Several years ago, phone companies like AT&T and Verizon discovered providing competing cable service over U-verse and FiOS meant approaching each community, asking permission to tear up the streets and yards of local residents to deliver the service. AT&T’s U-verse requires enormous 4-6 foot ugly metal cabinets in the front or side yard of a customer every few blocks. Verizon’s FiOS network necessitates the replacement of the copper wire network with fiber optic cables in its place. More than a few yards and streets were torn up installing the new cables.

Dealing with individual town boards, city councils, and other franchising authorities became a nuisance for the companies, so both decided to invest some serious lobbying money to rip control away from local authorities. Understanding they would never get away with advocating for no oversight, they settled for the next best thing — advocating for a statewide franchise law. With that, both phone companies simply needed to obtain a single license from the state to operate.

U-verse cabinets often make the evening news when they are plunked down in your front yard. With statewide video franchise laws, you and your local community leaders no longer have a say.

AT&T has been especially successful in passing such “reforms” in their service areas. Verizon has fought less successfully in the more-skeptical northeastern states unwilling to give the company carte blanche-benefit of the doubt.

Illinois is definitely AT&T territory, and the company’s successful push for statewide franchising in 2007 was tied to promises AT&T would hurry out its U-verse service across Illinois. Instead, with many Illinois customers still without access to U-verse, the phone company recently announced its upgrade-expansion was over. But AT&T remains grateful to the Illinois legislature for keeping its end of the agreement — removing certain pesky consumer protection and local oversight laws.

AT&T also craftily defined limits on how much authority the state franchise body could have to operate. In some states, franchise authorities are little more than paper pushers issuing franchise agreements at-will to operators, leaving local communities stuck with whatever quality of service the phone and cable company is willing to offer.

While phone companies spent millions lobbying for franchise reform, the cable industry has occasionally fought their efforts, maintaining AT&T and Verizon should have to follow the same rules they do. Cable operators spent years negotiating franchise agreements with every community they service. In many cases, the cable industry lost the battle but, along with AT&T and Verizon, effectively won the war.

In Carbondale, cable customers quickly learned that statewide video franchise “reform” pushed by AT&T was no help to them. Soon after the law was passed, Mediacom closed the only local customer service center in the city, in direct violation of their local 2009 franchise agreement that required Mediacom to keep its service center open for at least a decade after signing.

In court, Mediacom argued their signed contract with Carbondale was null and void because of the changes to the Illinois Public Utility Act, which transferred franchise authority to the Illinois state government and out of the hands of local officials.

Carbondale officials sued Mediacom in 2010 over the franchise violation, and the cable company opened a temporary customer service center in a local shopping center as an interim measure.

Now two courts have found in favor of Carbondale’s carefully written franchise agreement, and have ruled Mediacom cannot simply tear up their local franchise agreement, state law or not.

What made the difference for Carbondale was language in the agreement that kept close to the consumer protection provisions now found in the statewide franchise law. Courts found that because Carbondale did not stray from the state’s standards, they were within their rights to expect Mediacom to continue operating under the terms of the franchise agreement the company signed.

“The circuit court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs and Mediacom ‘mutually agreed to contracts, both valid at the time of their formation, and valid after the enactment of the customer service and privacy protection standards of (statute),” Justice James M. Wexstten wrote in the appellate ruling.

That leaves Mediacom mulling extending its lease on their single local customer service center, at least until they decide whether or not to appeal the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Jackson County Assistant State’s Attorney Dan Brenner and Carbondale City Attorney Mike Kimmel, who fought Carbondale’s case in court told The Southern they would not be surprised to see Mediacom pursue the case.

“As far as we’re all concerned, they’ve got to keep that service center open in Carbondale until the contract ends or they get this thing reversed,” Brenner told the newspaper.

McAdam

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam wants you to spend more with the phone company, and if his vision of Verizon’s future comes true, you will.

The company’s newest CEO spoke on a wide-ranging number of topics for the benefit of Wall Street investors at the Guggenheim Securities Symposium. A transcript of the event delivers several newsworthy revelations on the company’s future plans.

McAdam rose through the ranks of Verizon Communications with a specialty in the company’s immensely profitable wireless business. His predecessor, Ivan Seidenberg, spent his career at Verizon Communications working with the company’s legacy wireline (landline) network. While Seidenberg envisioned a new future for Verizon’s landline business with an upgraded fiber optic network called FiOS, McAdam maintained a different vision having run Verizon Wireless as a profit-making machine since 2006. McAdam believes Verizon’s future earnings and focus should be primarily on the wireless side of the business, because that is where there is serious money to be made.

“The first thing I did when Ivan sort of named me as the Chief Operating Officer was we had a very well-defined credo in the wireless side,” McAdam said. “We created it when we first came together in ’99 because we had seven different companies and we knew we had seven different cultures and we needed to tell people what it was we were really looking for. So we created that document. We spent a lot of time on it. We do a lot of reward and recognition as a result of it and that culture really took root in wireless.”

