Illinois politics is business as usual — if you’re a high-powered business like AT&T, that is.  They’ve just proven how easy it is to sucker the fifth largest state’s legislature and several newspaper editorial boards with a dog and pony show of promises that it will have few regrets (and no consequences) for breaking later on.

Once again, AT&T is upset about the terms it agreed to in efforts to rebuild its nationwide reach through frenzied mergers and acquisitions.  This time it’s the 1999 merger with Ameritech.  AT&T claims the promises its partner SBC made to state regulators to green-light the deal are now too hard to honor. If only you and I could lobby legislators to walk away from our own personal responsibilities.  “I can’t pay my town taxes because the neighborhood has changed since I first moved here, so it would be unfair of you to ask.”

The argument apparently worked in the Illinois General Assembly which passed AT&T’s Get Off the Regulatory Hook Bill (Senate Bill 107) unanimously earlier this month.  The bill has now been sitting on Governor Quinn’s desk for more than two weeks, and AT&T is getting nervous.  Letters to the editor and AT&T-friendly editorials have started appearing in the Illinois press in a coordinated effort to beat the drum loud enough to get the governor’s attention to sign the bill unchanged.

Ameritech used to provide phone service to most of Illinois before being purchased by SBC Communications (later AT&T) in 1999.

Memories are short.  The Illinois Commerce Commission established ground rules for AT&T precisely because its predecessor provided abysmal service in the state.  As part of a hard-fought campaign to secure Ameritech, AT&T promised Illinois it would:

• provide reliable landline service in rural Illinois at a fair price;
• provide DSL broadband to at least 90 percent of Illinois customers;
• recognize that landline service remains an essential utility for millions of residents, many of whom don’t have the option of switching to another provider.

That was then, this is now.

These days, those requirements are apparently too tough on AT&T.  The company complains Illinois residents can switch to Comcast phone service (from the Worst Company in America 2010) or sign up for cell phone service from AT&T or a few other providers, assuming one has reception.  With all of this “competition,” AT&T argues there is no reason to continue regulating the company’s landline services, especially in rural areas AT&T could probably do without anyway.

Illinois is just the latest stop on AT&T’s big budget deregulation traveling circus, starring high-paid lobbyists and astroturf friends, all coordinating to unshackle their benefactor from pesky regulations.

The state’s legislature is evidently a million miles away from its fellow midwestern states who have been chauffeured down AT&T’s Promise Avenue before, only to discover it quickly became a one-way toll road for consumers.  Ask Wisconsin.

AT&T’s Message — Less is more.

AT&T routinely promises less regulation will magically open the door for its much-coveted U-verse platform.  Every elected official would love to claim he or she brought much-needed cable competition to their district, so promises of telco-TV are quite an incentive for legislators.  The formula is simple — you deregulate us and we’ll bring more U-verse deployment to your state.

Illinois State Senator Michael Bond (D-31st District)

Politicians trip over one another running to the nearest microphone over promises like that.

“This legislation is the key to opening up investment in the telecommunications industry in Illinois,” said state Sen. Michael Bond. “By modernizing our system, we are showing providers that we are worthy of their investment.”

But hasn’t AT&T already made a trip to that well before?  Last June, AT&T issued a press release crediting deregulation undertaken in 2007 for making U-verse expansion possible in Illinois:

AT&T U-verse is being expanded in Illinois thanks to legislation passed in 2007 and supported by State Senators Larry Bomke and Bill Brady and State Representatives Raymond Poe, Rich Brauer, Robert Flider and Bill Mitchell. The Cable and Video Competition Law provides an environment that encourages new video providers, such as AT&T Illinois, to invest in Illinois to compete against incumbent cable providers.

What will AT&T want next to finish U-verse deployment in Illinois – tax-free status?

That U-verse was designed to save AT&T’s landline business from a torrent of disconnect requests always gets missed by elected officials.  Basic landline service over copper wire is a dying business.  If AT&T doesn’t deploy U-verse, its ultimate destiny as a landline provider will be the horse and buggy industry of the 21st century.  Regulators need not throw away valuable consumer protections to protect a multi-billion dollar company already well-aware of what it needs to accomplish to stay profitable.

