Your $50 monthly broadband bill has been burning a hole in your wallet and you think there should be a cheaper price available somewhere, right?

The answer is, for most of us, there is.  You just have to look.

The most expensive Internet access around comes when you buy broadband-only service from a provider.  Both cable and phone companies have been incrementally punishing their “broadband-only” customers for years, tacking on $5, $10, even $15 to the price because you have chosen not to bundle broadband with other services the company sells.  It is not unusual to see some cable companies charging $55-60 for standard Internet service.  When you call to inquire, they are sure to begin aggressively upselling you to a bundled service package, arguing you can add cable TV and phone service for $20-30 more a month.  That sounds like a better deal, unless you honestly don’t care about either service.

Welcome to the world of marketing, where the “value perception” is key to driving the average revenue collected from each subscriber higher and higher.  You end up buying services you probably would not have considered, but because they seem so inexpensive when compared with the price of the service you are interested in, why not?

Phone companies do the same thing, but many of them also love to bury hidden charges in the fine print and commit you to 1-3 years of service to guarantee the advertised price.  Companies like Frontier Communications may pitch DSL service for just $15 a month, but keep reading and you will discover the taxes and fees raise that price substantially.  In fact, that particular phone company is notorious for charging substantial modem rental fees and what they call a “High Speed Internet” surcharge.  To get the lowest price from them, you will be a Frontier customer for at least a year, depending on the promotional offer selected.

You can break free of the marketing circus by concentrating on finding the best possible deal for the service(s) you really care about.

1. Check advertising offers on television and in newspapers, but always read the fine print;
2. Visit the website of each local provider and look for “Internet-only” offers that may deliver extra savings, but only when you order online;
3. Call providers and ask them about their various deals and inquire “is this the best offer you have right now?;”
4. Use search engines and type in your provider’s name and words like “deals,” “offers,” or “promotion.”  Third party authorized resellers may have an offer that works better for you.

Sometimes you can get excellent results playing providers off each other.  Try contacting the social media representatives of different providers in your area to unlock hidden deals, and more importantly, customer retention offers.  One Rochester reader of ours got Time Warner Cable to open negotiations to keep his business with this tweet:

Getting ready to schedule my @TWCable disconnect after rate increase – should I go with @dishnetwork over @DirecTV or vice versa?

He received a substantial retention offer within hours of alerting Time Warner of his discontent (he’s also a rabid hockey fan, and the ongoing MSG-Time Warner Cable dispute made satellite an attractive alternative.)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KNXV Phoenix Which broadband provider saves you the most money 2-7-12.mp4[/flv]

KNXV in Phoenix helped residents in that Arizona city figure out who was cheaper, CenturyLink or Cox Cable.  And what about using mobile broadband for a home broadband replacement?  (3 minutes)

[We are reprinting this because it succinctly and persuasively proves a point we’ve been making at Stop the Cap! since 2008.  Broadband is not just a “nice thing to have.” It is as important as a phone line, electricity, and safe drinking water.  News, education, commerce, and culture increasingly utilize the Internet to share information and entertain us. Essential utility services can either be provided by a private company operating as a monopoly with oversight and regulation, or operate strictly in the public interest in the form of a customer-owned cooperative, a direct service of local government, or a quasi-public independent non-profit.

In North America, broadband was originally considered a non-essential service, and private providers in the United States lobbied heavily to maintain absolute control of their broadband networks, free to open them to share with other providers, or not.  They also won sweeping deregulation and are still fighting today for decreased oversight.  The results have been uneven service.  Large, compact cities enjoy modern and fast broadband while smaller communities are forced to live with a fraction of the speeds offered elsewhere, if they have access to the service at all.

With broadband now deemed “essential,” local governments have increasingly sought to end the same old excuses with the “don’t care”-cable company or “what’s in it for me”-AT&T and provide 21st century service themselves, especially where local commercial providers simply won’t step up to the plate at all.  Suddenly, big cable and phone companies are more possessive than your last boy/girlfriend. The companies that for years couldn’t care less about your broadband needs suddenly obsess when someone else moves in on “their territory.” They want special laws (that apply only to the competition) to make sure your broadband future lies exclusively in their hands.

Susan P. Crawford understand how this dysfunctional, controlling relationship comes at the expense of rural America.  She’s a visiting professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School. In 2009, she was a special assistant to President Barack Obama for science, technology and innovation policy. Her opinions were originally shared with readers of Bloomberg News.]

