AT&T and Verizon have forced some of their customers to abandon DSL service in favor of fiber upgrades that are sometimes not actually up and running or leave customers with no phone service during power outages.

Wall, N.J. resident James Hallock found his DSL service suddenly stopped working earlier this month, so he called Verizon Communications to get service restored.

“A Verizon tech explained that the service was no longer being offered,” Hallock said.

The termination of his DSL service came with no prior notification, complained Hallock, and Verizon told him his only way back to broadband with the phone company was a forced upgrade to a more costly FiOS package that included phone service that won’t work during power outages.

“In the last outage I saw, people were out of electricity for weeks,” Hallock told the Asbury Park Press in an email. “I don’t believe it’s true that we have to give up traditional phone service, but try spending hours on the phone with Verizon to find out.”

Verizon spokesman Lee J. Gierczynski told the newspaper, “We don’t discontinue a customer’s service without notification, so we’ll have to find out more about what specifically is going on with this customer.”

But Verizon’s CEO says the company is embarked on a plan to rid itself of its copper wire network, especially where FiOS fiber exists.

“Every place we have FiOS, we are going to kill the copper,” Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam told attendees of an investor conference last year. “We are going to just take it out of service. Areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there.”

Jackie Patterson, another Verizon customer, found her DSL service suddenly stopped working on Christmas Day.

“Verizon said that they were discontinuing the service and we had to get FIOS Internet (no more DSL) and FiOS phone service,” Patterson said. “I liked the idea that we still had phone service during blackouts — like during Sandy — but now we won’t be able to have that with FIOS.”

AT&T has been doing its part to cut off DSL customers as well. One AT&T customer reported her AT&T DSL service was suddenly terminated without notice in October, 2012 because her neighborhood was scheduled to be upgraded to U-verse, AT&T’s fiber to the neighborhood service. Five months later, AT&T’s U-verse network is still not available, despite the “forcible upgrade,” and nobody at AT&T can tell when it ultimately will be.

“It’ll be resolved on February 22nd,” AT&T promised back in December — two months after Brie’s service initially went dead, she tells The Consumerist.

“A representative showed up today to complete our installation,” complained Brie. “Guess what he found? The lines outside aren’t working. And guess what he told me? He’d talk to his manager. He’d escalate it. He’d get engineering out. He didn’t know how to fix it. He couldn’t tell me when or how or what needed to be done and no timetable as to when the work would be complete.”

Unfortunately for Brie, switching to the local cable company isn’t an option – it doesn’t offer service to her home.

The Kansas House of Representatives voted 118-1 to pass a bill they admit was written and pushed by the largest telecom companies in the state. The chief supporters all received campaign contributions from AT&T and other telecom interests.

Kansas’ House of Representatives voted 118-1 Monday to support a bill largely crafted by AT&T that will let the state’s largest phone company discontinue service at-will in rural areas of the state.

H.B. 2201 had near-universal support from legislators that openly admitted the legislation was conceived and written by the state’s largest telecommunications companies, chiefly AT&T, and grants the phone companies a third round of deregulation.

The legislation is expected to sail through the Kansas Senate with bipartisan support and Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who generally favors telecom deregulation, is likely to sign it.

The legislation was originally pushed as a money-saver for Kansas ratepayers. The bill calls for a major reduction in funding requirements for the Kansas Universal Service Fund (KUSF), which subsidizes rural telecommunications services in the state. The KUSF is principally funded through a surcharge found on customer bills. Under the terms of the bill, funding requirements will be drastically reduced, cutting the surcharge in the process.

The Kansas Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board testified if H.B. 2201 only contained KUSF reform, the group would have supported the measure. But the bill also has a myriad of deregulation measures that received little apparent attention by legislators:

1. H.B. 2201 eliminates quality of service requirements. AT&T and other phone companies can deliver any level of phone service they choose with no oversight and nobody to answer to;
2. Allows price discrimination based on geographic location, which could mean substantially higher phone rates in rural areas, especially for nearby toll calls;
3. Allows telecom companies to exit the Lifeline program for inexpensive service for the poorest Kansans after 90 days written notice;
4. Removes AT&T and other phone companies as “carriers of last resort,” which means they are no longer required to provide phone service upon request.

The elimination of the “carrier of last resort” provision is essential to AT&T’s plans to abandon rural landline service, forcing customers to buy substantially more expensive cellular phone and data service. With the passage of H.B. 2201, AT&T can notify rural Kansas customers it will drop their landline service and/or broadband at-will.

