Comcast has been a part of life in Muskegon, Mich. for decades, thanks in part to an unusually long 25-year franchise agreement signed when President Reagan was serving his last year in office. In 1988, the Berlin Wall was still in place, Mikhail Gorbachev formally implemented glasnost and perestroika, Snapple appeared on store shelves nationwide, and compact discs finally outsold vinyl records for the first time.

All good things must come to an end and Comcast’s contract to serve will finally expire Aug. 2. City officials want residents to understand that after two plus decades, it is appropriate to take some time to consider all the options. But a 2007 law has cut that time of reflection down to a month, and removed most of the powers Michigan communities used to have to select the best cable operator for their community. It’s a fact of life Comcast is well aware of, and it underlined that point by tossing a carelessly written, pro forma/fait accompli franchise renewal proposal into the mail that left Muskegon’s civic leaders cold. But if they fail to act fast, Comcast will win automatic approval of whatever it proposes to offer the 38,000 residents of the western Michigan city for years to come.

Statewide Video Franchising in Michigan

In December 2006, primarily at the behest of AT&T, the Michigan legislature passed a new statute that would create a uniform, statewide video franchise agreement template that providers could use to apply for or renew their franchises to operate. In theory, establishing a uniform, simplified franchise application would lead AT&T to quickly wire Michigan with U-verse, its competing cable/broadband/phone service, and bring dramatically lower prices for cable service and fewer complaints because of greater competition.

The Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act was remarkably similar to those passed in more than a dozen other states — no mistake considering it was based largely on an AT&T-written draft distributed and promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an AT&T-backed third-party group that encourages state legislatures to enact corporate-ghostwritten bills into law.

Under the new law, much of the power reserved by local officials to approve cable franchises and enforce good customer service was stripped away and handed to the state’s Public Service Commission. The deregulation measure tipped the balance of power in providers’ favor, making it possible to do business on their terms, not those sought by community leaders. Among the law’s provisions:

1. Communities are still bound by the terms of their existing franchise agreements, but providers can break the legacy contracts for any reason, forcing a new agreement under the new statewide franchise law. If a provider wants out, they can abandon the community or transfer operations to a new provider with 15 days advance notice and no prior approval.
2. A franchise renewal proposal will be automatically approved if a city does not reject it within 30 days.
3. Communities cannot unreasonably restrict providers from access to public rights-of-way, an important consideration for AT&T’s U-verse, which requires the placement of large, sometimes noisy utility cabinets (a/k/a “lawn refrigerators”) to connect its fiber network with residential copper wiring.
4. Communities are limited to collecting up to 5% of video revenue in franchise fees and up to 2% to support Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) channels. In the past, some communities asked cable operators to wire schools, libraries, and local government offices at no cost, and several negotiated other forms of support for PEG channels, which allow local citizens to view town board meetings and create and distribute locally produced programming. Today, those agreements are only possible on a voluntary basis, without any threat if a provider refuses, they will get their franchise request rejected.
5. Providers are no longer obligated to honor agreements setting timetables to wire communities. Instead, they can handpick areas to be served, except in cases where racial or income discrimination can be proven.

Since the law was clearly designed to help new entrants like AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon FiOS, Michigan’s incumbent cable companies either demanded the same rights, remained neutral, or halfheartedly protested the proposed law suggesting it unfairly benefited new competitors. Cable companies, for example, would not benefit from laws throwing out buildout requirements because their networks are already largely complete.

But once signed into law, cable operators did begin asking cities to voluntarily adopt the new uniform statewide video franchise. Muskegon joined most other Michigan cities in declining the invitation.

AT&T did begin wiring Michigan for U-verse service, although there is no evidence it would not have done so had the Act never been signed into law. But that has not helped Muskegon, because the dominant phone company in the area is Frontier Communications. Frontier has so far shown no interest in building a competing cable TV service, so the only competition residents get are from two satellite companies.

City of Detroit v. State of Michigan and Comcast

Soon after the statewide franchise law was passed, Comcast notified the city of Detroit it could take the proposed renewal of its existing 1985 franchise agreement and go pound salt. The franchise agreement with the city expired in February 2007, just a month after the new law took effect. It was a new day, Comcast told city officials, and the company offered its own proposal for renewal — a 5% take-it-or-leave-it franchise fee and nothing else. Comcast even rejected the city’s counteroffer to include a 2% PEG fee, permitted under the new law.

