Virgin Media is in hot water with a UK advertising regulator after the company’s marketing department borrowed one of the tricks successfully employed in the United States: selling “unlimited broadband” service that actually is not unlimited at all.

Competitors BSkyB and BT jointly complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about misleading ad claims from Virgin Media that promise unlimited broadband, without bothering to clearly mention Virgin uses a “traffic management policy” that slashes speeds in half when a customer downloads more than 11GB during peak usage times.

Virgin defended its advertising, claiming its speed throttle is so infrequently activated that 97.7% of its customers would never encounter it.

But the ASA would have none of that, noting Virgin’s advertising campaign specifically targets customers who lust for faster speed and are engaged in bandwidth intensive activities.

The ad claim: “The faster your broadband speed, the more you’ll be able to do online. So, if there are a few of you at home gaming, downloading, streaming movies and shopping, then mega speeds of up to 100Mbps will let you all do your thing without slowing each other down.”

The tiny fine print.

“In that context we considered that the restriction of reducing users’ download speeds by 50% was not moderate and that any reference to it was likely to contradict, rather than clarify, the claims that the service was ‘unlimited’,” the ASA said. “We therefore concluded that the claim ‘unlimited’ was misleading.”

A Virgin spokesperson explained the “unlimited” in the advertising actually referred to one’s ability to use their account as often as they like without worrying about overlimit fees.

“Unlike BT or Sky, all Virgin Media customers can download as much as they like, safe in the knowledge we’ll never charge them more.”

The ASA itself is not militant adhering to the dictionary definition of “unlimited” either.

The ASA, which previously banned more than two dozen Virgin ads for stretching the truth, ruled this one misleading as well because Virgin Media crossed the line imposing restrictions “that were more than moderate:”

While the claim “no hidden charges” made clear that users would not be charged for downloading or browsing, we considered that the inclusion of the claims “unlimited” and “no caps” implied that there were no other restrictions to the service, regardless of how much data users downloaded and browsed. Virgin Media’s traffic management policy reduced users’ download speeds by 50% if they exceeded certain data thresholds and we considered that this was an immoderate restriction to the advertised “unlimited” service. We therefore concluded that the claim “Unlimited downloads Download and browse as much as you like with no caps and no hidden charges” misleadingly implied that there were no provider-imposed restrictions on a customer’s ability to download data.

“The problem is that the service claims to be unlimited but is too limited,” comments Stop the Cap! reader James, who almost thought this was an April Fools’ prank. “A little limited would be just fine. So if you claim your service is unlimited, consumers should expect it be subject to moderate limitations?”

Virgin has since slightly relaxed its speed throttle; violators now face a 40% speed cut when they are found to be downloading “too much” during peak usage periods.

For UK broadband users, the larger question is why the ASA simply didn’t reach for the dictionary when attempting to define “unlimited.”

“If a broadband provider wants to advertise unlimited service, they should simply offer it,” says Stop the Cap! reader Geoff Peale. “Calling it unlimited while interfering with your speed is nothing short of trickery, and the ASA should know better.”

[flv width=”384″ height=”236″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BBC News Twenty five Virgin Media ads found to be misleading 10-11-12.flv[/flv]

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned 25 Virgin Media adverts for being either misleading or factually incorrect in the past 18 months. The BBC’s Watchdog took a humorous look at them to find out why so many are falling afoul of the regulator. (6 minutes)

Thanks to readers James and Geoff for sharing the story.

Cable operators and publicly owned utilities in Tennessee are battling for control over the prices companies pay to use utility poles, with facts among the early casualties.

The subject of “pole attachment fees” has been of interest to cable companies for decades. In return for permission to hang cable wires on existing electric or telephone poles owned by utility companies, cable operators are asked to contribute towards their upkeep and eventual replacement. Cable operators want the fees to be as low as possible, while utility companies have sought leeway to defray rising utility pole costs and deal with ongoing wear and tear.

