38 Tennessee counties are about to face AT&T price deregulation, something critics contend will bring rate hikes of up to 50 percent for many of the state's most rural residents.

Attention rural residents in 38 counties in Tennessee with AT&T landlines: Start saving your money because AT&T will come looking for more of it soon enough.

As a result of 2009 legislation heavily promoted by the state’s largest phone company, AT&T has easily managed to pass a “competition test” it helped devise, triggering total deregulation of basic phone rates across the state.

Although some of the legislation’s supporters are celebrating the end of rate oversight by the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA), claims that competition has broken out across Tennessee may be an exaggeration.  Critics contend many residents will face relentless AT&T rate increases, especially for the elderly and those living in rural areas — typically the poorest regions of the state.

AT&T’s competition test only required the presence of a potential competitor to meet the definition of “competition.”  Unfortunately, for many residents in the 38 affected counties, that competing cable or wireless provider often can’t or won’t provide reliable service, either because cable lines bypass rural areas or cell phone service offers poor signals.  That leaves many consumers at the mercy of AT&T, who can now charge whatever they like.

It’s a key flaw many state legislators fail to recognize when accepting the phone company’s argument that deregulation will save consumers money.  Documentary evidence suggests the reverse is true, especially in areas not well covered by cable and wireless competition. Those choosing the most basic levels of service typically face the largest rate hikes as telecommunications companies try to drive customers into multi-service bundles often approaching $200 a month.

For now, the first step is to do away with oversight and AT&T wasted no time pulling out provider maps for the 38 still-regulated counties in the state and found cable and cell phone competitors in all of them.  Despite the fact those services are not available to every resident, AT&T lawyer Joelle Phillips demanded the TRA immediately end rate regulation.

Customer Advocacy Lawyer Mary Leigh White warned the TRA AT&T would follow their track record in other states where rates were deregulated and raise prices up to 50 percent. Phillips told the Authority it didn’t matter — the law AT&T helped write and lobby for was clear:

“When a statute includes one thing specifically and doesn’t refer to other things, that the statute must be read to have done that on purpose,” said Phillips.

With that argument, the TRA capitulated Monday and voted unanimously to end rate oversight.

Consumers in the state who do find major price hikes in their future can blame the deregulation bill’s chief sponsors:

• Sen. Paul Stanley, (R-Collierville) (Resigned last August after caught in an extramarital affair with a 22-year old intern.)
• Sen. Dewayne Bunch, (R-Cleveland)
• Rep. Gerald McCormick, (R-Chattanooga)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSMV Nashville ATT Deregulated 8-23-10.flv[/flv]

WSMV-TV in Nashville covered the end of AT&T rate oversight and the implications the change will have on Tennessee phone bills.  (2 minutes)

Shaw's flyer distributed to Novus customers

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has thrown out Novus Entertainment’s 2009 lawsuit against Shaw Cable accusing western Canada’s largest cable operator of predatory pricing and other anti-competitive acts.

Last summer, Stop the Cap! gave considerable attention to the price war that broke out between Novus Entertainment, a fiber provider serving many Vancouver apartment buildings and condos vs. incumbent cable provider Shaw Cable.

Novus, which entered the BC market well after Shaw, faced what it alleged were incidents of fixing prices below cost and false advertising in an effort to drive competition out of the market.

At one point, last summer’s battle dropped prices as low as $30 a month for a package of HD cable, unlimited phone, and 16Mbps broadband service from Shaw.  Novus accused Shaw of recouping their losses in Vancouver from other Shaw cable subscribers across Canada who made up the difference with higher cable rates.

Novus sought relief before The Honourable Mr. Justice Greyell, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.  Novus argued that under the recently expanded Competition Act, the court could order Shaw to cease unfair competition and face punitive fines for the cable company’s bad behavior.

Novus recited details of the price war:

Commencing February 2009, Shaw began a series of marketing campaigns specifically targeted at Novus’ existing customers in high-rise, multiple-dwelling units (“MDUs”) developments in Vancouver and Burnaby, British Columbia.