Franchise negotiations went nowhere, but Comcast had nothing to fear. The city did not properly reject their franchise renewal offer so, as far as the company was concerned, it automatically won a franchise renewal.

The city sued both Comcast and the State of Michigan in the summer of 2010 alleging the statewide law violated the federal Cable Act, usurped local “home rule” authority, and that Comcast was illegally trespassing in the city without a franchise agreement. The Michigan Attorney General took Comcast’s side, defended the state law, and helped the cable company argue its case in court.

Comcast did not want the case heard and asked for its immediate dismissal, which was rejected.

In the summer of 2012, the judge split the decision between the city and Comcast. The judge found that Comcast had probably been operating illegally in Detroit since 2007 and owes the city damages. The judge also found parts of the state law troubling enough to invalidate. In particular, he emphasized cities do have a clear right to reject franchise proposals offered by cable operators and that in many cases those operators must adhere to their existing franchise agreements until they expire. Cities also have the right to protect and manage their rights-of-way, ending the perception cable and phone companies have the right to place hardware almost at-will in public areas.

Comcast wants to avoid paying Detroit damages for potentially operating illegally without a valid franchise.

The judge found nothing inherently faulty with the concept of statewide video franchising, nor did he rule that providers are required to serve everyone in a geographic area or that cities are allowed to enforce local customer service standards.

The impact of the statewide law, even after the judge’s ruling, still erodes local control. As pre-2007 franchise agreements expire, it is highly unlikely cable operators will continue to offer free service to municipal buildings, will not accept requirements to provide “universal service” or even language requiring wiring of every home that meets a “homes per mile” test. Some cable operators are even closing local customer service centers that used to be required in many franchise agreements.

Comcast did not appreciate the court ruling, sought to have it set aside, and failed. Now the Court of Appeals will likely weigh in on the case by the end of this year. Comcast is particularly concerned about the prospect of paying damages to the city of Detroit for illegally operating without a valid franchise. The judge hearing the case considered that a very real possibility and requested submissions from all parties about how much Comcast should pay the city.

Muskegon officials cited the judge’s rulings in the Detroit case in their letter rejecting Comcast’s proposed renewal agreement. The city wants to renegotiate certain terms regarding its PEG channels, still wants complimentary service to public buildings, and requests cable service be extended to the Hartshorn Marina.

Six Years Later, Cable Rates and Complaints Still Rising, the Competition is Fleeting, and Many Believe the Law Has Achieved Nothing

The Michigan Public Service Commission is tasked with reporting annually to the legislature and the public about the impact of the AT&T-sponsored law. The PSC’s broad conclusion is that the new law is working:

Increases in subscribers as well as the emergence of another video/cable provider are positive signs for the video services industry in the state of Michigan. Both franchise entities and providers have continued to report that video/cable competition is continuing to grow. Growth in competition has been observed each year since the Commission began issuing this report. In addition to the increase in competitive providers, companies continued to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into the Michigan video/cable market in 2012.

As the Act enters its seventh year of existence, signs of progress and competition continue to be evident. It appears that both franchise entities and providers perceive that providers are offering more services to customers. In addition, more areas throughout Michigan are beginning to have a choice of video/cable service providers.

But in the same report, the PSC admits the overwhelming consensus among those in individual communities is the law has made little to no difference in competition or pricing. For example, every provider has continued to raise their rates, particularly after promotional new customer packages expire. Much of the savings calculated in Michigan took introductory prices into account, such as when AT&T U-verse entered a market. After 1-2 years, those savings evaporate. AT&T has increased its pricing just as often as dominant cable providers Comcast and Charter.

The PSC touts that 15 new competitors have begun offering service in Michigan since the law was enacted. But besides AT&T’s U-verse., the majority of those new entrants are municipal telephone companies, small/family owned rural cable companies, or providers that specialize in serving only apartment complexes or condos. All but AT&T serve only tiny areas in Michigan and most have customers that number only in the hundreds to low-thousands.

