Although more than 30 million Americans have experienced getting bill shocked with a cell phone bill loaded with overlimit fees and penalties, a wireless industry group says 19 out of 20 of these customers are economically better off getting those high bills, and any plan to notify customers in advance when their usage limits are reached would “harm innovation, limit consumer choice, and impair the potential for competitive differentiation.”

These incredible conclusions come in a filing from the Wireless Communications Association International, an industry group funded by AT&T, Sprint, Clearwire, and Time Warner Cable.

The WCAI just released a new white paper claiming Americans facing Internet Overcharging from usage-capped wireless data plans are actually saving money when carriers impose overlimit fees.  Their reasoning for this new math?  You might overpay for a usage plan that delivers a higher usage allowance than you need.

"And to think they actually believed us when we said Internet Overcharging saved people money!"

The wireless industry is heavily lobbying the Federal Communications Commission to stop the agency from imposing new rules to deal with the bill shock problem.  The FCC favors an advance warning system, which would force providers to notify customers by e-mail or text message when they near their usage allowance.  Letting customers know when they are about to pay enormous penalty usage rates before they are reflected on a future bill could save Americans millions annually.

The WCAI-funded study says consumers don’t need the agency’s help, going as far as to claim the majority of Americans are already well aware they are exceeding their plan limits, and are better off paying short-term penalties.

“The FCC is weighing new regulations that it says will eliminate so-called ‘bill shock,’ but this analysis makes plain that consumers don’t need regulators’ help,” WCAI President Fred Campbell said. “If you give them the right information, they know how to pick the best deal.”

But critics charge providers fighting this provision want to hide the most basic information of all — when consumers are on the verge of running up huge bills.

“The FCC’s effort on bill shock is long overdue in a wireless environment where today’s heavy user is tomorrow’s average user, and where the wireless Web is more and more important to commerce and to society,” Free Press Policy Counsel M. Chris Riley said. “It is vital that consumers are empowered with the information and the tools needed to make decisions about their own wireless usage so they can avoid outrageous charges.”

The WCAI white paper suggests that if providers are forced to issue advance warnings, companies may have to raise rates to compensate.  The paper’s author suggests consumers would find that worse than just paying the bills with overlimit fees:

The Nielsen Study indicates that many consumers incurring overages do so willfully and repeatedly. Their behavior suggests it is unlikely that usage notifications or usage controls would change their behavior because they are either indifferent to the overage charges or have determined that the occasional overage charge is more economical for them than choosing a more expensive plan. Notwithstanding that these overage-incurring consumers may not want or need additional notifications or controls, the adoption of the FCC‘s regulatory proposals would impose on all consumers the financial burden of ―protecting this one small group.

The WCAI dismisses the huge number of complaints that arrive at the FCC each year over this issue as simply “opinions” from consumers, not nearly as credible as their own analysis of actual customer bills.

The paper even argues with the definition of ” bill shock,” suggesting that the nearly 7 percent of wireless customers who blow past their voice allowances only face an average penalty of around $18.  That is “surprising or inconvenient; but it is unlikely to be shocking.”

Bill Shock

The WCAI study admits the dollar amounts for data-usage bill shock can be considerably higher, sometimes $100 or more.  The charges occur more frequently, too — impacting nearly 18 percent of customers.  But the group dismisses it as a rare occurrence anyway and that carriers will issue credits for astronomical surprise bills.  Besides, the paper concludes, when it was written most consumers were enrolled in increasingly-rare “unlimited use” plans.  Since the raw data was collected largely before AT&T abandoned its flat rate data pricing in 2010, statistics regarding bill shock for AT&T’s new limited use plans were not available.  The white paper inaccurately dismisses that major rate change, claiming it “had no impact on the data analyzed.”  That leaves readers believing the rate changes made no difference.

But the group’s logic completely derails when it concludes there are “consumer benefits to overages.”  Namely, providers “simplified” rate plans to reduce choice which was causing “customer confusion.”  The paper concludes “there is substantial evidence that consumers make deliberate choices to incur overages rather than upgrading to a more expensive monthly rate plan, and that they overwhelmingly benefit from such choices.”