McAdam’s leadership also aggressively challenged the long-standing telephone company philosophy of earning a stable, predictable profit as Verizon did when it was a regulated monopoly. Instead, McAdam shifted the work culture towards an obsession with shareholder value.

“We took the top 2000 leaders through what we call ‘Leading for Shareholder Value’ and that was really a cultural shift for us because, if you think about it, the wireline side of the business has come out of the defined rate of return culture and we left that competitively a while ago. I am not sure we left it culturally,” McAdam said. “So we have been far more pushing why do you make that investment, what is the return on it, what is the priority of that investment versus another investment.”

Verizon’s Plans to Abandon Rural Landline Customers – Sign Up for Our Expensive LTE 4G Wireless Broadband With a 10GB Usage Cap Instead

Some of the most revealing commentary from McAdam came in response to questions about what Verizon plans to do with its enormous landline phone network, dominant in the northeastern United States.

In comments sure to alarm rural Verizon customers from Massachusetts to Virginia, McAdam clearly signaled the company is laying the groundwork to abandon its rural phone network (and DSL broadband) as soon as regulators allow. Dave Burstein at DSL Prime estimates that could impact as many as 18 million Verizon customers across the country.

“In […] areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got [a wireless 4G] LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there,” McAdam said. “We are going to do it over wireless. So I am going to be really shrinking the amount of copper we have out there and then I can focus the investment on that to improve the performance of it.”

Elsewhere, in more urban and suburban areas, McAdam also wants Verizon to purge its network of copper.

“The vision that I have is we are going into the copper plant areas and every place we have FiOS, we are going to kill the copper,” McAdam said. “We are going to just take it out of service and we are going to move those services onto FiOS. We have got parallel networks in way too many places now, so that is a pot of gold in my view.”

In other words, McAdam would shift money spent maintaining and upgrading rural landline service into the company’s wireless network in rural America and its FiOS network in more urban environments, both of which will improve profits. FiOS allows Verizon to pitch television, broadband, and phone service in one profitable triple-play package, while also discontinuing standalone DSL service. Rural customers pushed to wireless LTE for broadband will face onerous usage limits and more expensive service for phone calls and broadband. Using Verizon’s LTE network for video would be prohibitively expensive.

McAdam hints the company has used its lobbyist force to make preparations to abandon rural customers first in Florida, Virginia, and Texas where state regulators approved legislation that eliminates the requirement Verizon serve as “the carrier of last resort.” That law required Verizon to deliver landline phone service to any customer in its service area on request. With that provision stricken in those three states, Verizon can abandon any landline customer it chooses after serving written notice.

McAdam said he intends to continue lobbying other states to adopt similar deregulation, and chided legislatures in both New York and New Jersey for “being backward” because they have repeatedly refused to allow Verizon to walk away from its rural customer obligations.

Burstein thinks the changes in progress at Verizon will be a disaster for affordable rural broadband.

“This makes a mockery of ‘affordable broadband,’ especially when Verizon and AT&T are boycotting the plan for discounts for poor schoolchildren,” Burstein says. “The detente between telcos and cable companies means the prices of modest Internet speeds (3-15 megabits down) are typically going up from $30-45 to $55-70.”

Burstein also notes the change spells disaster for competitors who sell DSL service over existing phone networks.

“Nationwide, alternatives to the telco/cablecos have less than 5% of the residential market but in some areas they remain important,” Burstein says. “The most interesting, Sonic.net in California, offers unlimited calls and Internet up to 20 meg for $50/month, 20-50% cheaper than AT&T.”

“High prices, unacceptable service choices and further rural depopulation are bad policy,” he adds.

Verizon still earns enormous revenue from its remaining landline customers, revenue McAdam hopes will be replaced by selling business-focused services instead.

“Cloud [service] is continuing to pick up for us. Security is I think going to be an even more important play for us as we go forward,” McAdam noted. “I think these large enterprise accounts, offering them kind of a global service with those up the stack […and…] applications on top of it drive it as well. So there is a number of pieces in the portfolio that I think will take us up and more than compensate for some of the falling off of copper-based services like DSL and voice and that sort of thing.”

Verizon’s Unionized Employees Are Wrong-Headed Defending Verizon’s Landline Network

McAdam also blamed the company’s unionized employees for remaining loyal to the company’s traditional role in the landline business.  Unions like the Communications Workers of America continue to push Verizon to expand its FiOS fiber optic network in more places, but the company has left its FiOS expansion on hold, diverting investment into its wireless business. Both McAdam and the union agree the days of copper wire networks are numbered, but McAdam hints that union concessions (and fewer unionized employees) are required before the company will again expand FiOS.

“Our employees see that it is not sustainable to keep having copper plant out there. You really can’t invest in it; it is difficult to maintain it; and they want to see us improve on FiOS,” McAdam said. “And when I am out in the field, the techs and the reps will be the first to point out kind of some of the dumb policies I call them that we have around the business. Well, a lot of those are based on rules that were negotiated with the union back in the ’60s and ’70s.”

