Sen. Linda Runbeck, a dues-paying member of ALEC, a corporate funded pressure group that advocates for legislation advantageous to ALEC's corporate sponsors.

Rural Minnesota is facing a full frontal assault on community broadband, courtesy of a state representative so proud of her involvement in a corporate front group, she’s actually a dues-paying member.

State Sen. Linda Runbeck (R-Circle Pines) introduced HF 2695, a bill to prohibit publicly-owned broadband systems:

A bill for an act relating to telecommunications; prohibiting publicly owned broadband systems; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 237.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. [237.201] PUBLICLY OWNED BROADBAND SYSTEM; PROHIBITION.

(a) Notwithstanding section 475.58, subdivision 1, other state law, county ordinance, or any authority granted in a home rule charter, a city or a county may not use tax revenues raised within its jurisdiction or issue debt to construct, acquire, own, or operate, in whole or in part, a system to deliver broadband service.

(b) Notwithstanding sections 123A.21, 123B.61 to 123B.63, 125B.26, and 475.58, subdivision 1, no school district or service cooperative may use state revenues, tax revenues raised within its jurisdiction, or issue debt to construct, acquire, own, or operate, in whole or in part, a system to deliver broadband service.

(c) For the purposes of this section, “broadband service” means a service that allows subscribers to access information from the Internet by means of a physical, terrestrial, non-mobile, or fixed wireless technology.

(d) This section applies to a system to deliver broadband service whose construction begins after the effective date of this section, but does not apply to:

1. the city of Minneapolis, St. Paul, or Duluth; or
2. the maintenance or repair of a system delivering broadband service whose initial construction began before the effective date of this section, provided that the geographical area in which the system delivers broadband service is not expanded as a result of the maintenance or repair.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.

The public broadband option delivers the most bang for the buck, which is why some providers want to see it banned.

Runbeck is a dues-paying member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a secretive corporate front group that lobbies lawmakers to introduce business-friendly legislation, often on the state level.  Runbeck told the Minnesota Independent via email that she paid $100 for a two-year membership in the organization, and says she’s never used ALEC’s “model legislation,” bills that are sometimes written by corporate members of the group and that pop up in state capitols across the country.

But Runbeck’s sudden interest in banning community broadband coincides with similar efforts in states like Georgia and South Carolina backed by big cable and phone companies.  Runbeck’s bill would directly target rural Minnesota, where broadband is the least robust, while exempting Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth (and incumbent phone and cable companies) from the bill’s provisions.  Runbeck’s bill also constrains existing public broadband services from expanding, an important matter for providers still rolling out service to additional neighborhoods in their communities.

Community broadband is already hampered in Minnesota by laws that make such projects difficult to approve and build.  When projects do break ground, incumbent providers do everything possible to throw up roadblocks to delay or abort the progress being made.  In Monticello, TDS Telecom filed nuisance suits against that city’s public broadband network before finally deciding to upgrade service themselves.  Mediacom and Charter, two major Minnesota cable operators, have objected to public broadband projects that don’t even serve communities they’ve wired.

When the networks are in operation, providers like Charter work to undercut them by selling service at prices so low, they’re predatory.  But when competitors are driven out, prices rise… quickly.

 Runbeck’s $100 membership in ALEC is paying dividends, if you are a big incumbent cable or phone company. Consumers will pay much more than that if broadband competition is curtailed.

Verizon Communications has agreed to full restitution, as part of a class action settlement, for unauthorized third party charges on their customers’ phone bills.

Known in the industry as “cramming,” extra unauthorized fees pop up on phone bills for voicemail, dating lines, ringtones, or 800 numbers many customers have no idea they even had.  Almost all of the charges come from independent companies unaffiliated with Verizon.  But critics charge phone companies have been ignoring abusive cramming practices, in part because they share a percentage of money billed and collected from customers.

Deceptive cramming charges are often hard to spot on phone bills replete with cleverly-named-to-be-obscure surcharges, taxes and fees.  Many crammers deliberately keep descriptions about the services they are billing as vague as possible, sometimes appearing as “special services charge,” “voicemail access,” or even “monthly charge.”  Many ratepayers assume it is all just a part of the cost of having phone service.

A class action lawsuit against Verizon accused the company of doing little to stop unauthorized third party fees, and many customers afflicted by them report getting them off their bills is not as easy at it should be.

“When I had a mysterious $14.95 monthly fee for ‘voicemail,’ a service I knew I didn’t have, Verizon required me to fight with some Bermuda-based company to get the charges reversed, and they just kept repeating I must have authorized the service because it was on my bill,” reports Stop the Cap! reader Kevin Sessly. “They wear you down until you just pay the bill.”

Sessly eventually won refunds after contacting his state’s public utility regulator.

As part of the settlement, Verizon customers will be entitled to full refunds of all unauthorized third party charges from April 27, 2005 through Feb. 28, 2012.

“Some settlement class members may have a claim for hundreds or thousands of dollars in refunds under the settlement,” class counsel Bryan Kolton said.