Michigan’s New Competitors

• Ace Telephone Company of Michigan Inc.
• AT&T (U-verse)
• Bloomingdale Communications, Inc.
• Drenthe Telephone
• Martell Cable Service Inc.
• Mediagate Digital
• Michigan Cable Partners (MICOM Cable)
• Packerland Broadband
• Sister Lakes Cable TV
• Southwest Michigan Communications Inc.
• Spectrum Broadband
• Summit Digital
• Sunrise Communications LLC
• Vogtmann Engineering
• Waldron Communication Company

How many new Michigan customers has this competition netted since 2011? 2,116

The overwhelming majority of Michigan communities still have just one cable operator and no competitor. AT&T U-verse accounts for almost all the communities reporting a second provider.

Complaints have also been higher every year the statewide franchise law has been in effect. In 2007, there were 615 formal complaints made to the PSC. Every year thereafter, the number of complaints exceed 2007 levels, ranging from 757 in 2011 to 1,074 in 2010. Comcast is by far the worst offender — 51 percent. AT&T and Charter had a smaller percentage of complaints, 15 and 14 percent respectively. The majority of complaints among all providers deal with billing issues.

Since the new law took effect, many communities have felt so disempowered, they stopped reporting local complaints to the PSC. But among those who have, the story is the same in states without statewide franchise laws:

• System updates not completed as promised. Large numbers (of residents) have gone to satellite;
• Upgrades needed to allow for better reception and channel selection;
• There are two providers in our area, yet little increase in competition;
• Cost to extend service to reach potential customers affects competition;
• Cable provider left when switching from analog to digital, stating not enough customers to afford the changeover. Now only satellite is available;
• No broadband/high-speed Internet service in many townships;
• No phone, cable service available;
• Michigan has totally failed bringing affordable Internet service to this community, and has prevented our township government from providing the needed services.

The perceived impact of the 2007 law isn’t so great either:

• Communities lost in-kind and other services from the incumbent provider;
• Cable rates continue to increase;
• Zero value added and has eroded local control of franchising;
• Customers have a choice now, but rates are still higher;
• Providers simply poach competitor’s customers as evidenced by flat franchise revenue; as one increases the other decreases;
• This statute has proven to accomplish literally nothing for municipalities and only serves to benefit providers;
• The Act did nothing to improve service.

Verizon officials have announced they will abandon their damaged wireline network serving several hundred permanent residents and businesses on Fire Island, replacing voice telephone service with a wireless system called Voice Link critics say will end high-speed Internet service and hurt business.

Fire Island’s landline network has been barely functional since Hurricane Sandy struck last October. Verizon has yet to make significant repairs, leading to ongoing complaints from residents who live on the island year-round. Verizon’s wish to eventually abandon its wired network facilities entirely has created concern among island officials and public safety agencies, noting the summer population on the island swells well into the thousands.

Verizon’s plan may leave businesses unable to process credit card transactions and prevent residents from getting back DSL broadband service they lost during the storm, much less get it in the future. For some, it represents turning the clock back to the days before Internet access.

“Verizon has given us a dial tone basically,” Ocean Beach Mayor James Mallott told Newsday. “But as far as DSL, ATMs, point-of-sale systems, all the rest of that stuff, we’re pretty much on our own.”

Fire Island resident Meg Wallace notes Verizon’s plan has not gone unnoticed by the New York State Public Service Commission. The PSC is currently monitoring the situation and invites comments from interested parties.

“Right now, only Saltaire has filed a formal complaint with them, along with one village’s fire official,” Wallace reports. “It is easy to register a complaint either by filling out a complaint form on their website or calling the NYSPSC directly at (800) 342-3377. They are concerned about public opinion, so the more calls and formal complaints filed by both home and business owners the better.”

Verizon officials have defended their decision, claiming a wireless system is more robust and can withstand severe weather better than a wired network. Another reality impacting the decision is the ongoing loss of landline customers. Verizon, the sole provider on the island, has lost 25 percent of its landline business in the last two years. The company claims 80 percent of Verizon-handled calls to and from the island are through Verizon Wireless.

Fire Island

Verizon told local officials that Cherry Grove and points east still have undamaged fiber optic and copper lines that should be able to work as usual this summer and will be left in place for now. On the west end of the island  from Kismet to Sailor’s Haven, the damage was more significant and Verizon has announced its intention to abandon wired service.