“So we have to get the union leadership to understand that if the company is able to be more flexible in meeting customer needs then we can grow things like FiOS, which will provide good long-term jobs,” McAdam added. “Will it be the same number as what we had in the past? No.”

Verizon’s Enormous Offshore Bank Accounts: Waiting for a ‘Business-Friendly’ Administration to Let Them Bring the Money Back, Tax-Free

McAdam also signaled investors that the phone company’s profits massed in overseas bank accounts are going to remain in place until they know who wins the next election. Verizon wants to repatriate some of that offshore money, but they want to do it tax-free.

“Everybody is kind of waiting to see who controls the Senate and who controls the White House and they are waiting to make those — you have got to understand what the tax situation is going to look like, so we are all waiting to make those investments,” McAdam said.

‘Share Everything’ Lays the Foundation to Monetize Your Data Usage… Forever

McAdam is a big supporter of the company’s new Share Everything wireless plan, which charges smartphone owners $90 a month for unlimited voice calling, texting, and a small 1GB bucket of data that he is convinced customers will be prepared to spend more to enlarge.

“If I know that I have an intelligent home that I can get to any number of ways. If I know that I can do everything I want in my car that I can do in front of my TV set or my PC or on my tablet, I think it just takes away a lot of the restraints,” McAdam said. “Is it going to cost them more money? Yes, but it will probably shift their wallet spend from other things that they do individually into this sort of a bucket of gigabytes. And so I think it will be a significant [revenue] stream for us.”

FitchRatings, a credit ratings agency, agrees in a new report.

“The new pricing structure taken by the industry leader is a disciplined pricing action that could create more cash flow stability longer term within the wireless industry,” the credit ratings agency said last week.

Fitch notes data services are increasingly becoming a larger source of revenue for wireless phone companies. In the first quarter alone, data revenues at Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and T-Mobile USA — all carriers that abandoned flat rate wireless data plans, grew 19% year over to year to $14.2 billion. That represents 41 percent of the companies’ service revenues.

Despite assertions from Verizon that the new plans deliver convenience and better value for subscribers, Fitch found they actually represent a substantial price increase for many customers.

“These increases are sometimes material, depending on whether the legacy rate plans have low recurring charges for text messaging or calling minutes. As a result, prices have generally increased for new subscribers,” Fitch reports.

Fitch warns investors Verizon is likely to lose customers over its new pricing strategy, and experience a slowdown in new customer growth as well, at least until competing carriers realign their pricing and plans to be similar (or match) those Verizon introduced last month.

The Days of Your Subsidized Android/iPhone May Be Numbered

McAdam’s vision also includes a re-examination of device subsidies as customers increasingly depend on wireless devices. McAdam previously indicated the wireless device subsidy was designed to get customers to adopt and embrace new technologies, and as adoption rates have soared, the need to keep discounting technology that customers depend on diminishes.

He echoed that sentiment at the Guggenheim Securities Symposium, noting that Verizon this month abandoned subsidies on tablet devices. For McAdam, discounting wireless technology serves one purpose: to quickly establish a new business relationship with a customer that probably would not buy their first device at full price.

But McAdam recognizes changing the company’s subsidy that customers expect to receive must happen gradually. It has already started, first by eliminating early upgrade discounts, then by dropping the company’s loyalty discount “New Every Two” plan. Now, the company will only allow grandfathered unlimited data plan customers to keep those plans if they agree to forego any subsidy on their next smartphone.

“If you look at the telematics industry today [services like OnStar], the car companies subsidize a device that goes into the car. So I think that we have a tendency over the years to sort of look and say, oh, something is going to happen very quickly,” McAdam said. “Things have a tendency to evolve over a long period of time, so I think you will have some devices, like the tablet today, that [are] not subsidized and you’ll probably still have certain devices that are because you want to establish that relationship with a customer and that is the easiest way to get there.”

Verizon Wants You to Use the Cable Industry’s Growing Wi-Fi Network

McAdam’s vision also offloads as much of Verizon’s 3G and 4G traffic to other networks as possible. Ironically, one of the biggest networks he hopes customers will use instead of his are the growing number of Wi-Fi services offered by his competitors in the cable industry.

“It is interesting that a lot of people have said, well, I can’t believe you’re going to partner with [cable companies],” McAdam said. “You are not going to use their Wi-Fi are you? Well, of course, we are. I mean we want to shift as much onto FiOS or onto the fixed network where we can and then provide — use that capacity to provide those higher demand services like video.”

McAdam added he does not want customers sitting in their homes watching video over his LTE 4G network. He also wants that traffic shifted to Wi-Fi.

“So our thinking going forward as we talk about kind of the ‘One Verizon’ approach is we want to use every network asset we have and if that means jumping onto FiOS or using the cloud services for mobile as well as fixed line, using security across all of our different access technologies, we want that network to be seamless and that is what our CTO, Tony Melone, is driving hard on in the business right now,” McAdam said.