The white paper ignores several important factors:

1. The diminishing number of unlimited access plans which give consumers a way to avoid overlimit fees, especially for data;
2. Carriers themselves arbitrarily set the arbitrary rules for the playing field – calling plan allowances, data allowances, limits, overlimit fees and penalties, and roaming rates;
3. The study ignores the record number of consumers complaining about surprising bills and the true economic impact providing simple text message or e-mailed notifications would have, and doesn’t give any reason why a consumer can’t simply shut off services once limits are reached, to prevent excess charges.

The white paper notes that 736,000 Americans annually are getting surprisingly high bills.  Assuming they are an average of $20 higher than anticipated, that represents nearly $15 million dollars in extra revenue for carriers — ample reason to hire dollar-a-holler groups to produce nonsensical reports that conclude a system to notify consumers they are about to be one of those 736,000 customers is actually bad for them and their wallets.

The FCC’s Consumer Task Force recommends these strategies to avoid bill shock:

•    Understand your calling pattern for making voice calls, and ask your carrier for a plan that would be best for your kind of use.
•    If you are an infrequent phone user, consider a pre-paid plan. Because you “pre-pay” for all your minutes, these plans make it impossible to go over your set limit.
•    Understand what your roaming charges are and where you will incur them.
•    Understand your options for data and text plans.
•    If you are going to use your mobile phone outside the U.S. for voice, email, and other services, make certain to find out beforehand what charges may apply. (Visit Wireless World Travel for more information about using a wireless phone in other countries.)
•    Ask how your carrier can help you avoid bill shock – with phone or text alerts, by letting you monitor your account online, or by giving you other information.
•    If you have tried to resolve a billing issue with your carrier and can not reach an acceptable resolution, complain to the FCC. You can call our Consumer Center, toll-free, at 1-888-CALL FCC (1-888-225-5322), or file a complaint here.

To learn more, read the FCC’s White Paper on Bill Shock.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FCC Bill Shock.flv[/flv]

The Federal Communications Commission discusses the problem of “bill shock.”  (1 minute)

Time Warner Cable’s custom-written bill banning community-owned broadband networks in North Carolina this afternoon received a favorable vote in the Public Utilities Committee — the first to consider the bill.

Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) decided that openly distorting the record of success community broadband has had would be a good way to proceed.  In comments before a jam-packed room this afternoon, Avila claimed fiber optic broadband systems have a long history of “failures,” which is ironic considering her promise to exempt these so-called failures from her bill’s anti-competitive regulatory regime.

Honestly, it was the first time we can recall a sitting legislator openly trashing her own state’s advanced broadband network successes.  (You can’t fault her for going all out for her friends at Time Warner Cable, but you can hold her accountable at the next election.)

Avila would never and could never admit the truth after wading this far in: these state of the art fiber networks are successful enough to have waiting lists from time to time just to get service installed.  Even those who don’t subscribe are benefiting. Just look at GreenLight, operated by the community of Wilson.  While GreenLight subscribers benefit from broadband far superior to what the cable company offers, those staying with Time Warner have seen an end to relentless annual rate increases.  Apparently Ms. Avila wants you to pay higher cable bills now and forever.

Republicans and Democrats from rural districts harshly criticized the proposed legislation for bringing no answers to the perennial problem of inadequate broadband in rural North Carolina communities, as well as the fact this bill contains customized exemptions to protect Time Warner and other Big Telecom companies from regulatory requirements dumped on community networks like a ton of bricks.

That’s favorable treatment for the cable company Ms. Avila seeks to protect at all costs.

Avila

Despite the important arguments raised by those objecting to the bill, the Committee Chair gaveled the debate to a sudden close, held a perfunctory voice vote and adjourned the session without a recorded vote.  That leaves citizens of the state with no idea how individual members voted.  Apparently they do not want to hear from unhappy constituents.

The Time Warner Cable Legislative Railroad next stops at the Finance Committee.