In February 2009, Shaw offered very low pricing on its Cable Television Services, Internet, and digital telephone services to certain Novus customers.  Customers were free to take one, two or all three of the services offered.  There were no contracts or commitments required:

• Cable Television Services:  Shaw’s “High-Definition TV” package including over 100 digital and HD channels, plus 1 year free rental of a high-definition personal video recorder (“HDPVR”), free for the first two months, and $9.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).
• Digital Telephone:  Shaw’s “Digital Phone Basic” package, which includes local calling and call display, free for the first two months, and $14.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).
• High-speed Internet:  Shaw’s “Xtreme-I Internet” package, free for the first two months, and $19.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).

In March 2009, Shaw began offering a free HPDVR to keep, plus the first month of service for free, to customers that switch back to Shaw. Customers were only required to commit to six months of pre-authorized payments.

In July 2009, Shaw offered even lower pricing than it marketed in February:

• Cable Television Services:  More than 200 digital channels, including all analogue and digital television channels, 25 high-definition television (“HDTV”) channels, a movie channel package, plus two rental HDTV set-top boxes with personal video recorder (“HPDVR”), free for the first two months, and $9.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).
• Digital Telephone:  Shaw’s “Digital Phone” package, including local telephone service, over a dozen calling features including voicemail, call display and call waiting, unlimited calling within Canada and the US, 1,000 International minutes to selected countries per month,”) free for the first two months, and $9.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).
• Shaw’s “Xtreme-I” high-speed Internet: with advertised download speeds of up to 16 Mbps, “Powerboost”, 10 personal email addresses and 100 GB monthly data transfer”), free for the first two months, and $9.95 for the next ten months (twelve months in total).

To add insult to injury, according to Novus, Shaw began advertising Internet “now 50 percent faster.”  In Novus’ opinion, the advertising implied Shaw’s Internet service was now 50 percent faster than broadband offered by Novus.

The text from Shaw’s ad read:

Feel the need for extra speed?  Shaw high-speed Internet is now 50% faster that’s fast.  Downloading your favourite music, videogames, and movies will take no time at all.  Plus Shaw high-speed Internet comes loaded with no cost extras like Powerboost, Shaw Secure and much more.  Get Shaw high-speed Internet for the amazing new price of only $19.95 per month for the first three months including modem and installation.  There’s never been a better time to order.  Call 310-Shaw today.

Signs sponsored by Shaw Cable were placed in front of buildings wired by Novus

The decision by Mr. Justice Greyell was carefully watched across Canada as it represented the first test of expanded authority granted by Parliament for courts to impose significant monetary fines against bad actors.  Commentators noted the new authority theoretically granted courts the power to determine anti-competitive activity itself — a power formerly held by Canada’s Competition Tribunal.

Those commentators need not have worried if the BC Supreme Court decision stands intact.

Mr. Justice Greyell dismissed Novus’ claims and ruled that in the absence of a determination of anti-competitive behavior by the Competition Tribunal, the court had no right to declare Shaw guilty of such behavior in the case.

“I conclude that in the absence of an order from the [Competition] Tribunal under s. 79 of the [Competition] Act, those portions of the statement of claim alleging a breach of s. 79 of the Act be struck out,” the chief justice ruled, effectively dismissing Novus’ anti-competitive claims against Shaw.

Mr. Justice Greyell also was unconvinced consumers would be confused by Shaw’s “50 percent faster” advertisement, believing the cable company now delivered faster service than Novus.

“In applying these tests to the ‘Now 50% Faster’ advertisement I am unable to conclude a reasonable person would view the words used as referring to the plaintiff’s business.  I am of the view the interpretation any reasonable person would place on the words is that Shaw is directing the advertisement to its own customers, and anyone else who might be interested, that its services are 50% faster than they used to be.  This fact is made clear by Shaw’s use of the word ‘Now’ – which implies that in the past Shaw’s services were slower and that Shaw has ‘Now’ improved the speed of its services   The advertisement makes no reference to Novus or to any Shaw competitor,” the chief justice ruled.