Siewert

The single “no” vote came from freshman Rep. Larry Hibbard, (R-Toronto), who noted landline service was essential in many rural areas. Hibbard worried AT&T would use the legislation as an excuse to raise rates or force elderly Kansans to use a wireless cell phone, which could prove too confusing for them.

“This bill may come back to haunt rural Kansas,” Hibbard warned.

“We have this mentality, ‘if I don’t have a wire, I can’t make a phone call.’ That’s not true,” countered Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican who supports the bill. “That copper line is being replaced with an antenna, and it’s more reliable.

“We are not killing Lifeline,” Schwab added. “We are just not mandating it.”

Other supporters were far more sanguine, even disclosing the substantial role telecom companies had getting the legislation written and shepherded through the House.

“This was an industry bill that they all worked very hard” to put together, admitted Rep. Joe Seiwert (R-Pretty Prairie) during a House Republican caucus meeting. “[This bill] puts legislators in an easier position of not having to ‘choose between friends.'”

Kuether

Seiwert, for example, did not have to disappoint his largest campaign contributor — AT&T — or others who donated to his campaign, including the Koch Brothers, Cox Communications, CenturyLink, Verizon, and the Kansas cable lobby.

Rep. Annie Kuether of Topeka, who is the ranking Democrat on the Utilities and Telecommunications Committee, also supported the bill. Kuether is the recipient of campaign contributions from AT&T, Cox Cable, Time Warner Cable, Kansas cable and telephone company PAC groups, and more than a dozen independent telecommunications providers doing business in Kansas.

For ordinary Kansans, the bill does not assure savings, and could lead to dramatic price increases, especially in rural areas forced to pay for cell service. The measure also eliminates the Kansas Corporation Commission as a last resort for customers with service problems that go unresolved. Those customers would be on their own after the bill becomes law.

Legislators did not see any incompatibility between the proposed bill and Kansas state policy, set forth in Statute 66-2001:

It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state to:

(a) Ensure that every Kansan will have access to a first class telecommunications infrastructure that provides excellent services at an affordable price;
(b) ensure that consumers throughout the state realize the benefits of competition through increased services and improved telecommunications facilities and infrastructure at reduced rates;
(c) promote consumer access to a full range of telecommunications services, including advanced telecommunications services that are comparable in urban and rural areas throughout the state;
(d) advance the development of a statewide telecommunications infrastructure that is capable of supporting applications, such as public safety, telemedicine, services for persons with special needs, distance learning, public library services, access to internet providers and others; and
(e) protect consumers of telecommunications services from fraudulent business practices and practices that are inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.

The Associated Press notes this is AT&T’s third trip through the state legislature to win deregulation. A 2006 state law deregulated prices for bundles of services that included wireless, Internet access, cable TV or other video and moved toward deregulating rates for local service in exchanges where competition existed. A 2011 law went further, allowing companies to avoid most state price caps. This year’s bill would allow those companies to avoid even the Kansas Corporation Commission’s consumer protection regulations and minimum quality-of-service standards.

Atlantic Canada provider Eastlink still offer unlimited access for speeds of 20Mbps or slower, but the fastest speeds now come with usage caps and overlimit fees, as depicted on this sample invoice.

While broadband pricing in the United States depends primarily on whether one lives in a rural or urban area, in Canada, which province you live in makes all the difference.

Canadian broadband pricing varies wildly across different provinces. If you live in northern Canada, particularly in Nunavut or the Yukon, Internet access is slow and prohibitively expensive, assuming you can buy it at any price. Customers in Atlantic provinces including Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Labrador and Newfoundland pay the next highest prices in the country, often exceeding $60 a month. But Atlantic Canadians often find unlimited use, fiber optic-based plans are often part of the deal. In the west, fervent competition between dominant cable operator Shaw and telephone company Telus has given residents in British Columbia and Alberta more generous usage allowances, faster speeds, and lower pricing.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports the most significant gouging takes place in the Canada’s two largest provinces: Ontario and Québec, where Bell (BCE) competes with three dominant cable operators: Rogers and Cogeco (Ontario) and Vidéotron and Cogeco (Québec). Critics contend that “competition” has been more in name-only over the last several years, as prices have risen and usage allowances have not kept up.

“These disparities are influenced by the competition,” Catherine Middleton, a professor at the University of Ryerson’s Ted Rogers School of Management told CBC News. “For example, Bell competes against Rogers in Ontario, but against Vidéotron in Quebec, with different plans for different markets.”