Although Rep. Julia Howard (R-Davie, Iredell), senior chair of that committee and Avila promise changes in the bill to protect existing community broadband operations, we are more than a little skeptical.

Last week, Avila called a meeting of city officials and several Big Telecom companies, including Time Warner and CenturyLink, partly to discuss exemption issues.  To give readers an idea of just how far Avila is in Time Warner’s corner, minutes into the meeting, she turned it over to the lobbyist from Time Warner Cable for the duration.

That’s a public-private partnership any voter in North Carolina should take a dim view about.  If Ms. Avila finds her work in the legislature too difficult to handle, perhaps she can find another line of work.  The only good thing about turning over your legislative responsibilities to the cable company is it cuts out the middleman.

Howard

The fact is, Time Warner has no interest in protecting -your- interests in North Carolina, much less those of the cutting edge fiber networks now up and running in the state.  They want them gone… or better yet, available for their acquisition at fire sale prices.  Yes, they even made sure of that in their bill, which guarantees a city can sell a fiber network hounded out of business to a Big Telecom company without a vote.

Exempting existing networks has turned out to be a highly subjective notion for Ms. Avila anyway.  She originally claimed to exempt them in her bill when it was introduced, but then subjected them to crushing regulation the cable companies do not face.  Any community contemplating starting a new network for their citizens can forget it either way.  Time Warner will not hear of it.

Although a growing number of Republicans and Democrats see Avila’s bill as a classic example of corporate overreach, without your voice demanding this bill be dropped, there still may be enough members of the state legislature willing to do the cable industry’s bidding.  If you make it clear that may cost them your support in the next election, they can be persuaded to do the right thing and vote NO.

But time is running out.  Your job is to begin melting down the phone lines of the Finance Committee members starting this afternoon.  Call and e-mail them and make it absolutely clear you expect them to vote NO on H129 and that you are closely watching this issue.  Ask each legislator for a commitment on how they plan to vote.

Finance Committee Members

Meet Daniel and Kate Methot, proud owners of $5000+ in Bell data charges the company cannot explain.

A couple from Merritt, B.C. has received bills from Bell for more than $5,000 in data usage, even after the skyrocketing bills made the family so frightened of their phone, they turned it off.

This is the story of Daniel and Kate Methot, who purchased a smartphone from Bell in October of last year.  When the first bill arrived, it contained more than $1,000 in data charges.

“My wife looked at me and I thought ‘Oh boy, what did I do that I didn’t know that I had done? I am in trouble’,” Daniel told CBC News.

When Internet Overcharging of this magnitude occurs, most people first blame themselves, assuming they did something wrong.  The Methot family figured they downloaded a malfunctioning or data hungry app or left something running on the phone.

“We never thought we would be billed for something we weren’t using. That was sort of a new concept for us,” Daniel said, but the family still sought guidance from Bell on how the charges could get that high.

“They really couldn’t give us an answer,” Kate said.

The family deleted everything they could find on their new Samsung Galaxy phone in hopes of stopping the surprise charges.

But when the December bill arrived, the couple was horrified to discover their new bill was more than $3,500 — almost entirely for data usage that literally cost Bell pennies to provide.  In fact, the phone company managed to bill the couple for 30 hours of usage during one 24-hour day, a clear warning sign there was a severe billing problem at work here.

But when it comes to protesting charges with Bell, the Methots discovered customers are guilty until proved innocent.

“I felt like I was being treated like a criminal — like we were trying to essentially steal from them,” Daniel said. “When you call in to argue a bill, that’s what they do. They tell you to pay — and don’t ask questions.”

Kate got a stern lecture from Bell telling her to quit watching videos on her phone all day long.

Of course, the couple denied doing any such thing.  In fact, by the time January arrived, both Daniel and Kate became afraid of even going near their phone, much less using it.  The couple routinely shuts the phone off when they are not actually using it for calls, but still the data charges kept coming — more than $5,200 to date.