In cities and towns across the U.S., a familiar story is replaying itself: Powerful companies are preventing local governments from providing an essential service to their citizens. More than 100 years ago, it was electricity. Today, it is the public provision of communications services.

The Georgia legislature is currently considering a bill that would effectively make it impossible for any city in the state to provide for high-speed Internet access networks — even in areas in which the private sector cannot or will not. Nebraska, North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee already have similar laws in place. South Carolina is considering one, as is Florida.

Mayors across the U.S. are desperate to attract good jobs and provide residents with educational opportunities, access to affordable health care, and other benefits that depend on affordable, fast connectivity — something that people in other industrialized countries take for granted. But powerful incumbent providers such as AT&T Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc. are hamstringing municipalities.

At the beginning of the 20th century, private power companies electrified only the most lucrative population centers and ignored most of America, particularly rural America. By the mid-1920s, 15 holding companies controlled 85 percent of the nation’s electricity distribution, and the Federal Trade Commission found that the power trusts routinely gouged consumers.

Costly and Dangerous

In response, and recognizing that cheap, plentiful electricity was essential to economic development and quality of life, thousands of communities formed electric utilities of their own. Predictably, the private utilities claimed that public ownership of electrical utilities was “costly and dangerous” and “always a failure,” according to the November 1906 issue of Moody’s Magazine. Now more than 2,000 communities in the U.S., including Seattle, San Antonio and Los Angeles, provide their own electricity.

Today, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which advocates for community broadband initiatives, is tracking more than 60 municipal governments that have built or are building successful fiber networks, just as they created electric systems during the 20th century. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, for example, the city’s publicly owned electric company provides fast, affordable and reliable fiber Internet access. Some businesses based in Knoxville — 100 miles to the northeast — are adding jobs in Chattanooga, where connectivity can cost an eighth as much.

Meanwhile, less than 8 percent of Americans currently receive fiber service to their homes, compared with more than 50 percent of households in South Korea, and almost 40 percent in Japan. Where it’s available, Americans pay five or six times as much for their fiber access as people in other countries do. Fully a third of Americans don’t subscribe to high-speed Internet access at all, and AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said last month that the company was “trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America, and we’re not finding one, to be quite candid.” America is rapidly losing the global race for high-speed connectivity.

Tamping Down Enthusiasm

Like the power trusts of the 20th century, the enormous consolidated providers of wired Internet access want to tamp down any enthusiasm for municipal networks. Last year, telecom lobbyists spent more than $300,000 in a failed effort to block a referendum in Longmont, Colorado, to allow that city to provide Internet access. Time Warner Cable managed to get a North Carolina law enacted last year that makes launching municipal networks there extraordinarily difficult. The pending measures in Georgia and South Carolina are modeled on the North Carolina bill.

The Georgia bill is chock-full of sand traps and areas of deep statutory fog from which no local public network is likely ever to emerge. In addition to the ordinary public hearings that any municipality would hold on the subject, a town looking to build a public network would have to hold a referendum. It wouldn’t be allowed to spend any money in support of its position (there would be no such prohibition on the deep-pocketed incumbents). The community wouldn’t be allowed to support its network with local taxes or surplus revenues from any other services (although incumbents routinely and massively subsidize their networks with revenue from other businesses).

Most pernicious of all, the public operator would have to include in the costs of its service the phantom, imputed “capital costs” and “taxes” of a private provider. This is a fertile area for disputes, litigation and delay, as no one knows what precise costs and taxes are at issue, much less how to calculate these amounts. The public provider would also have to comply with all laws and “requirements” applicable to “the communications service,” if it were made available by “a private provider,” although again the law doesn’t specify which service is involved or which provider is relevant.

The end result of all this vague language will be to make it all but impossible for a city to obtain financing to build its network. Although the proponents of Georgia’s bill claim that they are merely trying to create a level playing field, these are terms and conditions that no new entrant, public or private, can meet — and that the incumbents themselves do not live by. You can almost hear the drafters laughing about how impossible the entire enterprise will be.

Globally Competitive Networks

Right now, state legislatures — where the incumbents wield great power — are keeping towns and cities in the U.S. from making their own choices about their communications networks. Meanwhile, municipalities, cooperatives and small independent companies are practically the only entities building globally competitive networks these days. Both AT&T and Verizon have ceased the expansion of next-generation fiber installations across the U.S., and the cable companies’ services greatly favor downloads over uploads.

Congress needs to intervene. One way it could help is by preempting state laws that erect barriers to the ability of local jurisdictions to provide communications services to their citizens.