One preview of that thinking at work can be found on Verizon Wireless’ hottest new device — the Samsung Galaxy S3. Verizon’s version of the phone browbeats customers with prominent menus that encourage Wi-Fi use wherever possible. The phone’s persistent reminder has become a pest according to many of the phone’s owners, who consider both the message and the difficulty keeping Wi-Fi shut off obtrusive.

Verizon’s partnership with large cable companies including Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Bright House Networks originally involved the acquisition of excess wireless spectrum cable companies originally intended to use to compete with the mobile phone industry. With the cable industry abandoning those plans, the proposed collaboration involving Verizon Wireless grew to include cross-marketing each other’s products and services, and now apparently includes sharing the cable companies’ growing Wi-Fi networks.

Verizon Believes The Future of Telecommunications Needs to Be In the Hands of Two Companies — Verizon and AT&T

A point of shared belief between market leaders Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson is that excessive competition just does not make sense. Both believe federal regulators have it all wrong when they push to maintain the level of competition that still exists in the telecommunications business. When the Department of Justice effectively pulled the plug on a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, Stephenson was outraged and, in one investor conference call, launched a tirade against regulators and suggested that AT&T would throw in the towel on expanding rural broadband in a retaliatory move.

McAdam and Stephenson both believe that competition in telecommunications represents wasted investment, inefficiency, and value destruction.

“I think the fundamental problem here, and it is sort of like fighting gravity I think, is that it is so expensive to build these networks that you are not going to support seven or eight carriers,” McAdam told investors. “I don’t — frankly, I think you’ll be lucky if you can support three in a healthy environment.”

But McAdam recognizes that if it achieves a wireless duopoly with AT&T, it must be a benevolent one, or else the marketplace abuses the wireless industry has a track record engaging in will invite regulatory scrutiny.

“We have a tendency to create a great club and hand it to our detractors and say please beat me with this because we do some dumb things like fighting some of the number portability and trying to push a direct wireless directory,” McAdam said. “I mean there are things that have really upset customers and that invites regulation. So I think the industry has the responsibility to act in the best interests of the customer as part of the mix with a shareholder, but I think there is always going to be the battle with regulation.”

McAdam admits he is uncomfortable with the fact the Obama Administration has allowed the regulation pendulum to swing more towards enforced competition and checking the power of dominant carriers in the marketplace. He prefers the Bush Administration’s “hands-off” approach that allowed both Verizon and AT&T to snap up smaller competitors with scant regulatory review.

McAdam believes the Obama Administration’s FCC and Justice Department is slowing down wireless investment, innovation, and the industry’s ability to earn profits at a time when unemployment in sky high and increased investment will help drive the economy forward.

Phillip “They Want to Save You Money By Charging You More” Dampier

The pro-Internet Overcharging forces’ meme of “pay for what you use” sounds good in theory, but no broadband provider in the country would dare switch to a true consumption-based billing system for broadband, because it would destroy predictable profits for a service large cable and phone companies hope you cannot live without.

Twenty years ago, the cable industry could raise rates on television packages with almost no fear consumers would cancel service. When I produced a weekly radio show about the cable and satellite television industry, cable companies candidly told me they expected vocal backlashes from customers every time a rate increase notice was mailed out, but only a handful would actually follow through on threats to cut the cord. Now that competition for your video dollar is at an all-time-high, providers are shocked (and some remain in denial) that customers are actually following through on their threats to cut the cord. Goodbye Comcast, Hello Netflix!

Some Wall Street analysts have begun warning their investor clients that the days of guaranteed revenue growth from video subscribers are over, risking profits as customers start to depart when the bill gets too high. Cable companies have always increased rates faster than the rate of inflation, and investors have grown to expect those reliable profits, so the pressure to make up the difference elsewhere has never been higher.

With broadband, cable and phone companies may have found a new way to bring back the Money Party, and ride the wave of broadband usage to the stratosphere, earning money at rates never thought possible from cable-TV. The ticket to OPEC-like rivers of black gold? Usage-based billing.

Since the early days of broadband, most Americans have enjoyed flat rate access through a cable or phone company at prices that remained remarkably stable for a decade — usually around $40 a month for standard speed service.

In the last five years, as cord-cutting has grown beyond a phenomena limited to Luddites and satellite dish owners, the cable industry has responded. As they learned customers’ love of broadband has now made the service indispensable in most American homes, providers have been jacking up the price.

Time Warner Cable, for example, has increased prices for broadband annually for the last three years, especially for customers who do not subscribe to any other services.

Customers dissatisfaction with rate hikes has not led to broadband cord cutting, and in fact might prove useful on quarterly financial reports -and- for advocating changes in the way broadband service is priced:

1. Enhance revenue and profits, replacing lost ground from departing video customers and the slowing growth of new customers signing up for video and phone services (and keeping average revenue per user ((ARPU)) on the increase);
2. Using higher prices to provoke an argument about changing the way broadband service is sold.