Novus effectively walks away from the BC Supreme Court empty-handed, and a little lighter in the wallet.  The chief justice also ruled Novus is responsible for Shaw’s legal bills associated with defending itself against Novus’ lawsuit.

[flv width=”630″ height=”375″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Novus – 10 Bucks Too.flv[/flv]

Novus released this video as part of an outreach campaign arguing cable customers across western Canada should qualify for the same incredibly low promotional pricing Vancouver residents pay for Shaw Cable. (2 minutes)

Reardon is fine with this vision of your online future.

Marguerite Reardon confesses she’s confused.  She doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about regarding Google and Verizon teaming up to deliver a blueprint for a corporate compromise on Net Neutrality.  In a column published today, Reardon is convinced she’s on a debunking mission — to deliver the message that rumors of the Internet apocalypse are premature.

As I read the criticism of Google and Verizon’s supposed evil plan to demolish the Internet, and as I hear about “protests” of several dozen people at Google’s headquarters, I scratch my head and wonder: am I missing something?

The Google-Verizon Net neutrality proposal I read last week doesn’t sound nearly as apocalyptic as Free Press, a media advocacy group, and some of the most vocal critics out there have made it sound.

In fact, most of proposal sounded a lot like a plan FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski offered nearly a year ago, which many Net neutrality proponents seemed to support.

In short, Google and Verizon say they agree to a set of rules for the Internet that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or degrading lawful content on the Internet. Broadband providers would also not be allowed to take action to impede competition.

This is pretty much what Genachowski has proposed.

OK, terrific. There is agreement.

But wait, Net neutrality zealots are still unhappy.

Hmmm… “zealots?”  Reardon probably just angered the majority of CNET’s readers, who now find themselves labeled as crazed Internet online freedom fighters — net fundamentalists who want absolute protection against big Internet Service Providers tampering with their Internet Experience.

Where can I get my membership card?

Reardon’s “debunk” consists of her narrow, inaccurate definition of Net Neutrality pounded into a pre-conceived notion of what is and is not possible in a competitive broadband marketplace.  In short, she’s satisfied we can all move along… there is nothing to see here:

What Free Press and Public Knowledge don’t seem to realize is that AT&T and Verizon already offer differentiated services today with enhanced quality of service to business customers. Verizon’s Fios TV and AT&T’s U-verse TV services are also examples of managed Internet services that are delivered to consumers. And the last time I checked, no one, other than their cable competitors, has complained about AT&T and Verizon offering competition in the TV market.

The truth is that if Verizon and AT&T wanted to cannibalize their broadband business with premium broadband services, they’d already be doing it. But they aren’t, because there hasn’t been a market for it.

The reality is that consumers are in control of what type of services are offered. If the public Internet can adequately deliver a service for free, then there’s no need to pay for it. But if someone can provide a better service over a dedicated network and there are consumers willing to pay for it, then why shouldn’t it be offered? Isn’t that why some people subscribe to a 768Kbps broadband service for $15 a month, and others pay $100 for a 50Mbps service?

So let’s debunk the debunk.

First, Net Neutrality is not about stopping broadband providers from offering speed-based tiers of service.  In fact, that’s the Internet pricing model we’ve all come to know and love (although those prices are just a tad high, aren’t they?)  Free Press and Public Knowledge do not object to ISPs selling different levels of broadband speed tiers to consumers and businesses to access online content.

Net Neutrality isn’t about stopping ISPs from selling some customers “lite” service and others “mega-super-zippy Turbo” service — it’s about stopping plans from some ISPs to establish their own toll booths on the Internet to charge content producers twice — once to upload and distribute their content and then a second time to ensure that content reaches a particular ISPs customers on a timely, non-speed-throttled basis.  Consider this: you already pay good money for your own broadband account.  How would you feel if you sent an e-mail to a friend who uses another ISP and that provider wanted to charge you 20 cents to deliver that e-mail?  Don’t want to pay?  That’s fine, but your e-mail might be delayed, as paying customers enjoy priority over your freebie e-mail.