CBC News asked Bell several times for a response to the Methot’s complaint. While refusing an in-depth interview on the topic, Bell told CBC News it cannot yet explain what is happening with the account.

That hardly inspires confidence for the Methot family.  Despite Bell being unable to explain the charges, they continue to insist on being paid for at least some of them.

The couple even hired a lawyer for $400 to send a letter to Bell demanding better answers or the couple would not continue to pay the unexplained charges.

In that case, Bell would simply turn their account over to collections, and potentially ruin their credit rating.

Bell’s theories about the stratospheric bills include:

• They are running up the bill themselves and now trying to run away from the charges they incurred;
• They are using the phone’s Wi-Fi hotspot feature, inadvertently allowing the entire neighborhood to share their connection;
• They are watching Netflix all day and into the night;
• They ran across the border into the United States and are incurring roaming charges;
• They are tethering their computer to the phone and that consumes massive amounts of data.

The one explanation Bell hasn’t imagined is that their billing system is completely fouled up and their usage meter cannot be trusted.  One might imagine Bell could actually determine where the phone is being used, to dismiss the roaming theory.  Plus Daniel reports he is incurring data charges even when the phone is completely powered off.

Finally, Bell admitted they were responsible, credited the account for more than $3,000 of the charges, and the Methot family thought their long nightmare was over.

Only it isn’t.

Merritt, B.C.

Days later, though, they received a bill with $1,204 in new charges.

“It was just a temporary relief and then the stress is back again,” Kate said.

“At that point I wasn’t interested in being a Bell customer anymore,” Daniel added.

On top of that, Bell has reneged on their apology, now claiming they were not responsible for the faulty charges after all.  The Methot family can pay their $1,200 phone bill with cash, check, money order or credit card.  And if they plan to leave, they better be ready to cough up the early termination fee as well — another several hundred dollars.

Isolated incident?  Don’t bet on it.

“These customers are not alone,” Howard Maker, the head of the federal Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services told CBC News. “Unfortunately, Canadian telecom consumers do suffer from many billing errors from their providers.”

Maker said his office received more than 1,900 complaints about wireless providers last year, and 40 per cent of them were about overcharging.

With Bell insisting customers can trust their usage meter — the one that generates $5,000 in data charges for one family alone — Canadians should prepare themselves for the bills that will follow. With no oversight agency able to monitor the accuracy of the meter, Bell customers will just have to take their word for it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Couple’s huge bills unexplained by Bell 3-1-11.flv[/flv]

CBC News talks with the Methot family about their Internet Overcharging experience.  (5 minutes)

Rep. Marilyn Avila

North Carolina residents:  Rep. Avila’s H129, brought to you by Time Warner Cable, is being jammed through the state legislature tomorrow with no public input, no real review, and no thought for the ordinary voter in the state.

The House Public Utilities Committee will “discuss” the measure during Wednesday’s Public Utilities Committee meeting at 12 noon, in room 643 of the Legislative Office Building in Raleigh, quickly followed by a vote.  Bought and paid for by the state’s cable and phone companies, this bill will guarantee every resident in the state will face relentless rate increases, unchecked by competition.  Even worse, the state of the art broadband networks that finally deliver the kind of quality broadband the state deserves will be forced to shut down because of the ludicrous conditions the legislation requires for them to continue.

That means no more fiber broadband for your state — just the same old slow cable and DSL service that has left North Carolina far back in national broadband rankings.  Even worse, without community-owned networks, the chances of a competitor arriving to bring better service at lower prices are practically zero.

For rural North Carolina, H129 is nothing less than total devastation.  It will destroy any chance for rural communities to take care of the broadband needs of their citizens big cable and phone companies have ignored for years.  Make no mistake — H129 spells disaster for every North Carolina resident who isn’t an executive of a cable or phone company.

No citizens have asked for H129 to be introduced. It, like all of its predecessors, is a creature of Big Telecom — custom-written to do their bidding at your personal expense.  With a wined-and-dined Republican majority (some of whom were flown out to San Diego for a telecom-paid vacation seminar, complete with a BBQ bash), the only thing that stands in the way of this nightmare becoming law is you.