Pouring over quarterly financial reports from most major providers shows remarkable consistency:

• The costs to provide broadband service are declining, even with broadband usage growth;
• Revenue and profits enjoy a healthy growth curve, especially as increased prices on existing customers make up for fewer new customer additions;
• Earnings from broadband are now so important, a cable company like Time Warner Cable now refers to itself as a broadband company. It is not alone.

Still, it is not enough. As usage continues to grow in the current monopoly/duopoly market, providers are drooling with anticipation over the possibility of scrapping the concept of “flat rate” broadband, which limits the endless ARPU growth Wall Street demands. If a company charges a fixed rate for a service, it cannot grow revenue from that service unless it increases the price, sells more expensive tiers of service, or innovates new products and services to sell.

Providers have enjoyed moderate success selling customers more expensive, faster service, also on a flat rate basis. But that still leaves money on the table, according to Wall Street-based “usage billing” advocates like Craig Moffett, who see major ARPU growth charging customers more and more money for service as their usage grows.

Moffett has a few accidental allies in the blogger world who seem to share his belief in “usage-based” billing. Lou Mazzucchelli, reading the recent New York Times piece on Time Warner’s gradual move towards usage pricing, frames his support for consumption billing around the issue of affordability. In his view, usage pricing is better for consumers and the industry:

It costs real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand, and those costs are ultimately borne by the subscriber. So in the US, we have carriers trying to raise their rates to offset increases in capital and operating expenses to the point where consumers are beginning to push back, and the shoving has come to the attention of the Federal Communications Commission, which has raised the possibility of treating Internet network providers as common communications carriers subject to regulation.

I believe that flat-rate pricing is a major source of problems for network carriers and consumers. In the carrier world, the economics are known but ignored because marketers believe that flat rates are the only plans consumers will accept. But in the consumer world, flat rates are rising to incomprehensible levels for indecipherable reasons, with little recourse except disconnection. Consumer dissatisfaction is rising, in part because consumers feel they have no control over the price they have to pay. This is driven by their sense of pricing inequity that is hard to visualize but comes from implicit subsidies in the current environment. The irony is that pay-per-use pricing solves the problem for carriers and consumers.

Mazzucchelli reposted his blog piece originally written in 2010 for the benefit of Times readers. Two years ago, he measured his usage at 11GB a month. His provider Verizon Communications was charging him $64.99 a month for 25Mbps service, which identifies him as a FiOS fiber to the home customer.  Mazzucchelli argues the effective price he was paying for Internet access was $5.85 for each of the 11GB he consumed, which seemed steep at the time. (Not anymore, if you look at wireless company penalty rates which range from $10-15/GB or more.)

Mazzucchelli theorized that if he paid on a per-packet basis, instead of flat rate service based on Internet speed, he could pay something like $0.0000025 per packet, which would result in a bill of $31.91 for his 11GB instead of $65. For him, that’s money saved with usage billing.

On its face, it might seem to make sense, especially for light users who could pay less under a true usage-based pricing scenario like the one he proposes.

Verizon Communications is earning more average revenue per customer than ever with its fiber to the home network. That’s about the only bright spot Wall Street recognizes from Verizon’s fiber network, which some analysts deride as “too expensive.”

Unfortunately for Mazzucchelli, and others who claim usage-based pricing will prove a money-saver, the broadband industry has some bad news for you. Usage pricing simply cannot be allowed to save you, and other current customers money. Why? Because Wall Street will never tolerate pricing that threatens the all-important ARPU. In the monopoly/duopoly home broadband marketplace most Americans endure, it would be the equivalent of unilaterally disarming in the war for revenue and profits.

That is why broadband providers will never adopt a true usage-based billing system for customers. It would cannibalize earnings for a service that already enjoys massive markups above true cost. In 2009, Comcast was spending under $10 a month to sell broadband service priced above $40.

Mazzucchelli

Instead, providers design “usage-based” billing around rates comparable to today’s flat rate pricing, only they slap arbitrary maximum usage allowances on each tier of service, above which consumers pay an overlimit fee penalty. That would leave Mazzucchelli choosing a lower speed, lower usage allowance plan to maximize his savings, if his use of the Internet didn’t grow much. On a typical light use plan suitable for his usage, he would subscribe to 1-3Mbps service with a 10GB allowance, and pay the overlimit fee for one extra gigabyte if he wanted to maximize his broadband dollar.

But his usage experience would be dramatically different, both because he would be encouraged to use less, fearing he might exceed his usage allowance, and he would be “enjoying” the Internet at vastly slower speeds. If Mazzucchelli went with higher speed service, he would still pay prices comparable for flat rate service, and receive a usage allowance he personally would find unnecessarily large. The result for him would be little to no savings and a usage allowance he did not need.