Running for president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt emphasized the right of communities to provide their own electricity. “I might call the right of the people to own and operate their own utility a birch rod in the cupboard,” he said, “to be taken out and used only when the child gets beyond the point where more scolding does any good.” It’s time to take out that birch rod.

An increasing number of wireless data users are getting some tough love courtesy of AT&T.

“Your data use this month places you in the top 5% of users,” the text message reads. “Use Wi-Fi to avoid reduced speeds.”  Our regular reader Earl hopes we’ll keep spreading the word.

AT&T’s speed throttle has now moved beyond the pages of tech blogs and into USA Today, where the newspaper explores the trials and tribulations of wireless data management policies at the nation’s largest wireless companies.

Mike Trang, along with at least 200,000 other AT&T customers, has been caught in AT&T’s wireless speed trap.  The result can be speeds punitively reduced to dial-up for the remainder of a billing cycle, leaving customers on AT&T’s “unlimited use” plan waiting up to two minutes for a single web page to load.

While AT&T tells the newspaper it only throttles the speeds of unlimited customers who use an average of 2GB or more per month to ease congestion (if that), the company’s “congestion problems” seem to disappear when customers switch to a usage-billing plan that charges fees based on different usage allowances:

Trang’s iPhone was throttled just two weeks into his billing cycle, after he’d consumed 2.3 gigabytes of data. He pays $30 per month for “unlimited” data. Meanwhile, Dallas-based AT&T now sells a limited, or “tiered,” plan that provides 3 gigabytes of data for the same price.

Users report that if they call the company to ask or complain about the throttling, AT&T customer support representatives suggest they switch to the limited plan.

“They’re coaxing you toward the tiered plan,” said Gregory Tallman in Hopatcong, N.J. He hasn’t had his iPhone 4S throttled yet, but he’s gotten text-messages from AT&T, warning that he’s approaching the limit. This came after he had used just 1.5 gigabytes of data in that billing cycle.

Many customers who have received the text message warning about their usage now think twice about everything they do with their phone, which may be part of what AT&T intended for its remaining customers grandfathered on a now-discontinued unlimited use plan.

John Cozen, a Web and mobile applications designer in San Diego, told USA Today he’s now “almost scared to use the phone.”

Cozen’s complaints to AT&T have been ignored and now he’s shopping for a new carrier.

AT&T’s warning-and-throttle system is the strictest among America’s largest wireless carriers. When customers exceed AT&T’s arbitrary declaration of being among the “top 5% of users,” their speeds are subject to severe slowdowns until their next bill is issued. This leaves customers who may have needed their phone at the beginning of the month for a business trip or vacation suddenly throttled for weeks because of what AT&T calls “congestion,” even if nobody else is using the cell tower.  Even worse, customers not yet deemed to be offending AT&Ts usage manners, or who pay per gigabyte, can overload a cell tower and create the very congestion AT&T claims it hopes to manage.  But only “unlimited use” customers get “time out” in the usage penalty corner.

Among other carriers:

• Verizon Wireless also uses a network management system that can throttle speeds for exceptionally heavy users, but their speed throttle is engaged only when individual cell towers are overloaded with traffic, and the speed reduction level will vary with the amount of traffic on that tower.  When congestion eases, speeds return to normal for everyone;
• T-Mobile throttles customers after a maximum of 5GB of usage per month, unless other arrangements are made with the company;
• Sprint Nextel does not have usage limits or a throttle on smartphone data plans at this time.

The city of Savannah, Georgia is at the mercy of Comcast Cable, and city officials and local residents are fed up with high bills, the “don’t care” attitude from customer service, and cable and broadband that fails repeatedly, sometimes extending for weeks.

The fervor came to a head in December when city council had accumulated more than 150 complaints from local residents, deciding public hearings were warranted to deal with the city’s dominant cable company, Comcast.

“Comcast Destroyed My House”

Diana Thibodoux called Comcast to deal with a cable issue in her Ardsley Park home and never expected the service call would turn into an expensive nightmare.

Thibodoux says the Comcast technician who showed up decided on his own to rewire the house for cable and began drilling through brick and expensive plaster, stringing easily visible black coaxial cable along outside walls, inside baseboards and up over doors, all in plain sight.

“My house looks like a frat house,” Thibodoux complained to Comcast officials who were on hand to listen to customer complaints at the first of four public “town hall” meetings.