Although west end customers will be scheduled for Voice Link installations starting in April, those on the east side should not get too comfortable with their wired service because Verizon has announced it will not upgrade or make future significant repairs to its wired infrastructure going forward. When the remaining landline facilities eventually fail, affected customers will also be moved to Voice Link.

How It Works

Starting April 1st, customers calling with service problems on Fire Island will be redirected to special operators trained to pitch customers the Voice Link service as a replacement. These agents will also handle billing adjustments and drop phone package features Voice Link does not support. If the customer only wants phone service, Verizon will schedule an installation date for Voice Link. A technician will arrive with a wall-mounted box about 8″ high that will be installed in the room that provides the best reception from a nearby Verizon Wireless tower. The box will then be connected to your home telephone wiring and a nearby power outlet so existing telephones will work once again. The box has battery backup powered by customer-installed and maintained AA batteries.

If a customer also had broadband service with Verizon, they will not be getting it back. Instead, an agent will attempt to sell the customer a Verizon Wireless mobile broadband package at a significantly higher cost. For example, a 10GB monthly usage plan added to an existing Verizon Wireless account will cost an extra $20 a month for the “Mi-Fi” mobile hotspot device fee and $100 a month for the data package. Verizon DSL in comparison offered unlimited access for $30-50 a month, depending on the plan selected and any promotional discounts.

Verizon said it is currently improving reception of its 4G LTE network in areas worst-affected by storm damage.

Voice Link is a voice-only product. It does not support broadband, telephone modem connections, faxing, alarm monitoring, home medical monitoring, certain communications equipment for the impaired, or other data services including credit card processing. It does support E911, which gives detailed address information to a 911 operator.

Verizon’s Voice Link also creates a problem for some satellite dish customers. Some satellite companies need a landline connection for handling pay-per-view orders. That data connection does not work with Voice Link either.

Your voice line bill will remain the same if you switch to Voice Link. But customers will lose the benefit of oversight from the Public Service Commission if things go wrong. Voice Link, unlike traditional landline service, is an unregulated service not subject to government oversight.

Voice Link: Coming Soon to Your Area?

Verizon’s Voice Link service is by no means intended to be used only on Fire Island.

Voice Link is being trialed in Florida (Project Thunder) as a landline replacement option for use in areas where Verizon’s copper network has deteriorated and the company is unwilling to spend money on fiber upgrades. If successful, Verizon intends to switch a growing number of Verizon customers nationwide outside of FiOS fiber areas to the wireless service when they report trouble with their phone lines.

Local 824 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers provided insight when one of their workers attended a training class and participated in a ride-along with Verizon technicians installing the service in Florida.

John Glye reports that Verizon considers a customer a candidate for Voice Link if they have chronic phone line problems and only want traditional voice telephone service.

Currently, if customers in Florida are persuaded to switch, a migration order is created. If they want to keep the service they have, a traditional copper trouble ticket will be created and repair crews will be dispatched.

The unit is about eight inches tall and has the following connections:

• 2 RJ 11 ports
• Antenna
• Voice Message indicator
• Signal strength indicator
• Power Button
• Power Port

Installation time is about 45 minutes. The unit must be mounted inside and the customer must supply power and a safe place for the unit. The customer’s existing copper line connection from the home to the pole is disconnected/removed. In the ride-along Glye participated in, he reports the customer was pleased with the outcome, having reported constant static aggravated by rain on her copper landline. After the wireless service was installed, the static was gone and the call quality was good.

This FCC broadband coverage map depicts broadband service gaps in orange.

According to broadband coverage maps drawn from data provided by telecommunications companies across Mississippi, high speed Internet service is available just about everywhere in the state.

Only it isn’t.

Now one Public Service Commissioner is going public warning broadband expansion funding is in jeopardy because the Federal Communications Commission is relying on faulty map data.

Northern District Commissioner Brandon Presley told the DeSoto Times-Tribune things are not nearly as rosy as some providers would have you believe.