Mazzucchelli’s usage pattern is probably different today than it was in 2010. Is he still using 11GB a month? If he uses double the amount he did two years ago, under his own pricing formula, the savings he sought would now be virtually wiped out, with a broadband bill for 22GB of consumption running $63.82. By the following year, usage-based pricing would cost even more than Verizon’s unlimited pricing, as average use of the Internet continues to grow.

That helps the broadband industry plenty but does nothing for consumers. Mazzucchelli might be surprised to learn that the “real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand,” is actually more than covered under today’s profit margins for flat-rate broadband. In fact, if he examines financial reports over the last five years and the statements company executives make to shareholders, virtually all of them speak in terms of reducing capital investments and the declining costs to deliver broadband, even as usage grows.

Verizon’s fiber network, while expensive to construct, is already earning the company enormous boosts in ARPU over traditional copper wire phone service. While Wall Street howled about short term capital costs to construct the network, then-CEO Ivan Seidenberg said fiber optics was the vehicle that will drive Verizon earnings for decades selling new products and services that its old network could never deliver.

Still, is Mazzucchelli paying too much for his broadband at both 2010 and 2012 prices? Yes he is. But that is not a function of the cost to deliver broadband service. It is the result of a barely competitive marketplace that has an absence of price-moderating competitors. Usage-based pricing in today’s broadband market assures lower costs for providers by retarding usage. It also brings even higher profits from bigger broadband bills as Internet usage grows, with no real relationship to the actual costs to provide the service. It also protects companies from video package cord-cutting, as customers will find online viewing prohibitively expensive.

One need only look at pricing abroad to see how much Americans are gouged for Internet service. Unlimited high speed Internet is available in a growing number of countries for $20-40 a month.

Usage-based billing is a dead end that might deliver temporary savings now, but considerably higher broadband bills soon after. It is not too late to turn the car around and join us in the fight to keep unlimited broadband, enhance competition, and win the lower prices users like Mazzucchelli crave.

Big cable and phone companies can thank 2011’s Hurricane Irene for keeping them from scoring #1 on the American Customer Satisfaction Index’s top most disliked companies in America. Those choice spots were reserved for utility companies on Long Island and in Connecticut.

But even the rain-soaker that left millions without power for weeks couldn’t keep America’s perennial hatred of cable and phone companies from the top 15 list:

#3 Charter Communications – The “Don’t Care-Bears” of Cable

America’s worst cable company delivers downright shoddy customer service and dodgy billing practices a loan shark would not dare try. The company has been flopping around like a beached whale since exiting its “stiff our creditors good with a quick trip to bankruptcy court,” and is now back to stiffing their customers instead:

“The sales rep originally promised us a $42.95 a month for services, with an introductory price of $24.95 for the first 3 months (a savings of $18 a month). After the introductory period ended, the company started charging me $56.95, when I finally caught on that they were charging me $14 more per month than what is said on the Work Order (could provide at anytime for proof), he never once mentioned that there will be a $10 more per month, and now the company says if you have no other cable service with us (Charter Communications), you are to be charged $10 more per month!!”

#4 Comcast – Hey, It Could Be Worse — At Least We’re Not Charter!

Comcast had a bad year with faulty e-mail, failing equipment, and more excuses than CVS has pills. Unprofessional contract installers also have problems keeping their hands to themselves. The largest cable operator in the country has also been known to empty checking accounts when they want their money, and there are horror stories about installers leaving wires, clips, and nails scattered on front lawns, quickly becoming projectiles when the mower runs over them.

Their cable service shampoos in mediocrity scoring 61 out of 100 and the “digital phone” service they run is the conditioning rinse, doing slightly better with a score of 67.

#6 Time Warner Cable – Always Listening to Customers, and Then Ignoring Them

Rated 63/100, Time Warner Cable managed a four point improvement over last year, which will be promptly erased if they keep experimenting with Internet Overcharging schemes.

Derided for “third world” customer service worthy of a despotic backwater dictatorship, slow Internet speeds, endless outages, and gouging rates, the ACSI has few nice things to report about America’s second largest cable conglomerate.

One customer vented, “TWC has destroyed my business and doesn’t give a damn: I first complained five weeks ago about outages and miserable upload speeds. I need to send large files to clients. I’ve had two technicians visit, who both found it was in the neighborhood. Today, I found the situation has not changed and am told there’s no further work order.”

Customers also complain about being stuck with Time Warner because there are no competing services in the area.

That being said, we’d rather have Time Warner Cable than AT&T or Comcast, and our personal customer service experience in western New York has been excellent for us, so it depends on where you live (and what competition they have in your area.)

#7 Cox Communications – Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Now we know where Time Warner’s four extra points came from — at the expense of Cox Cable, which is down by that same amount turning in a truly pathetic score of 63 out of 100.

Time Warner Cable occasionally threatens to buy out Cox, at least if industry rumors prove true, which might actually be an improvement.

Cox’s problem is time-honored for the cable industry — it gouges customers with outrageous rate increases the oil and gas industry don’t have the stomach to attempt.