“I’ve never dealt with a company so incompetent,” another local resident said.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTOC Savannah Ive never dealt with a company so incompetent 2-6-12.mp4[/flv]

WTOC in Savannah shares the horror story of Diana Thibodoux, who says Comcast destroyed her house thanks to an overzealous, incompetent repairman.  (3 minutes)

Residents used the public sessions to vent about long hold times which can extend to as much as two hours, poor quality service, and what city officials call the predictable outcome of a company that has “a stranglehold” over Savannah’s cable TV market.

“Comcast has treated Savannah like a third world country for years, delivering the best service to the wealthiest neighborhoods while leaving cable lines dangling on the ground in the areas they don’t care about,” said Stop the Cap! reader Jenny Child, who has kept a folder of papers documenting more than a dozen service calls regarding poor Internet service at her small business.

“If it rains in Savannah, and it does so a lot, our Internet goes out,” Child complains. “We have called and called but the technician shows up when it is bright and sunny and shrugs his shoulders and says there is no problem.”

Child and her two employees now handle their online business activities based on local weather forecasts.

“If the man says we’re getting rain today, we handle our Internet things real quick, because as sure as I’ll be in church on Sunday, we won’t have service after the first drops fall from the sky,” she says.

Child keeps calling Comcast when her Internet service drops out, but long hold times to reach the company’s outsourced-to-India customer service department have cut into her business.

“I can’t be sitting here on hold with Comcast for 45 minutes waiting for some representative’s nails to dry so she can pick up the phone and deal with customers,” Child complains. “It’s the biggest cable company ever, and don’t they own NBC? How many people do they have working there that they can’t answer the phone. Maybe everyone else is calling to complain too.”

Comcast’s Business Broadband Blockade Prompts Whining When Potential Competition Shows Up

While fielding complaints from more than 50 local residents at a second meeting held to address complaints, Comcast executives questioned whether the city of Savannah was giving favorable treatment to Hargray, a new entrant pushing to bring 21st century broadband into the city of Savannah for businesses Comcast has refused to serve for years.

Comcast complained they didn’t mind competition, but wanted “a level playing field,” a statement that prompted an immediate and angry response from some members of the city council, who blasted the cable company for its attitude.

Aldermen Tony Thomas, John Hall, and Tom Bordeaux all noted Comcast has steadfastly refused to wire many downtown business buildings for cable broadband service, despite years of requests.  Comcast claimed the relatively low number of customers did not justify the cost to expand the service.

All three could not understand why Comcast had a sudden urgency to complain about unfair treatment when a competitor sought to provide the service they never did.

“If [Comcast] did not want to offer that service previously and someone else is coming in to provide the service, where is the sticking point?” Thomas said.

Bordeaux was more blunt in his remarks intended for Comcast.

“Tell them to sue us,” he said.

In contrast to service from AT&T and Comcast, which often markets 3-6Mbps broadband in Savannah, Hargray’s fiber broadband project will deliver speeds up to 1Gbps, first to business customers. But the company promises it is considering selling to residential customers as well.

Great Deals, But Only for “Selected Neighborhoods”

As Comcast’s bad press has become fodder for the nightly newscasts on several of the city’s television outlets, Comcast literally took to the streets to try and mitigate their public relations nightmare. In the process, they created a new one.

Councilman Tony Thomas is happy Comcast is approaching upset customers and offering them substantial discounts on their cable bill.  But he’s not happy Comcast is only extending those deals to certain customers, not all.

Thomas wants the deals offered to everyone, something that he says is not happening today.

Andy Macke, Comcast’s Vice President of Communications counters, “All they have to do is call 1-800-COMCAST and they will hear the same deals that the same people are getting from those reps going from door to door.”

“Comcast’s attitude in Savannah is see no evil, hear no evil,” says Jeff White, a Comcast customer who has watched the scuffle. “They don’t even admit there is a problem until it runs on the evening news and city council waves 150 complaints they are getting at the camera — the ones Comcast ignored.”

Macke himself told WJCL-TV, which has covered the dispute with Comcast repeatedly, he was “unaware of the extent of the concerns that our Savannah customers had with us.”

Despite promises to make things right, Alderman Thomas says many complaints are still unresolved.

“We were told that all of those folks had been contacted and that their problems were being worked on. I have since found a few of these people [who] have had no contact whatsoever with Comcast,” Thomas told the TV station.

“Under no circumstances should City Council let the situation with Comcast get pushed under the rug,” one person wrote in the Vox Populi column in the Savannah Morning News. “We the people need help!”