What consumers end up with — Less service for more money.

Despite the flowery rhetoric that competition is breaking out all over Illinois, 78 percent of state residents continue to rely on landline telephone service. That numbers 6.5 million consumers. Among the well-represented holdouts are fixed income seniors, and for most of them, a $200 monthly deluxe triple-play package of services is out of the question.

For customers that cannot afford higher rates, the Illinois Citizens Utility Board fought for and won a three year rate freeze and reprieve for AT&T’s budget-minded Consumer’s Choice telephone packages that were slated to be discontinued.  These packages don’t bundle unneeded calling features or extra services, instead providing affordable basic telephone service.  But after three years, AT&T can cancel these packages and raise prices at will, particularly in rural areas where competition is minimal to non-existent.  State oversight of AT&T is also history, leaving little recourse for consumers who suffer through poor service or AT&T’s legendary billing nightmares.

Supporters also promoted the deregulation legislation as a “jobs bill” — a ludicrous contention for legislation that contains no section pertaining to jobs.  Perhaps they meant more jobs for AT&T’s lobbying crew.  In fact, landline phone companies like AT&T are slashing jobs by the tens of thousands and will likely continue to do so.

Illinois Senate Bill 107 allows AT&T to set the stage to follow Verizon’s example — exiting rural areas, leaving the bulk of their investments and potential profits in large cities like Chicago.

The State Journal-Register wrote a shortsighted editorial supporting the proposed deregulation bill

Newspaper editorials like this one in the State Journal-Register in Springfield mean well but are breathtakingly short-sighted.  The editorial staff gushes about the benefits U-verse will bring Springfield, without any evidence U-verse will actually be universally available in the community anytime soon:

On a less philosophical level, we believe the new telecom law will be beneficial to most Illinois consumers because it should promote competition for household cable TV, Internet and phone service. In markets like Springfield, it could allow AT&T and Comcast to go head-to-head throughout the city, not just in the few areas where AT&T’s U-verse service is now available. That’s what cable customers have been demanding for decades.

AT&T customers have learned not to hold their breath waiting.  Any regular visitor to the company’s own support forums will quickly discover customers frustrated by lack of availability, hit or miss service, and no coverage map.  One customer summed it up:

I have NEVER in my life had to fight so hard to spend money on something.
Not even my wife makes it this hard on me to get something.
I have NEVER in my life (aside from when I got my AT&T POTS service) had a company work so slowly to accomplish something to try and attract a perspective customer or keep a current customer.

But there’s more.  Had the Journal-Register picked up the phone and checked with their neighboring states, they would have learned U-verse is not the competitive nirvana it’s routinely promised to be.  In Wisconsin, rates for cable, broadband, and phone service continue to increase, not decrease.  Most of the savings built into introductory packages for new customers expire after one year, and some providers limit the discounts to once per household.  That means once your new customer discount package expires, you may never get it again.  Then it’s a lifetime of ever-increasing pricing.

AT&T-backed bills also never require the company to completely wire every community for its U-verse service.  The company can bypass neighborhoods, towns and villages, or buildings it feels are not cost-effective to serve.  There are states that deregulated AT&T to their specifications and years later, communities are still waiting for service to reach their areas.  Illinois will be no different, and if AT&T determines U-verse isn’t worth the investment in large swaths of southern Illinois, so be it.

The Citizens Utility Board is correct when it predicts most of the investment will end up in Chicago, even at the expense of other parts of the state.  AT&T always follows the money.

AT&T’s Astroturf Friends Join the Parade

You have to look closely to see the connection. Who really is behind ITP?

AT&T’s friends are also writing letters to the editor demanding action, without disclosing they are bought and paid for sock puppets.