Customers complain Cox is the High Priestess of Bait & Switch, signing customers up on one promotion and then shifting them to another, pretending the original offer was a figment of someone’s imagination. One customer:

 “I setup 2yr service w/Cox —1st yr @ $29.99, 2nd @ $49.99. Now after 6mon they changed it to 1st 6mon @ $29.99, 2nd 6mon @ $49.99, and 1 year @ 79.99.”

#11 CenturyLink – (Last)CenturyLink — America’s Worst Phone Company (Hey Frontier, You Get a Pass This Time)

CenturyLink, you must be so proud of your 66/100 score. In fact, add one more “6” and you’ll convince customers who already suspect you are the devil’s phone company.

“They lie about everything and do nothing,” one customer told ACSI. “I have been having issues with my Internet for a year and they have yet to help.” Another customer wrote that they’ve “had issues with CenturyLink employees flat out lying to [me] about the bill.”

Billing issues are most likely to be cited by complaining customers along with customer service representatives having less knowledge about the company’s products than customers do.

That being said, at least they don’t have the Frontier employee who insisted on telling us about the company’s wireless “wee-fee” network.  She admitted she had no idea it was “Wi-Fi.”

#14 DirectTV – Hey, We’re Looking Pretty Good Compared to the Other Guys

The satellite company managed 68/100, and the biggest problem they still have is misleading contracts and promotions that leave customers out of pocket for hundreds of dollars for deals that go un-honored and rebates that never arrive.

Discounts seem “luck of the draw” among customer service representatives:

“DirectTV raised the price for 30% after one year and said that they told me about this verbally, which is not true. My agreed price with Saha on the phone, a DirecTV employee, was $56.99 including two receivers and one HD/DVR receiver. DirecTV overcharged me on my first bill. When I complained, they said they forgot to give me my 30% discount. So over the next six months, they kept revising my bill but never got it right.”

Comcast is running “welcome back” ads in Chattanooga that still claim they run America’s fastest ISP, when they don’t.

EPB, Chattanooga’s publicly-owned utility that operates the nation’s fastest gigabit broadband network, has already won the speed war, delivering consistently faster broadband service than any of its Tennessee competitors. So when facts are not on their side, competitors like Comcast and a conservative “watchdog” group simply make them up as they go along.

Comcast is running tear-jerker ads in Chattanooga featuring professional actors pretending to be ex-customers looking to own up to their “mistake” of turning their back on Comcast’s 250GB usage cap (now temporarily paroled), high prices, and questionable service.

“It turns out that the speeds I was looking for, Xfinity Internet had all along,” says the actor, before hugging an “Xfinity service technician” in the pouring rain. “But you knew that, didn’t you?”

The ad closes repeating the demonstrably false claim Comcast operates “the nation’s fastest Internet Service Provider.”

“I see those commercials on television and I’m thinking, I wonder how much did they pay you to say that,” says an actual EPB customer in a response ad from the public utility.

It turns out quite a lot. The high-priced campaign is just the latest work from professional advertising agency Goodby Silverstein & Partners of San Francisco, which is quite a distance from Tennessee. Goodby has produced Comcast ads for years. The ad campaign also targets the cable company’s other rival that consistently beats its broadband speeds — Verizon FiOS.

EPB provides municipal power, broadband, television, and telephone service for residents in Chattanooga, Tennessee

Comcast tried to ram their “welcome back” message home further in a newspaper interview with the Times Free Press, claiming “a lot of customers are coming back to Xfinity” because Comcast has a larger OnDemand library, “integrated applications and greater array of choices.”

Comcast does not provide any statistics or evidence to back up its claims, but EPB president and CEO Harold DePriest has already seen enough deception from the cable company to call the latest claims “totally false.”

In fact, DePriest notes, customers come and go from EPB just as they do with Comcast. The real story, in his view, is how many more customers arrive at EPB’s door than leave, and DePriest says they are keeping more customers than they lose.

EPB fully launched in Chattanooga in 2010, and despite Comcast and AT&T’s best customer retention efforts, EPB has signed up 37,000 customers so far, with about 20 new ones arriving every day. (Comcast still has more than 100,000 customers in the area.)

Many come for the EPB’s far superior broadband speeds, made possible on the utility’s fiber to the home network. EPB also does not use Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, which Charter, AT&T, and Comcast have all adopted to varying degrees. Although the utility avoids cut-rate promotional offers that its competitors hand out to new customers (EPB needs to responsibly pay off its fiber network’s construction costs), its pricing is lower than what the cable and phone companies offer at their usual prices.

Comcast claims customers really don’t need super high speed Internet service, underlined by the fact they don’t offer it. But some businesses (including home-based entrepreneurs) do care about the fact they can grow their broadband speeds as needed with EPB’s fiber network. Large business clients receiving quotes from EPB are often shocked by how much lower the utility charges for service that AT&T and Comcast price much higher. It costs EPB next to nothing to offer higher speeds on its fiber network, designed to accommodate the speed needs of customers today and tomorrow.