Little progress has been made in efforts to compromise, so this year two competing bills have been introduced by Republicans in the state legislature to define “fairness.” One is promoted by a group of municipal utilities and the other by the cable industry and several corporate-backed, conservative front groups claiming to represent the interests of state taxpayers and consumers.

Some background: Tennessee is unique in the pole attachment fee fight, because privately owned power companies bypassed a lot of the state (and much of the rest of the Tennessee Valley and Appalachian region) during the electrification movement of the early 20th century. Much of Tennessee is served by publicly owned power companies, which also own and maintain a large percentage of utility poles in the state.

Some of Tennessee’s largest telecom companies believe they can guarantee themselves low rates by pitching a case of private companies vs. big government utilities, with local municipalities accused of profiteering from artificially high pole attachment rates. Hoping to capitalize on anti-government sentiment, “small government” conservatives and telecom companies want to tie the hands of the pole owners indefinitely by taking away their right to set pole attachment rates.

The battle includes fact-warped editorials that distort the issues, misleading video ads, and an effort to conflate a utility fee with a tax. With millions at stake from pole attachment fees on tens of thousands of power poles throughout the state, the companies involved have launched a full-scale astroturf assault.

Grover Norquist’s Incendiary “Pole Tax”

Conservative Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform wrote that the pole attachment fee legislation promoted by public utilities would represent a $20 million dollar “tax increase” from higher cable and phone bills. Even worse, Norquist says, the new tax will delay telecom companies from rushing new investments on rural broadband.

Norquist

In reality, Americans for Tax Reform should be rebranded Special Interests for Tax Reform, because the group is funded by a variety of large tobacco corporations, former clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and several wealthy conservative activists with their own foundations.

Norquist’s pole “tax increase” does not exist.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) provides guidelines and a formula for determining pole attachment rates for privately owned utilities, but permits states to adopt their own regulations. Municipal utilities are exempted for an important reason — their rates and operations are often already well-regulated.

Stop the Cap! found that pole attachment revenue ends up in the hands of the utility companies that own and keep up the poles, not the government. Municipal utilities stand on their own — revenue earned by a utility stays with the utility. Should a municipal utility attempt to gouge other companies that hang wires on those poles, mechanisms kick in that guarantee it cannot profit from doing so.

A 2007 study by the state government in Tennessee effectively undercut the cable industry’s argument that publicly owned utilities are overcharging cable and phone companies that share space on their poles. The report found that “pole attachment revenues do not increase pole owners’ revenue in the long run.”¹

The Tennessee Valley Authority, which supplies electricity across Tennessee, regularly audits the revenues and costs of its municipal utility distributors and sets end-user rates accordingly. The goal is to guarantee that municipal distributors “break even.” Any new revenue sources, like pole attachment fees, are considered when setting wholesale electric rates. If a municipal utility overcharged for access to its poles, it will ultimately gain nothing because the TVA will set prices that take that revenue into account.

Freedom to Distort: The Cable Lobby’s Astroturf Efforts

Freedom to distort

Another “citizens group” jumping into the battle is called “Freedom to Connect,” actually run by the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association (TCTA). Most consumers won’t recognize TCTA as the state cable lobby. Almost all will have forgotten TCTA was the same group that filed a lawsuit to shut down EPB’s Fiber division, which today delivers 1,000Mbps broadband service across the city and competes against cable operators like Comcast and Charter Cable.

One TCTA advertisement claims that some utilities are planning “to double the fees broadband providers pay to the state’s government utilities.”

In reality, cable companies have gone incognito, hiding their identity by rebranding themselves as “broadband providers.” No utility has announced it plans to “double” pole attachment fees either.

TCTA members came under fire at a recent hearing attended by state lawmakers when Rep. Charles Curtiss (D-Sparta) spoke up about irritating robocalls directed at his constituents making similar claims.