Verizon has also agreed to adopt an “opt in” system where customers must first allow third party charges on their phone bills before a company can bill your account.  Currently, customers are subject to third party billing unless they specifically block it with their telephone company.

“It is difficult to overstate the credit that is due Verizon for its commitment to fixing the third-party billing system as it relates to Verizon customers,” said John Jacobs, one of the lead attorneys for the class. “By this settlement, Verizon has committed to extensive and unprecedented changes that we believe will go a long way toward eliminating cramming and will change the industry.”

Crammers have used a variety of tricks to bill phone customers for services they never ordered.  Completing sweepstakes or contest forms with a phone number is one common method, asking for a cell phone number as part of a “free ringtone offer” is another.  Many services also trick customers into signing up with free offers or discounts on other products or services.  Many customers forget to cancel before the trial ends, resulting in recurring charges.

Customers will be able to recover the full amount of the unauthorized charges, if they have copies of their past phone bills, or obtain a quick $40 flat-rate refund by submitting claims at www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com or calling toll-free 1-877-772-6219.  Both services should be up and running by March 9.

Non-Verizon customers can still take steps to protect themselves from unauthorized charges by calling their provider and requesting a block on all third-party charges.  This service is provided at no charge.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC News Phone Cramming How to Get Money From Verizon Settlement 3-5-12.mp4[/flv]

ABC News reports on the Verizon settlement and steps consumers can take to identify cramming and obtain refunds for unauthorized charges.  (2 minutes)

While incumbent phone and cable operators often try to directly block community broadband projects, sometimes politics and special insider interests also get in the way.  One of our loyal readers shared a piece with us published in Fierce Telecom that outlines the trouble spots:

Gov. Bobby Jindal Blows It for Louisiana; Wife’s Foundation Heavily Supported By AT&T

Jindal's wife's charity is a recipient of AT&T money.

The U.S. Dept. of Commerce awarded $80.5 million to help drain Louisiana’s broadband swamp with a new statewide fiber network linking the most rural and poor areas of the state, including schools, libraries, hospitals, and universities.  Users could have obtained service from 10Mbps-1Gbps, but not if Jindal had his way.  He preferred AT&T (and the state’s cable operators) handle everything the same way they have traditionally handled telecommunications in the state — service in big cities and next to nothing everywhere else.  In addition to directly supporting the governor, AT&T contributes substantially to a charitable foundation founded by Jindal’s wife.

Jindal never openly blocked the project.  Instead, his administration “dithered and bickered” over the fiber network and ran the clock out.  Last October, the Commerce Department revoked the grant, leaving Louisiana’s Broadband Alliance with little more than a plan they’ll never be able to implement as long as Jindal occupies the governor’s office.  Stop the Cap! covered the mess back in November.

Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell:

“We want to know what the heck happened; we’re the only ones in the country that dropped the ball,” Campbell said. “I meet with people in every parish, and the number one priority by far is high-speed Internet, and how do you lose $80 million coming from the federal government to do that. How do you drop the ball, and if they did drop the ball was it because someone whispered in their ears, ‘it’s going interfere with big companies?’”

AT&T-Backed Astroturf Operation Scandalizes the Mayor’s Office and Ruins A High Tech Training Program

Marks

As Stop the Cap! wrote last fall, a scandal involving AT&T and the mayor of the state capital of Florida ultimately cost the city of Tallahassee a $1.6 million dollar federal broadband grant to expand Internet access to the urban poor and train disadvantaged citizens to navigate the online world.

Mayor John Marks never bothered to inform the city he had a direct conflict of interest with the group he strongly advocated as a participant in the grant project. The Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE) is little more than an AT&T astroturf effort — a front group that did almost nothing to bring Internet access to anyone. Mayor Marks was a paid adviser.

After the media got involved, the mayor’s office hoped the whole project would just go away. And it did, along with the $1.6 million.

Wisconsin Republicans <Heart> AT&T, Even When It Means Forfeiting $23 Million for Better Broadband

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is a close friend of AT&T.  So close, when the phone company was threatened with the loss of revenue earned from the institutional broadband network it leases to the state, Walker and his Republican colleagues intervened, literally turning away $23 million in government stimulus funding.  Walker alone has accepted more than $20,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T.  Stop the Cap! covered this story in detail in February 2011.

Governor Walker (R-AT&T)

The decision to return the money had a direct impact on 380 Wisconsin communities, 385 libraries, 82 schools, and countless public safety offices across the state.  Namely, being stuck with AT&T’s outdated and expensive network the state leases in successive five year contracts.  Since broadband stimulus funding requires the construction of networks designed to last 20 years, not five, Walker’s insistence on sticking with AT&T made the stimulus funding off-limits.  But what are friends for?

AT&T has historically had no trouble getting its phone calls returned by Republican state lawmakers, who have cheered most of AT&T’s proposed legislation through the state legislature.  Today, Wisconsin takes a “hands off” approach with the state’s cable and phone companies, passed a statewide franchising bill that stripped oversight away from local communities, and AT&T’s landline network faces little scrutiny in the state, especially in rural communities.