“The maps the FCC have are just plain wrong,” Presley said. “Their maps show that Mississippi is almost completely covered and that is certainly not the case. Getting this corrected is a top priority so that Mississippi can get its fair share of funding to cover these areas for residents and businesses.”

The implications for DeSoto County, Mississippi’s fastest growing county, are profound.

Thanks to map data volunteered by service providers that suggest virtually the entire state already has access to broadband, federal assistance funding for expanding Internet access may be off-limits. Most assistance programs require that areas be unserved to avoid duplicating existing service.

“Currently, the map vastly overstates the broadband coverage in the state,” Presley said. “While the map shows neighboring states with extensive underserved areas, Mississippi appears with nearly universal coverage.”

The FCC’s map of unserved areas depicts Mississippi as a broadband outlier in the southern United States, with far more service options than other nearby southern states. Digging deeper reveals major problems with the FCC’s data.

For instance, the state’s map reveals much of Mississippi is covered by wireless providers like AT&T, C-Spire, and Verizon. But those companies offer only limited data plans at high prices that are not equivalent to traditional wired broadband from a cable or phone company. A company called Callis Communications is depicted as providing a large part of the state with DOCSIS 3 cable modem service, when in fact Callis markets cloud-services to business customers and does not operate a cable company.

Most of Mississippi’s broadband connections from cable companies and AT&T are in larger communities including Tupelo, Jackson, Meridian, Gulfport, Hattiesburg and Biloxi. That leaves large sections of central and western Mississippi with significant service gaps.

Presley said his office is working to correct the FCC’s National Broadband Map, but with federal spending cutbacks looming, it may already be too late.

“Without this assistance, rural communities will continue to be left behind as small businesses, health care and emergency services will be left without necessary access to the Internet,” Presley told the newspaper.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLOX Biloxi Broadband map could cost the state millions 12-21-12.mp4[/flv]

WLOX in Biloxi reports Mississippi officials are scrambling to correct faulty broadband map data with the FCC so the state can qualify for broadband expansion funding.  (2 minutes)

Telling Time Warner customers to get rid of the cable company’s phone service.

Best Buy employees in upstate New York are advising Time Warner Cable customers to dump Time Warner phone service and buy their own cable modem to completely avoid any additional monthly fees.

“We don’t have modems that will support Time Warner’s voice services, so basically any customer that has that bundle either has to make the decision to get rid of that service or deal with paying for that service every month,” said Syracuse Best Buy employee Drew Cacciola.

Cacciola told a Syracuse television station Time Warner’s supplied equipment is “old and refurbished” and that if customers purchase their own equipment, they will have the latest technology and won’t have to worry about ending up with another refurbished cable modem if the current modem fails.

“If [a new modem] breaks down you can get a new one you don’t have to send it back to them and you won’t get another refurbished one – you get a new one,” said Cacciola.

In fact, Time Warner phone customers do not have to cancel their phone service to avoid the modem fee, but they will be stuck with two pieces of equipment — a Time Warner-supplied eMTA that manages the phone service (with its Internet ports disabled) and the customer’s own purchased cable modem. For now, Time Warner is not charging customers for eMTA equipment used exclusively for its phone service.

Best Buy does not carry some of the models on Time Warner’s approved modem list, and the cheapest one WSYR reporters could find cost around $60, meaning it will take just over a year to recoup the cost of the modem.

Motorola cable modem

Time Warner Cable’s modem fee continues to create consternation for customers, especially when they learn the same piece of equipment used for both Internet and phone service costs $3.95 a month when used for broadband, but is free when used only for phone service.

Stop the Cap! reader Ben argued with a Time Warner representative trying to understand the reasoning.

“So, let me get this straight about the modem fee: If I have phone there is no fee but if I use the same modem to also get Internet, there is a fee?,” Ben asked.

Yes, came the answer. The explanation:

“About the modem fee: Our costs for Internet equipment keep increasing and unfortunately we could not continue to absorb the costs related to their purchase, maintenance and repair,” wrote a Time Warner employee named ‘Paul-E.’ “Leasing a modem ensures you have the most up to date and capable equipment to take advantage of our services as we offer faster speeds and additional functionality. These events sometimes require that we replace your current equipment to give you the best experience.”

Time Warner’s explanation for the new modem fee sounds plausible, but unfortunately for “Paul-E” (and the company),  much of it is demonstrably false.