(Coincidentally, in 2007 the University of Ryerson accepted a gift of $15 million from the late Ted Rogers, founder of Rogers Communications, which won him naming rights for the Ted Rogers School of Management.)

Rogers and Cogeco charge Ontario residents more money for less access. Vidéotron treats their customers in Québec somewhat better, so Bell has plans to match.

“Ontario gets the worst when it comes to competitiveness,” Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law told CBC News. “It tends to be the least competitive when it comes to getting bang for your buck.”

Prices start to moderate in the prairie regions. SaskTel and MTS Allstream are the largest providers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Both offer customers unlimited service plans, something of a shock to those further east. But unless you live in a larger city where the two companies are upgrading to faster fiber-based networks, DSL at speeds averaging 5Mbps is the most widely available service.

Nearing the Canadian Rockies, usage-restricted plans are a reality once again. In Alberta and British Columbia, Telus and Shaw competition means more generous usage allowances, and Telus does not currently enforce their usage limits. Shaw raised its own usage limits significantly beyond what a customer would find from Rogers back east. Prices are often lower as well.

The CBC notes unlimited broadband from cable operators has become a rarity. Eastlink, which provides service in Atlantic Canada, has phased out unlimited access on plans above 20Mbps. Rogers has a temporary “unlimited use” offer for customers paying for its premium-priced 150Mbps plan, and only until March 31.

The most significant recent change for eastern Canada was Bell’s decision to offer an unlimited-use “add-on” for $10 extra a month for Bell customers in Québec and Ontario who choose at least three Bell services (broadband, television, phone, satellite, or wireless service). Rogers has matched that offer for its own triple-play customers. Those who only want broadband service from either provider will pay three times more for unlimited access — an extra $30 a month.

The mainstream Canadian press often ignores third party alternative providers that offer an escape from usage-capped Internet access.

But there are other alternatives, often ignored by the mainstream media.

A growing number of third-party independent providers buy wholesale access from large Canadian networks and sell their own Internet plans, often with no usage limits. TekSavvy, Distributel, Acanac, among many others, provide Canadians with DSL and cable broadband at prices typically lower than one would find dealing with Bell, Rogers, Shaw, or other providers directly. Some discount plans still include usage caps, but those limits are often far more generous than what the phone or cable company provides, and unlimited access is also available in most cases.

One website allows consumers to comparison-shop 350 different providers across Canada. Despite the growing number of options, the majority of Canadians still buy Internet access from their phone or cable company and live under a regime of usage caps and high prices, if only because they do not realize there are alternatives.

Usage caps have cost Canadian broadband consumers both time watching usage meters and money paying overlimit penalties. But the cost to innovation is now only being measured. While online video has become so popular in the United States it now constitutes the largest percentage of traffic on broadband networks during prime time, usage limits have kept the online video revolution from fully taking hold in Canada. That is a useful competition-busting fringe benefit for large telecom companies in Canada, which own cable networks, cable systems, broadcast networks, and even satellite providers.

Netflix’s chief content officer called Canadian broadband pricing “almost a human rights violation.” The online video provider was forced to introduce tools to let Canadians degrade the quality of their online video experience to avoid blowing past monthly usage allowances.

More than 20 cable systems across Kansas will be terminating television and broadband service after a private equity firm, working with former Bresnan Cable executives, deemed them unprofitable and not worth upgrading.

Residents of Conway Springs (pop. 1,250), Chetopa (1,125), Sharon (158), and Harper (1,473) are among those who will find their cable and broadband service discontinued in the coming weeks. Abandoned cable subscribers are being told to buy satellite dishes to continue watching television. No immediate broadband solution was available.

Allegiance Communications, which provides cable TV, broadband Internet, and VOIP telephony services to rural and mid-size markets in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas was acquired last month by former executives at Bresnan Communications, itself bought out by Cablevision Industries. The deal was largely financed by BBH Capital Partners, a New York City-based private equity firm.

The purchase by BCI Broadband orphaned nearly two dozen cable systems that Allegiance owned and operated, but were excluded from the sale. Subscribers are being notified they are about to be switched off permanently in letters signed by Allegiance executives.

Several former Bresnan Cable executives are behind BCI Broadband.

The service will leave rural Kansans without broadband service, cable television, or an alternative to AT&T and other independent phone companies operating in the state.

“This was not an easy decision for us, nor is it one that we came to hastily. The costs of doing business in Conway Springs can no longer be profitable,” Allegiance wrote in its letter, according to KSNW-TV.