“What was said was false,” Curtiss told the cable representatives at the hearing. “You’ve lost your integrity with me. Whoever made up your mind to do that, you’re in the wrong line of work.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TCTA Pole Attachment Fees Ad 3-13.flv[/flv]

TCTA — Tennessee’s cable industry lobbying group, released this distorted advertisement opposing pole attachment fee increases.  (1 minute)

The Chattanooga Free-Press’ Drew Johnson: Independent Opinion Page Editor or Well-connected Activist with a Conflict of Interest?

Johnson (Times Free Press)

In its ad campaign, the TCTA gave prominent mention to an article in Chattanooga’s Times-Free Press from Feb. 27: “Bill Harms Consumers, Kills Competition.”

What the advertisement did not say is it originated in an editorial published by Drew Johnson, who serves as the paper’s conservative opinion editor. Johnson has had a bone to pick with Chattanooga’s public utility EPB since it got into the cable television and broadband business.

That may not be surprising, since Johnson is still listed as a “senior fellow” at the “Taxpayers Protection Alliance,” yet another corporate and conservative-backed astroturf group founded by former Texas congressman Dick Armey of FreedomWorks fame.

Johnson’s journalism credentials? He wrote a weekly column for the conservative online screed NewsMax, founded and funded by super-wealthy Richard Mellon Scaife and Christopher Ruddy, both frequent donors to conservative, pro-business causes.

TPA has plenty to hide — particularly the sources of their funding. When asked if private industry backs TPA’s efforts, president David Williams refused to come clean.

“It comes from private sources, and I don’t reveal who my donors are,” he told Environmental Building News in January.

Ironically, Johnson is best known for aggressively using Tennessee’s open records “Sunshine” law to get state employee e-mails and other records looking for conflicts of interest or scandal.

Newspaper readers may want to ask whether Johnson represents the newspaper, an industry-funded sock puppet group, or both.  They also deserve full disclosure if the TPA receives any funding from companies that directly compete with EPB.

The Institute from ALEC: The Institute for Policy Innovation’s Innovative Way to Funnel AT&T and Comcast Money Into the Fight

Provider-backed ALEC advocates for the corporate interests that fund its operations.

Another group fighting on the side of the cable and phone companies against municipal utilities is the Institute for Policy Innovation. Policy counsel Bartlett D. Cleland claimed the government is out to get private companies that want space on utility poles.

“The proposed new system in HB1111 and SB1222 is fervently supported by the electric cooperatives and the government-owned utilities for good reason – they are merely seeking a way to use the force of government against their private sector competitors,” Cleland said. “The proposal would allow them to radically raise their rates for pole attachments to multiples of the national average.”

The facts don’t match Cleland’s rhetoric.

In reality, the state of Tennessee found in their report on the matter in 2007 that Tennessee’s pole attachment fees are “not necessarily out of line with those in other states.”²

In fact, some of the state’s telecom companies seemed to agree:

• EMBARQ (now CenturyLink) provided data on fees received from other service providers in Tennessee, Virginia, South and North Carolina. In these data, Tennessee’s rates ($36.02 – $47.41) are similar to those in North Carolina ($23.12-$52.85) and Virginia ($28.94 – $35.77). Rates were lower in South Carolina.
• Cable operators, who have less infrastructure on poles than telephone and electric utilities, paid even less. Time Warner Cable provided mean rates per state showing Tennessee ($7.70) in the middle of the pack compared to Florida ($9.83) and North Carolina ($4.86 – $13.64).

In addition to his role as policy counsel, Cleland also happens to be co-chair of the Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Members of that committee include Comcast and AT&T — Tennessee’s largest telecom companies, both competing with municipal telecommunications providers like EPB.

¹ Analysis of Pole Attachment Rate Issues in Tennessee, State of Tennessee. 2007. p.23

² Analysis of Pole Attachment Rate Issues in Tennessee, State of Tennessee. 2007. p.12

AT&T has new wireless data plans you can’t afford.