Take the Illinois Technology Partnership, which claims to represent a grand union of consumer and private interests for the betterment of Illinois’ high tech future.  In reality, it’s yet another AT&T astroturf group that works against consumers.

Their claim:

The Illinois Technology Partnership is the Illinois-based project of Midwest Consumers for Choice and Competition, a non-profit organization of individual consumers interested in technology, broadband, and telecommunication issues with state projects throughout the Midwest region.  ITP brings together industry experts, thought leaders, and Illinois consumers to foster an environment that will encourage emerging technologies, jobs, and investment, and spur economic growth on the state and local level.

Reality Check:

Both ITP and the ironically-named “Midwest Consumers for Choice and Competition” are both creatures of AT&T.  Thad Nation, behind all of these groups, invents AT&T-supported astroturf campaigns in various states where the company delivers service.  Over the past few years, Nation has cooked up TV4Us, Wired Wisconsin and Technology for Ohio’s Tomorrow, among others.  But his real day job is the founder and senior partner at Nation Consulting, a politically-connected lobbying firm:

At Nation Consulting, Nation focuses on assisting corporate clients with strategic planning in government and public relations, and managing crisis communications.

Our team has worked on the “inside” of the offices of Governors, Congressional members, and state agencies. We’ve worked at every level of government, and we have the relationships necessary to help you navigate state and federal bureaucracies to accomplish your goals. We know how government works – and we know what government can do for you.

Getting government officials or bodies to do what you want isn’t easy. Government is inherently a slow, bureaucratic entity. When you want elected or appointed officials to change policy, you need a comprehensive plan – and the resources, relationships and quick-thinking to implement that plan.

We come to you with decades of experience in advocacy, moving legislators and engaging state agency leaders to action. Let us help you build and drive an aggressive advocacy agenda.

Regardless of your industry, the internet has a role to play in achieving your public relations goals – and we have the experience and the expertise to implement a plan suited to your needs. Whether you need to effectively use social networking sites, manage a blog, conduct email campaigns or use Web 2.0 tools, Nation Consulting can help you maximize your online presence in a way that is both cost-effective and beneficial to your business or organization.

Ordinary consumers can’t afford Nation Consulting’s services so he doesn’t work for them.

As usual, AT&T’s connections don’t end there.  Many of the “partners” listed on ITP’s website are themselves also backed by AT&T — the Illinois State Black Chamber of Commerce and Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce just two examples.  Several of ITP’s partners follow Nation’s efforts wherever he goes, also ending up affiliated with his other astroturf projects.

A letter to the editor appearing in The Daily Herald signed by Lindsay Mosher, executive director of ITP, applauds the state legislature for passing AT&T’s custom-crafted deregulation bill:

This legislation will spur significant private investment, increase broadband access and create jobs for Illinois residents at no cost to taxpayers.

The legislature deserves our thanks for taking this step.

Now it’s up to Governor Quinn to finish the job and sign the bill without changes, as some have suggested.

As is too often the case, readers are done a disservice when a newspaper prints a self-interested letter to the editor or guest editorial without fully disclosing who is behind it.  Mosher could have signed her letter “AT&T lobbyist” and been more honest.  In fact, in addition to her position at ITP, she’s also employed by another Chicago lobbying firm — Resolute Consulting.  It specializes in issue advocacy as well, and doesn’t work for free.

AT&T spends an enormous amount of money carefully crafting its issues advocacy campaigns designed to convince consumers they are representing your best interests.  Wouldn’t using all this money to lower your phone bill and provide better broadband service be a better allocation of resources if, as AT&T claims, this is all to benefit consumers?

Here’s another question — if an individual consumer in western New York can expose all of these incestuous ties between supposedly grassroots consumer groups and the telecom companies and interests that fund them, why can’t the news media in Illinois?  If they only followed the money, the real story about Senate Bill 107 could have been told before it sailed through the legislature unopposed.

Now, the only chance Illinois consumers have is if Governor Quinn loses the bill.

Governor Jay Nixon has announced support for 12 different proposals from across Missouri that would expand broadband Internet access in rural and underserved parts of the state for health care, business, education and consumers.