Local officials in affected communities are rushing to find an alternative, appealing to providers like Southern Kansas Telephone to see if they can pick up where Allegiance left off, but the phone company has yet to respond.

Allegiance claims the outdated cable systems served few subscribers and the new owners were not interested in investing funds to upgrade them.

BCI Broadband is a new company run by former executives forced out of Bresnan Communications when the company was sold to Cablevision. BCI Broadband claims it wants to invest in system upgrades to improve service to remaining subscribers.

“Historically when we have purchased cable systems and invested in upgrading to the latest technology in markets like Shawnee, that has inevitably led to more customers and the need for more staff,” said Shawn Beqaj, vice president of public and government affairs for BCI Broadband. Beqaj was the former vice president of public affairs at Bresnan.

There has been an accelerating trend of industry consolidation among rural cable operators, particularly by private equity firms that are interested in the stable earnings cable operators usually generate.

GTCR, through its portfolio company Rural Broadband Investments LLC , separately announced its plans to acquire NewWave Communications Co., in what it hopes is just the first of a series of acquisitions. NewWave’s purchase was financed by debt capital from SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., and Goldman Sachs Bank USA.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSNW Wichita Small towns losing cable service 2-7-13.mp4[/flv]

KSNW-TV reports more than 20 Kansas communities will lose television and broadband service when Allegiance Communications switches off the cable systems. (2 minutes)

Windstream is reportedly behind the latest effort to ban community broadband networks in Georgia.

Rural communities across Georgia are upset about a new piece of legislation ghost-written by Windstream Communications that would keep broadband a strictly private affair in the Peach State.

House Bill 282, introduced by Rep. Mark Hamilton (R-Cumming) would prohibit publicly owned broadband networks from being built anywhere an incumbent provider delivers at least 1.5Mbps “broadband” in the state.

Sources familiar with the legislation say Windstream, a phone company primarily serving smaller communities, is the primary force behind the bill now before a legislative committee. When news of the bill came to light earlier this week, consumers and local communities began to push back with state legislators. A planned hearing on the bill has been temporarily pushed back until next week.

The legislation would effectively tie the hands of municipalities that have waited more than a decade for AT&T, Windstream, CenturyLink and other phone companies to bring DSL broadband to rural Georgia.

While not proposing a total ban on public broadband, the bill’s requirement that service be denied to a customer in a “census block” where at least one home can receive slow speed DSL makes building such networks nearly impossible.

The Georgia Municipal Association notes local governments in small towns and cities, already strapped for resources, would have to prove to the Georgia Public Service Commission that each census block a community wants to serve has no existing broadband service (census blocks are the smallest geographic area the Census Bureau uses for data collection.)

There are 291,086 census blocks in Georgia, making such a review difficult at best.

For communities that have already built public broadband networks, the bill brings more bad news. Under its terms, existing networks would not be allowed to expand anywhere any other provider delivers even a modicum of “high speed” 1.5Mbps Internet access. With many community networks built out in stages to minimize initial financial outlays, H.B. 282 could ruin the economic cost recovery models under which existing networks were financed and built, potentially risking bondholders.

Rep. Hamilton does not seem to care about them or whether rural Georgia gets Internet access or not. He answers to a higher calling: Windstream’s lobbyists.

The final report of Gov. Nathan Deal’s Competitive Initiative found rural Georgia at a disadvantage simply because many communities cannot get broadband service. Several regions in Georgia called on Deal’s office to help improve inadequate broadband infrastructure.

Instead, Hamilton’s bill would turn over Georgia’s broadband needs to phone company “Return on Investment” formulas that guarantee large sections of rural Georgia will remain unserved, with other areas left underserved. The bill itself defines suitable broadband at just 1.5Mbps, deemed inadequate by the Federal Communications Commission for today’s broadband user.

The bill’s defenders told The Telegraph the bill was designed to “close off an opportunity for government waste.” The bill also closes off an opportunity for better broadband and competition in Georgia.

“The fundamental question is rather simple: does Georgia want local leaders to determine the economic and investment strategies for their communities or do we want those decisions to be made solely on the business plans of companies based outside of the state,” asked the Georgia Municipal Association.

Georgia residents can contact the House Energy, Utilities & Telecommunications Subcommittee members and tell them to reject H.B. 282. Local municipalities seeking further information about this legislation should contact the Institute for Local Self-Reliance for additional information and guidance.