Every legislator knows there is a price to be paid for special interest legislation like this.  If it threatens to cost them enough votes to put their re-election at risk, they will bury the legislation or openly vote against it.  If they believe you are not paying attention, they’ll vote yes and gratefully accept the cable company’s next contribution check for a job well done.

You have less than 24 hours to make sure they know you are paying attention, and you will not support any legislator who votes against your best interests.

Tell them to vote NO on H129. Representative Steen is the Committee Chair and can be reached at [email protected] or 919-733-5881.

Here is a complete contact list for your convenience.  Click on the representative(s) to get their direct contact information.  Phone calls are most effective followed by e-mail.  Feel free to pursue both.

North Carolina's House of Representatives

The House Public Utilities Committee

North Carolina's Cable Monopoly Protection Act

QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED ABOUT REP AVILA’S ANTI-BUSINESS, ANTI-LOCAL BROADBAND BILL

Will the industry be subject to the “level playing field” requirements of H129/S87?

NO. The industry would cease providing broadband services if they were subject to the requirements of this bill, due to the onerous burdens it places on broadband providers.The federal government and North Carolina deregulated broadband and cable services years ago; this bill re-regulates those services only if they are provided by local communities. The purpose of this industry-sponsored bill is to slant the competitive playing field in the industry’s direction and prevent local communities from providing their residents the broadband they need.

Why does the industry want local governments subject to the requirements of H129/S87?

So local broadband networks don’t develop Industry spokesmen say if local governments want to enter the broadband business they must play by the same rules as the private sector. Cable and broadband services were deregulated years ago and community broadband systems are subject to the same broadband rules as the private companies. This bill is designed to remove business and consumer choice and access to broadband services.

Is this bill actually good for the private sector?

NO. This bill will harm the private sector. The real private sector, local businesses, depend on access to reliable, advanced broadband infrastructure to sell goods and services.Yet large portions of our state remain unserved by the large telecoms or are served by unreliable, dated technology.  So local communities have stepped in to build the critical reliable infrastructure that will let their private sector flourish. This bill is only good for the large out-of-state telecom corporations whose monopolies benefit from being able to charge our local businesses higher rates due to lack of choice. North Carolina needs more broadband providers, not less.

Will this bill prevent public/private broadband partnerships, like Google Fiber?

YES. §160A-340.4 limits the funding, construction or improvement of any community broadband to general obligation bonds which impose severe limits on private sector investments in the system.  This bill will stop even public/private attempts to compensate for a lack of local broadband service.

Are the cable and telephone industry really interested in the welfare of taxpayers?

NO. The industry does not care about local taxpayers; they care about profit. If Time Warner Cable cared about taxpayer burdens,why have they raised cable rates on businesses and residential taxpayers every year? §160A-340.4 of the bill, actually shifts the financial risk of local systems directly to taxpayers by requiring that community systems are funded directly on the backs of taxpayers via general obligations bonds. §160A-340.1(b) also removes the requirement that the public vote before the sale of a community system occurs!

Big Telecom dollars buy custom-written corporate welfare bills that you will eventually pay for.

How do we ensure public accountability on public broadband projects without H129/H87?

The General Assembly has already established: (1) rules governing Public Enterprises (NCGS Chapter 160A, Article 16); (2) strict rules in the Budget and Fiscal Control Act governing all municipal budgets and expenditures, including hearing and disclosure requirements (NCGS Chapter 159, Article 3); and (3) strict oversight of municipal borrowing by the Local Government Commission (NCGS Chapter 159); and municipalities are subject to public document “Sunshine” laws, which Time Warner Cable has repeatedly used to obtain access to municipal financial and strategic planning decisions. In contrast, North Carolina’s telephone and cable companies are not required to publicly reveal any information about their systems.

Are portions of H129/S87 unconstitutional?