The state university is now attempting to bypass Walker with its own $37 million project, but it will never serve Wisconsin consumers.  The institutional network will target schools, hospitals and first responders.

As Fierce Telecom notes, other communities could face the loss of their stimulus funding if they do not get busy building the projects they promised.  The Rural Utilities Service, part of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, has put several projects on notice they could forfeit broadband stimulus funding if they fail to meet project deadlines.

Ever wonder why cell phone companies are upset about new regulations that would warn customers when they are about to face mobile usage overlimit or roaming fees?  Rogers Communications explains why in their latest quarterly results:

Nadir Mohamed, CEO:

There was, however, a sequential slowing in the wireless data revenue growth rate, and that’s primarily attributable to new outbound data roaming plans that we put in place. With these new plans, we put in place automated customer notification mechanisms that had a net effect of slowing usage versus stimulating it to the degree that we expected it to. We’re in the process of modifying how these plans and notifications work, which I expect will have a more stimulative effect and help restore the trajectory we had for wireless data growth.

In simpler terms, Rogers began notifying their customers through text messaging when they were about to start data roaming — the most expensive data usage around, incurred when you leave Rogers’ service area and roam on another provider’s network.  With Canadians visiting the United States and elsewhere, using a cell phone while traveling can get expensive fast.  Rogers created new roaming data plans for customers likely to need the service while abroad.  But their roaming data plans come at steep prices:

Unintended consequences: When subscribers know they are about to pay more, they stop using.

U.S. Data Passes

Day Pass: $5 for 2MB
Day Pass: $10 for 10MB
Day Pass: $20 for 40MB
Week Pass: $25 for 15MB
Week Pass: $50 for 60MB
Week Pass: $100 for 250MB

The warnings that customers were about to incur even higher a-la-carte roaming fees or start to consume their day or weekly data pass had the unintended, but highly predictable effect of getting people to think carefully about using data while roaming.

Bruce

While good for consumers, that is bad for Rogers’ bottom line, so the company’s formerly frank warnings to customers are “being modified” to help the company “stimulate” revenue and restore the predicted revenue growth from the high-priced roaming plans.

“We tried to create real transparency about when people and how people could get on data packages as they went overseas,” admits Robert Bruce, president of Rogers Communications Division. “We put in a fair number of reminders to let people know that they were on à la carte pricing, and we think that these dissuaded significantly customers from using it and possibly created some confusion along the way.”

Rogers Cable customers are also finding some of the company’s newest innovations a challenge to their monthly broadband usage allowances, among the lowest in Canada:

• Rogers Remote TV Manager: Enables cable subscribers to search programming and manage PVR recordings anytime on any device;
• Rogers Live TV. This service lets cable customers stream live TV channels on their tablets and watch shows anywhere they are in the home;
• Rogers On Demand TV app on Microsoft’s Xbox 360 LIVE platform, bringing Rogers On Demand TV to the gaming console;
• A refresh of the digital cable user interface, improving ease of use for the Whole Home PVR and a better program guide and search function.

In the long term, Rogers is moving towards an IP-based delivery system for its video programming, allowing the company to deliver video across different platforms more efficiently.  As Rogers converts the rest of its cable systems to digital cable, it is opening up new broadband capacity — a critical part of the company’s revenues.

Rogers admits it uses data caps to drive revenue.  By moving customers into higher usage, more expensive tiers, Rogers is able to drive revenue upwards as well.

“As customers continue every quarter, in and out, to consume more and more and spend more and more time on the Internet, we think it’s both a great opportunity for us and a welcome addition to the product offering from a customer perspective,” Bruce said.

Rabbit ears are making a comeback.

After this year’s cable and satellite rate increases, the average American is now spending $550 a year on basic cable television.  With declining middle class incomes and increasing energy and health care costs busting the budget, something had to give.  Increasingly, it is cable and satellite TV.  Now consumers are combining the past with the future to find a cheaper way to watch television — over the air “free TV” with streamed online video entertainment.  Many broadcasters even offer extra channels that are made possible through digital signal compression.

Some marketers are going over the top with the renewed interest in over the air television, pitching “futuristic” television antennas at a steep price to customers who want to cut cable’s cord.  While your parents and grandparents were well-acquainted with antenna technology, today’s younger generations are not, and are overpaying for antennas you can find for a fraction of the price at Wal-Mart.

The concept of cord cutting is simple.  You can watch live sporting events and local news and network shows from over-the-air broadcasters and catch up on favorite movies and TV series streaming shows online.  The days of the snowy picture are over since the country converted to digital TV.  But in many cases, an antenna is essential to getting the best reception.

Satellite and cable companies are trying to compete, offering discounts and, in some cases, pared down packages.  But prices will need to come down further: the average video streamer and over-the-air viewer pays $180 a year on average for a premium streaming package from Netflix, Hulu or other online viewing option.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KIMT Mason City IA TV Antenna Making a Comeback 2-21-12.mp4[/flv]

KIMT in Mason City, Iowa explores the growing interest in the old-fashioned TV antenna.  (3 minutes)