 9-13-10.flv[/flv]

Watch several news reports from Triad area TV stations about the introduction of AT&T U-verse.  In order, we include reports from WXII, WGHP, and WFMY-TV.  (7 minutes)