YES. The big telecoms want you to vote for a bill that is in contravention of NC’s state constitution. Their bill violates § 2(3) of Article v of North Carolina’s Constitution, which exempts all municipally-owned property from taxation by requiring municipalities to pay property taxes on broadband and other communication systems by renaming the property tax a “payment in lieu of taxes.

Will H129/S87harm public safety networks?

YES. Public Safety networks are typically regional communication networks of Counties, Cities, and Towns who pay fees and receive federal grants to cover operational costs. This bill would shut them down by limiting their service areas and imposing restrictive rate-setting and financial limitations;it will also make them ineligible for Homeland Security, ARRA and Farm grants.

Here we go again.

You always know when a new year has arrived when another North Carolina legislator files a Big Telecom industry-written bill attacking community-owned broadband.

This year, the laughably-named “Act to Protect Jobs and Investment by Regulating Local Government Competition With Private Business” comes courtesy of Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Wake County), a former manager of the conservative think tank John Locke Foundation.

H.129 is remarkable for its legislative micro-management, coming from someone who claims to oppose big government meddling.

Among its requirements:

• Demands a public accounting for every community broadband network;
• Limitations on service to strict city boundaries;
• Prohibits contractual agreements with apartment and condo building owners that mandate municipal service for individual residents;
• Bans advertising and “promotion” of community-owned broadband networks on Public, Education, and Government access channels;
• Shall not price any component of its service below cost;
• Requires payment of a special tax equal to the amount of local property taxes and/or fees normally exempted for local government enterprises;
• Requires permission through an extended hearing process to win permission before delivering service to any area deemed “unserved”;
• Demands a laundry list of pre-conditions before obtaining permission to shop for financing.

Avila

Avila doesn’t mind putting government all over the backs of community-owned networks if they happen to compete with her friends at AT&T, Time Warner, and CenturyLink.

Let’s review this exceptionally provider-friendly piece of protectionist legislation.

First, Avila’s demand for an open accounting of community broadband projects provides a treasure trove of business intelligence for any competitor.  They can demand to open the books and gain critical subscriber information — what residents pay for service, who gets the service, and how much it costs to provide.  That’s pure gold for targeted marketing campaigns to win back customers with special offers municipal providers are banned from offering.

We’re calling a foul ball because Avila’s “fair and level playing field” doesn’t have room for fair play.  Private providers get to keep the secrets community-owned network are forced to reveal.  That, by design, puts municipalities at a competitive disadvantage and could help drive them out of business.  Remember, these networks are financed by privately obtained bonds, not taxpayer dollars.  Shouldn’t any such provider have the right to keep its business strategies secret?

Second, if banning mandatory service for renters and condo owners is such a great idea, why does Avila only limit it to community-owned networks?  The record is clear — private providers are increasingly signing agreements with property owners mandating cable television fees for residents.  Apparently Avila’s concept of fairness doesn’t include the actual companies found guilty of raising the rent.

Third, Avila bends over backwards for her cable and phone friends by tying the hands of municipal providers who want their networks to be commercially successful.  Time Warner has no problem injecting endless promotions for its own services not just on a handful of channels, but on virtually every channel on the lineup, often during nearly every commercial break.  Can municipal networks ban advertising from AT&T and Time Warner?  Of course not.  And the definition of “promotion” specified in Avila’s ad ban is vague.  If a town government meeting talks up the success of a community-owned network, has Avila’s law been broken?  Apparently censorship by government mandate is a-OK as long as it doesn’t target her Big Telecom friends.

Avila’s ban on setting pricing below cost is another giveaway to Time Warner and AT&T, who routinely deliver retention and new customer promotions that could be temporarily priced below cost to secure or maintain a customer relationship for a limited period of time.  Of course, Avila doesn’t require either company to open their books to find out exactly what it costs companies to provide these special pricing packages.  No municipal provider seeks to price service at a rate that puts the project out of business.  Time Warner Cable has been accused of delivering below-cost retention pricing to departing customers in Wilson, where GreenLight has been poaching the cable company’s customers for more than a year.  Avila’s hand-tying provision allows some companies in the marketplace to keep pricing flexibility while the municipal provider is forced to price service according to a state-dictated formula.  John Locke would be turning over in his grave if he heard about this planned economy-pricing.