Saving money takes a back seat to AT&T’s newest supersized Mobile Share data packages reported by The Verge. AT&T’s goal of monetizing data usage for their most ravenous wireless data users means a 900 percent price hike from the days of the company’s $30 unlimited data plan. Here are the newest plans:

• 30GB data usage = $300 a month
• 40GB data usage = $400 a month
• 50GB data usage = $500 a month

Unlimited texting and talking are included in these prices, but the individual device fees for each smartphone, tablet, or wireless modem are not.

AT&T’s pricing is relevant to rural customers who face an imminent threat of losing landline phone and broadband service should the phone company win the right to abandon its copper wire network in favor of wireless-only service. A family watching Netflix consuming 45GB of usage on AT&T’s DSL service pay as little as $15 a month for broadband. With AT&T’s wireless Internet service, that same family will spend a prohibitive $500 a month.

Bright House Networks first boosted Internet speeds in January and is now back with a price boost.

The cable provider’s Turbo High Speed Internet increased earlier this year from 20 to 30Mbps for downloads. Its Lightning tier went up even more — from 40 to 60Mbps. Even Business Class customers saw speed increases to 70Mbps. But now prices are up as well — as much as $5 a month more for “upgraded broadband services,” a higher cable modem rental fee, and $3 more for television packages:

• Standard Cable TV service is up $3, from $65 to $68 a month
• Late fees are increasing by an extra $0.50;
• The cable modem rental fee that used to be $2 a month has increased an additional $1.50 — now $3.50 per month.

Price increases will not affect customers on promotional offers or certain bundled service packages combining multiple services.

The fee that bugs many customers the most is the company’s modem rental fee, which applies regardless of the age of your equipment.

“I told the customer service rep that I’ve had this modem for a couple of years and it’s not like altered or improved,” Pete Dooley of Satellite Beach, Fla. told Florida Today. “She said ‘You know the economy is today. They just needed more money.’ I guess you’re just supposed to casually accept it.”

The rest of the rate increases were attributed to the cost of cable television programming.

Jeff Kagan, a cable industry analyst told the online news service cable television rates have roughly doubled over the last decade.

United to grow AT&T’s revenue at the expense of rural America.

The National Farmers Union has a long tradition of protecting rural farmers and defending the rural economy, but has been completely taken in by AT&T’s proposal to abandon rural wired service.

In addition to AT&T appearing in fine print as a sponsor of the National Farmers Union’s 111th Anniversary Convention, the phone company won prominent placement at the group’s annual convention to deliver a speech about AT&T’s lobbying agenda on rural broadband courtesy of Ramona Carlow, AT&T’s vice president of public policy.

AT&T sends its lobbying forces to rural agriculture events with scare stories about impending wireless shortages and doom if the Federal Communications Commission does not hand over more spectrum. In an interview with Beth Canuteson, AT&T regional vice president of external affairs, she tells Brownfield – Ag News for America AT&T will run out of spectrum in seven years. (June 26, 2012) (6 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The National Farmers Union joined several other rural farm groups in comments (never mentioned on the organization’s website) to the Federal Communications Commission applauding AT&T’s plan to abandon its rural “TDM” landline network:

The United States is poised for a historic transition in communications. Completing the transformation from legacy TDM-based network technology designed in the 20th century to the all-IP networks of the 21st century will allow every computer, laptop, smartphone, machine and tablet to communicate with each another and work seamlessly around the clock. These devices, connected with each other and with a host of other machines ranging from cars to thermostats via these IP-enabled networks, are changing almost every aspect of our lives in areas well beyond traditional communications. If the FCC grants AT&T’s Petition, the full build out of 21st century IP-based networks can being to spur growth, create jobs, and stimulate new opportunity across America, but especially in rural communities that are often handicapped by distance and other opportunity-limiting barriers.

AT&T has the money to upgrade its rural wireline networks.