No Help On the Way

Unfortunately for that reader, and other Savannah residents, an attempt by Savannah city officials to attract competing cable service has met with no success and no interest.  Cable operators almost never compete head to head, each respecting the service areas of fellow providers.  Hargray’s interest in Savannah is primarily serving business customers, and the option for municipal service may not be possible much longer if a bill supported by Comcast, SB 313, ever becomes law.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Comcast in Savannah 2-8-12.flv[/flv]

A compilation of news reports from WJCL, WSAV, and WTOC exploring Comcast’s performance problems in the city of Savannah, Georgia.  (15 minutes)

Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) thinks he knows broadband.  He, along with several other Georgia legislators well-compensated by some of the state’s largest telecom interests, have defined appropriate Internet speeds at a remarkably low “200 kilobits per second,” less than four times faster than your old AOL dial-up Internet account.  The one you canceled in 1998.

With a background like that, it was no surprise last Thursday when technology leaders and city representatives from across Georgia testified before the Senate Regulated Industries & Utilities Committee, strongly objecting to Rogers’ SB 313, a bill bought and paid for by the very companies the legislation would effectively protect from competition.

Rogers argues he wants to “level the playing field” between private providers that currently dominate broadband service in Georgia, and the long-suffering communities in rural areas that have waited for faster Internet since the Clinton Administration.

City officials from Dalton, Newnan, Elberton, Thomasville, Cartersville, LaGrange, Hogansville and Monroe collectively noted the proposed legislation hardly represents a level playing field when it fully exempts the bill’s backers from any of its provisions.  Thomasville mayor Max Beverly noted the same cable and phone companies that fiercely fought for statewide cable franchises for themselves now want to impose rules that forbid publicly-run companies from operating outside of their respective city limits.

“We would have to turn off service to the county’s two largest employers,” Thomasville Mayor Max Beverly told the Senate panel. “There is no telling what that would do to jobs in our area.”

Those testifying uniformly noted they entered the broadband business because private providers refused to deliver adequate service in their areas.

“We started our cable system not on a whim but on a demand from our citizens to provide a higher level of service for cable TV and Internet,” said Newnan Mayor Keith Brady. “We got into the cable business originally to provide fiber optics and broadband because Charter Communications would simply not invest in our community.”

Now cable and phone companies across Georgia are supporting legislation that would make that community service next to impossible to provide.

“The most ironic part of legislation like SB 313 is that cable and phone companies only take an interest in rural broadband when they ghostwrite bills like this to stop other people from providing the service themselves,” said Stop the Cap! reader Max Curr. “When I lived in Hiltonia, some of these same companies laughed at me when I asked about broadband. It simply was not profitable, they were not going to provide it, and with this bill, they will make sure it stays that way.”

But the cost to consumers extends way beyond the most rural corners of the state. SB 313 also hurts existing cable and phone customers who pay higher rates because of the lack of competition.  That assures the kind of anemic broadband Rogers and his friends in the cable and phone industries are only too happy to define as 200kbps.  At least that is 10kbps more than a similar bill being pushed by telephone and cable operators in South Carolina.

Brady says their community-owned system not only provides broadband where Charter would not, the cable company also was forced to reduce their rates for consumers in nearby communities, saving taxpayers across the entire city and county millions.

In Elberton, the lack of broadband was so pervasive the 4,700 local residents demanded the city provide the service themselves. Commercial providers had stonewalled the county seat of Elbert County for years until the city broke ground on a broadband project in 2001.

Elberton City Manager Lanier Dunn complained SB 313 undercuts the rational definition of minimum Internet speeds to levels most Americans would not even consider “broadband.”  Dunn noted that the 2010 National Broadband Plan calls for download speeds 250 times greater, and by 2020 500 times greater, than what Rogers’ bill currently defines as broadband service.

“We should be reaching for higher and faster speeds, not relegating ourselves to barely just above dial-up,” Dunn said.

Don Cope, president and CEO of Dalton Utilities, demonstrated that municipal broadband systems are not the financial risk large telecommunications companies always claim they represent.  In fact, Dalton’s system has never received a penny of tax revenue and its accounting is open to public scrutiny to prove it.

Cope noted SB 313 imposes restrictions on community providers, but completely exempts those owned by the companies pushing the bill.

“I would ask that you look at the private providers in the state,” Cope said. “Look at their reports, and you would see how many dollars that are provided to them from the federal government. We are talking about in the billions of dollars. All the [private telecommunications entities] that I know about have some form of government support.”

Dalton isn’t the only city in Georgia with a successful community-owned operation.

The city of Newnan found their system such a valuable asset, they sold it at a profit to a private company in 2008 and used the proceeds to pay off its remaining construction costs.