Investors Business Daily reports the new $3.95 computer modem leasing fee could raise up to $500 million a year for the cable company.

“I would look at this as a price increase,” Bryan Kraft, an analyst at Evercore Partners, told IBD via email. “There are some questions that need to be answered before the impact on ARPU (average monthly revenue per user) can be reasonably estimated.”

Stop the Cap! took a look at Time Warner Cable’s financial reports and discovered the company’s capital expenses for its high speed Internet service (and cable modem equipment) have dropped for the third year in a row:

Time Warner Cable’s capital expenditures on customer premise equipment, including cable modems, has dropped for three years in a row.

Capital spending (as a whole) so far this year has decreased as a percentage of revenue to just 12% for residential customers. Time Warner has spent money primarily on extending service to potential business customers.

The need to charge you more for a cable modem is questionable when residential Internet service rate increases and customers gravitating to more expensive, higher speed services already deliver the company higher average revenue per customer without spiking their costs.

When the station relayed complaints about long hold times and busy signals for customers trying to activate their purchased cable modem, the response from Time Warner — don’t call on Monday or Friday or around morning or dinner time unless you are prepared to wait on hold.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Time Warner Cable modem charge 10-24-12.mp4[/flv]

WSYR in Syracuse covers the ongoing controversy with Time Warner Cable’s new modem fees, and a Best Buy employee tells Time Warner customers to get rid of the company’s phone service.  (3 minutes)

Verizon Communications will stop selling DSL broadband-only service to its customers May 6th in what the company is calling an effort to control costs “enabling us to continue providing competitively priced services to existing and new customers.”

Broadband Reports readers first reported receiving written notice of Verizon’s plans to discard “naked DSL” service, although existing customers who don’t move or make any changes to their account will be able to keep the broadband-only service for now.

Verizon provides the details:

Beginning May 6, 2012, we will no longer offer High Speed Internet without local voice service on the same account.

What does this mean for you?

• If you currently have High Speed Internet without local voice service on the same account, there is no action required on your part to continue enjoying your internet service. You will not experience any disruption of service.
• Prior to May 6, 2012, you can still make speed upgrades or downgrades to your existing service.
• Prior to May 6, 2012, you can receive bundle discounts by adding DIRECTV service or Verizon Wireless service to your current internet service.

What this means if you change or disconnect your High Speed Internet Service as of May 6, 2012 or after:

• You can make changes to and retain your Verizon High Speed Internet Service on or after the above date, by adding Verizon’s local voice service to the same account.
• If you are moving your service from one location to another on or after the above date, you may subscribe to internet service at your new location if you also subscribe to Verizon’s local voice service on the same account.
• If you choose to subscribe to additional Verizon services you could be eligible for a bundled discount when you also subscribe to Verizon’s local voice service on the same account.

There is speculation Verizon is eliminating its DSL-only service in an effort to boost revenue and push subscribers in FiOS-enabled areas to Verizon’s fiber optic network.  A decade earlier, many phone companies fought to avoid selling “broadband-only” DSL service without a voice landline because of revenue losses.  Landline customers continue to drop voice service from traditional phone companies at an alarming rate — choosing competing cable or Voice over IP service or a cell phone.  By requiring voice service, Verizon can boost average revenue from each customer, whether those customers want the service or not.

Customers who currently subscribe to broadband-only DSL service from Verizon are advised that virtually any account change of significance can disqualify them from continuing with the service.  That includes address changes and speed adjustments.  Stop the Cap! recommends customers make any changes prior to May 6th.

Large sections of Verizon’s service area are not FiOS-eligible,  so current DSL customers with no other broadband choices may find themselves stuck with adding voice service. Verizon sells Basic Home Telephone Service with no local calling allowance at prices ranging from $7 in some communities to $16 or higher in others, excluding the FCC-mandated line fee, which runs an extra $6.50 a month.

One thing Verizon’s higher bills will accomplish is making Verizon Wireless’ new 4G LTE Home Fusion wireless broadband service look slightly more price competitive.  If a Verizon landline customer has to pay for both voice and data service, paying $60 a month for 10GB of wireless broadband may not seem that expensive in comparison.