Rep. Avila can certainly no longer claim to be for low taxes, because her bill would effectively raise them for community-owned networks.  Again, since these projects are almost always funded from private bond markets, not public tax dollars, slapping complicated tax formulas on municipal providers while continuing to permit special tax break deals for private companies (such as “payment in lieu of taxes” or special tax breaks/grants for Time Warner in return for job creation) shouldn’t work for most small government conservatives.  Shouldn’t they support lower taxes for everyone?  Instead, Avila seeks to hamper community network business models by punitively sticking them with taxes she would otherwise oppose for commercial providers.

Avila’s support for smaller, less regulatory-minded government must also be called into question with this bill’s ridiculously complicated regulations for serving unserved areas of the state (which also grants a special window to private providers to protest, which they will certainly do in just about any area of the state even partially suitable for a future project).  Her bill even demands 60-day delays, custom-tailored to allow industry lobbyists to gin up opposition and demagogue projects.  Since a commission will be involved in the decision making process and has to take into account opposition from private providers, all of the benefits of Avila’s legislation flow to the cable and phone industry, none to community-owned networks or individual consumers that will ultimately benefit from better service at lower prices.

Avila's idea of a level-playing field.

Avila destroys her own “level playing field” argument in language within her own bill:

“The city or joint agency making the application to the Commission shall bear the burden of persuasion.”

In other words, Avila offers a “level playing field” with an 11-foot electrified barbed wire fence surrounding it.  Unfortunately, municipalities won’t be the only ones shocked by Avila’s cable and phone company protectionism.

Ordinary consumers in communities like Wilson, exempted from the relentless annual rate hikes from Time Warner because of the presence of a municipal competitor won’t get to keep the savings if Avila has anything to say about it.  She wants you to pay full price for your cable service, and pay higher prices year after year.

Her claim that the legislation will somehow “protect jobs and investment” is specious at best.  Time Warner has not exited Wilson or Salisbury — two cities with a community-owned competitor.  In fact, Time Warner is on record welcoming competition.  In reality, these companies simply don’t welcome new choices from those providers that will actually deliver savings and better service to customers.

This anti consumer legislation brought to you by Time Warner Cable...

The cable industry’s flagellation against projects like GreenLight and Fibrant flips between calling them financial boondoggles not worth bothering about to unfair competition that will harm private investment.  AT&T’s protests, in particular, ring the most hollow.  This is the same company that wants deregulation to make it easier for new players like themselves to enter the marketplace.  Their U-verse service enjoys the benefits of statewide video franchising, which removes accountability to local governments.  Yet this same company lobbies for increased bureaucracy and regulation for some of their potential competitors.  Avila is only too happy to oblige.

As with every other piece of legislation we’ve seen on this subject from North Carolina, it’s yet another custom-written favor to big cable and phone companies and an attack on consumer interests across the state.  Generous campaign contributions from the telecom industry pay off only too well when state legislators allow these companies to write the bills designed to protect their turf.

For Time Warner Cable, the costs associated with sending selected legislators and their families to a recent delicious BBQ event in sunny San Diego to attend a sham “conference” sponsored by a corporate front group shows there are plenty of favors to be had all around, just as long as you support the company’s legislative agenda.

...and AT&T

Fighting this year’s anti-consumer legislation will be tougher than ever.  For the first time in 112 years, the corporate friendly North Carolina Republican party won control of the General Assembly.  For many members, the free market can do no wrong and anything government touches is bad news.  Many will reflexively support Avila’s legislation.  But any underserved county in the state knows the truth about today’s broadband in rural North Carolina — if local communities can’t step up and deliver the service, nobody will.  For these representatives, Democrat or Republican, concern should run high that Avila’s bill assures these areas of years of high prices, poor or no service, and status quo protection designed to keep the market exactly as it is today.  Considering how poorly North Carolina stands in national broadband rankings, standing still should never be an option.