Unfortunately for the rural farm members of the National Farmers Union, the future proposed by AT&T isn’t as rosy as the NFU would have you believe:

1. AT&T has neglected its rural landline network for years. Whether the technology is wired or wireless, the bean counters at AT&T are clear: there is no Return on Investment formula that works for the company at the current low prices charged for traditional rural landline and DSL service. AT&T has poured billions into a half-measure upgrade, a fiber-copper wire compromise called U-verse, but only in urban areas where it can justify that  investment to hungry shareholders. AT&T has no plans to deploy U-verse in rural areas. Instead, Wall Street’s economic expectation is that fixed wireless is the best solution for rural areas, because it delivers dramatically higher prices that accelerate return on investment and future enhanced earnings;
2. AT&T continues to be America’s lowest-rated wireless carrier — worst for dropped calls and worst for customer service. If you live in a rural area, you already know what AT&T wireless cell service is like. Do you want to depend on that network for all of your telecommunications needs, including emergency calls to 911?
3. AT&T’s DSL service starts at $15 a month on commonly available pricing promotions and has a barely enforced usage cap of 150GB a month. AT&T’s wireless smartphone plans start at $20 a month with a usage cap of 200MB a month. A 5GB plan costs $50 a month. On AT&T’s heavily marketed Family Share plan, 1GB of usage costs $40 a month. A typical broadband customer using between 15-20GB a month, now considered the national average, would pay $15 a month for AT&T’s DSL or $200 a month on AT&T’s wireless network, based on a plan designed to avoid overlimit fees;¹
4. AT&T’s plan also includes fringe benefits for itself: a transition to technology not subject to consumer protection and oversight laws, rate regulation, quality of service guarantees, and “carrier of last resort” obligations. In short, it means AT&T is not responsible if your wireless reception is unsuitable for voice or data use.

AT&T’s cash on hand. Q.: Where will they spend it, on their networks or on their shareholders? A.: “AT&T generated best-ever cash from operations and free cash flow in 2012, which let us return a record $23 billion in cash to shareholders, including dividends and share buybacks.” — AT&T 2012 Annual Report.

The National Farmers Union needs to consider whether AT&T’s proposal meets the terms the organization lays out in its own policy statement on rural telecommunications:

We support:

a) Efforts to ensure competitively priced, high-speed broadband access to the Internet for rural America, which should remain free of censorship and not interfere with other frequencies;

b) Collaborative efforts and public/private initiatives that leverage internet-based technology and use the internet to improve communications, reduce costs, increase access and grow farm business for producers and their cooperatives; and

c) Legislative action and efforts by the administration to encourage robust broadband and wireless deployment in rural America to drive economic development, better serve farmers and ranchers and to prevent a digital divide between rural and urban citizens.

Strong earnings growth.

Let’s consider how AT&T will manage with these tests:

• Wireless competition in rural America exists even less than in urban America. For most, there are one or two choices, typically AT&T and Verizon Wireless, which charge nearly identical, expensive prices;
• AT&T and its various front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) lobby state lawmakers to prohibit public initiatives that would enhance rural broadband, particularly community-owned broadband networks. Advocating for AT&T’s imposed rural solution is a far cry from the NFU’s past. In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the group lead the charge for rural utilities cooperatives, owned and operated by the communities they served. In 2013, the group seems satisfied with whatever scraps AT&T is willing to throw the way of rural America;
• A digital divide can exist in many ways. The NFU proposes to cut the digital divide by introducing a pricing divide. Can most rural Americans afford $200 a month for AT&T’s wireless service, assuming they can get a good signal? AT&T returned $23 billion in excess cash to shareholders in 2o12². Imagine what half of that would offer rural America if the company chose to upgrade its existing landline network for the same 21st century service it proposes to offer urban customers.

¹-AT&T’s Mobile Share with Unlimited Talk & Text 20GB package, not including a $30 additional device fee for each smartphone on the account.

²- AT&T Annual Report 2012.