The competition is less able. AT&T cannot compete on its U-verse platform, which tops out shy of 30Mbps. Comcast has to move most of its analog TV channels to digital, inconveniencing customers with extra-cost set top boxes to boost speeds further.

The fact EPB built Chattanooga’s best network, designed for the present and future, seems to bother some conservative “watchdog” groups. The Beacon Center of Tennesee, a group partially funded by conservative activists like Richard Mellon Scaife through a network of umbrella organizations, considers the entire fiber project a giant waste of money. They agree with Comcast, suggesting nobody needs fast broadband speeds:

EPB also offers something called ultra high-speed Internet. Consumers have to pay more than seven times what they would pay for the traditional service — $350 a month. Right now, only residents of a select few cities worldwide (such as Hong Kong) even use this technology, and that is because most consumers will likely not demand it for another 10 years.

Actually, residents in Hong Kong, Japan, and Korea do expect the faster broadband speeds they receive from their broadband providers. Americans have settled for what they can get (and afford). DePriest openly admits he does not expect a lot of his customers to pay $350 a month for any kind of broadband, but the gigabit-capable network proves a point — the faster speeds are available today on EPB at a fraction of price other providers would charge, if they could supply the service at all. Most EPB customers choose lower speed packages that still deliver better performance at a lower price than either Comcast or AT&T offer.

The Beacon Center doesn’t have a lot of facts to help them make their case. But that does not stop them:

• They claim EPB’s network is paid for at taxpayer expense. It is not.
• They quote an “academic study” that claims 75 percent of “government-run” broadband networks lose money, without disclosing the fact the study was bought and paid for by the same industry that wants to keep communities from running broadband networks. Its author, Ron Rizzuto, was inducted into the Cable TV Pioneers in 2004 for service to the cable industry. The study threw in failed Wi-Fi networks built years ago with modern fiber broadband networks to help sour readers on the concept of community broadband.
• Beacon bizarrely claims the fiber network cannot operate without a $300 million Smart Grid. (Did someone inform Verizon of this before they wasted all that money on FiOS? Who knew fiber broadband providers were also in the electricity business?)

The “watchdog” group even claims big, bad EPB is going to drive AT&T, Comcast, and Charter Cable out of business in Chattanooga (apparently they missed those Comcast/Xfinity ads with customers returning to Kabletown in droves):

Fewer and fewer private companies wish to compete against EPB, which will soon have a monopoly in the Chattanooga market, according to private Internet Service Provider David Snyder. “They have built a solution looking for a problem. It makes for great marketing, but there is no demand for this service. By the time service is needed, the private sector will have established this for pennies on the dollar.”

Ironically, Snyder’s claim there is no demand for EPB’s service fall flat when one considers his company, VolState, has been trying to do business with EPB for two years. He needs EPB because he is having trouble affording the “pennies on the dollar” his suppliers are (not) charging.

Snyder tells “Nooganomics” his company wants an interconnection agreement with EPB, because the private companies he is forced to buy service from — including presumably AT&T, want to charge him a wholesale rate twice as much as EPB currently bills consumers. Snyder calls EPB’s competition “disruptive.”

Nooganomics calls EPB’s low priced service a “charity” in comparison to what AT&T and Comcast charge local residents, and the free market can do no wrong-website seems upset consumers are enjoying the benefits of lower priced service, now that the local phone company and cable operator can’t get away with charging their usual high prices any longer.

Deborah Dwyer, an EPB spokeswoman, told the website the company got into the business with state and city approval, followed the rules for obtaining capital and pays the taxes or payments-in-lieu of taxes as the same rate as corporate players. “We believe that public utilities like EPB exist to help improve the quality of life in our community, and the fiber optic network was built to do just that. One of government’s key responsibilities is to provide communities with infrastructure, and fiber to the home is a key infrastructure much like roads, sewer systems and the electric system.”

Snyder can’t dispute EPB delivers great service. He also walks away from the competition-is-good-for-the-free-market rhetoric that should allow the best company with the lowest rates to win, instead declaring customers should only do business with his company to support free market economics (?):

“If you are a free market capitalist and you believe in free markets, you need to do business with VolState,” Mr. Snyder says. “And if you’re highly principled, every time you buy from a government competitor, what you’re voting for with your dollars is, you’re saying, ‘It’s OK for the government come in to private enterprise and start to take over a vast part of what we used to operate in as a free market.’”

Perhaps Snyder and his friends at the Beacon Center have a future in the vinegar business. They certainly have experience with sour grapes.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast Ad Welcome Back.flv[/flv]

Comcast’s emotionally charged ad, using paid actors, was produced by advertising firm Goodby Silverstein & Partners. The commercial running in Chattanooga is a slight variation on this one, which targets Verizon FiOS. (1 minute)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/EPB Ad.flv[/flv]

EPB uses actual customers, not paid actors, in its own advertising that calls out Comcast’s false advertising.  (1 minute)