A lot of broadband customers may never understand the implications of giant telecom companies building their own toll lanes for “preferred content partners” on the Internet because they’ll just assume that stuck online video or constantly rebuffering stream is the fault of the website delivering it, not their provider intentionally pushing it aside to make room for content from companies who paid protection money to make sure their videos played splendidly.

Second, Reardon need only look to our neighbors in the north to see a non Net Neutral Internet experience in Canada.  There, ISPs intentionally throttle broadband applications they don’t want users running on their networks.  They also spank customers who dare to try what Reardon insists Verizon would never stop — using their broadband service to watch someone else’s content.  With the application of Internet Overcharging like usage limits and consumption billing schemes, cable companies like Rogers don’t need to directly block competitors like Netflix.  They need only spike customers’ broadband bills to teach them a lesson they’ll not soon forget.

Within days of Netflix announcing their imminent arrival in Canada, Rogers actually reduced the usage allowances of some of their broadband customers.  If you still want to watch Netflix instead of visiting Rogers pay-per-view cable menu or video rental stores, it will cost you plenty — up to $5 per gigabyte of viewing.

Reardon seems to think giant providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast care about what their customers want and wouldn’t jeopardize the customer relationship.  Really?  She herself admits she hates paying for hundreds of channels she never watches, yet providers are deaf to complaints from customers demanding an end to this practice.  What about the relentless price hikes?  Wouldn’t that drive off customers?  Perhaps… if customers had real alternatives.  Instead, with an effective duopoly market in place, subscribers pay “the man,” pay an almost identical price from the “other guy,” or go without.

Providers understand their power and leverage in the marketplace.  Until serious competition arrives, it would be a disservice to stockholders not to monetize every possible aspect of broadband service in the United States.

The check against this naked aggression on consumers’ wallets is from consumer groups who are fighting against these big telecom interests.

Before dismissing Net Neutrality “zealotry,” Reardon should experience the Internet in Canada and then get back to us, and more importantly those consumer groups she flicks away with disdain, and join the fight.

Cablevision subscribers: Just two months after facing the loss of HGTV and the Food Network, get ready to lose WABC-TV — the ABC affiliate in New York, just hours before the Oscars telecast is set to begin.

Cablevision’s contract with Disney-owned WABC-TV will expire March 7th, and both sides have not reached an agreement.

The dispute centers around retransmission rights fees.  Currently, WABC permits Cablevision to carry its channel on their lineup for free.  But now the station wants to be paid.  WABC claims Cablevision earns $18 million a month from its broadcast basic lineup of mostly-local channels, and it’s time to share a portion of that with the station.

Cablevision has so far not agreed to the asking price.

“Cablevision’s position is that ABC7 is worth little to nothing to its business and its proposed offers have been consistently unreasonable and unrealistic,” said Rebecca Campbell, president and general manager of WABC-TV. “We think these shows are valuable, and your bill shows that Cablevision must agree since you already pay for ABC7 as part of your Broadcast Basic Tier – a service for which, as a Cablevision customer, you pay as much as $18 each month.  Cablevision charges you for ABC7 and then keeps all the money.”

WABC has started a website to educate customers how to drop Cablevision and switch to a competitor such as Verizon FiOS, or get access to the station over-the-air.

Cablevision fired back accusing ABC of asking consumers to pay a TV tax amounting to $40 million that would have to be passed onto subscribers in another rate increase.

“It is not fair for ABC-Disney to hold Cablevision customers hostage by forcing them to pay what amounts to a new TV tax,” said Charles Schueler, Cablevision executive vice president.

Both sides indicate negotiations are continuing, and some compromise may still be reached before the deadline.

[flv width=”600″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC New York Cablevision viewers may lose Channel 7 on cable service 3-2-2010.flv[/flv]

WABC-TV is running this 30-second ad telling viewers about the dispute with Cablevision, along with stories on their newscasts. (4 minutes)