As part of the MoBroadbandNow initiative, Missouri is coordinating efforts among private companies, local governments and rural electric cooperatives to extend broadband access to 95 percent of Missouri residents over the next five years.  Much of the funding to support rural broadband expansion would come through federal stimulus money from the Recovery Act, and those backing the Missouri effort hope a coordinated approach improves the state’s chances to secure funding.

“These proposals were closely reviewed, and we identified the ones we believe are most likely to receive federal funding and most closely aligned with the vision of MoBroadbandNow,” said Governor Nixon.

Five of the applications supported by the State of Missouri are for developing middle-mile infrastructure for broadband, which would help extend existing broadband service to additional homes previously deemed too rural; six are for developing last-mile projects which directly reach customers; and one is for developing public computing centers, which will provide broadband access in public locations, often targeting a specific vulnerable population such as low-income, minority, disabled or unemployed Missourians.

Gov. Nixon

The middle-mile proposals that received letters of support from the Governor included:

• BlueBird Media, of Columbia, which plans to build a middle-mile network in northern Missouri;
• Boycom Cablevision, of Poplar Bluff, which plans to build a middle-mile network along the U.S. Highway 60 corridor in southern Missouri and into the Bootheel;
• Sho-Me Technologies, of Marshfield, which plans to build a middle-mile network in central and south central Missouri;
• SpringNet, a division of City Utilities of Springfield, which would provide broadband to customers in the metropolitan Springfield area; and
• American Fiber Systems, of Rochester, N.Y., which plans to provide connections to several Metropolitan Community College facilities in Jackson County.

The last-mile proposals that received letters of support from the Governor included:

• Big River Telephone Company, of Cape Girardeau, which would provide broadband to households and businesses in southeast Missouri;
• Cass County, which would provide broadband to households and businesses in western Missouri;
• Co-Mo Electric Cooperative, of Tipton, which would provide broadband to households and businesses in west-central Missouri;
• Finally Broadband, of Seymour, which would provide broadband to households and businesses in south central Missouri;
• Socket, of Columbia, which would provide broadband to households in central Missouri; and
• United Electric Cooperative, of Savannah, which would provide broadband to households and businesses in northwest Missouri.

The public computing center proposal supported by the governor is being submitted by YourTel America, which would create eight public computing centers at retail centers, including five in the Kansas City area, two in the St. Louis area, and one in St. Joseph. These public computing centers also will focus on bringing broadband access to vulnerable populations of Missourians.

Currently, 77 percent of Missouri residents can obtain broadband from DSL service from AT&T and smaller independent phone companies, cable modem service from providers like Charter, Mediacom, and Cable One, and mobile broadband provided by several carriers.  Most the remaining residents have little/no access to broadband service except through satellite fraudband, which promises far more than it delivers.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KYTV Springfield KOLR Springfield Rural Broadband Initiative 8-12-09 3-31-10.flv[/flv]

We have two reports – the first from KYTV-TV in Springfield which comes from August 12, 2009 exploring the state of Missouri broadband and the launch of the MoBroadbandNow coordinated stimulus funding effort and the second from KOLR-TV in Springfield discussing Governor Nixon’s announcement yesterday.  (4 minutes)

AT&T has announced it is bringing its U-verse broadband, telephone, and television system to Springfield, Missouri providing residents an alternative to cable service from Mediacom.

“We’re very excited to offer a competitive choice to Springfield consumers,” said Kris Ryan, general manager of AT&T Home Solutions for the greater Missouri region.

Unfortunately, most Springfield residents will have to wait before the service becomes available in their neighborhood.  AT&T has only limited service available in Springfield, Battlefield, Nixa, Republic and parts of Fremont Hills.  The company has a tradition of announcing U-verse, and then slowly deploying service on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis over the next several years.

Potential customers noticed, complaining that entire zip codes in and around the Springfield area currently do not have U-verse available.

When the service does arrive, residents can expect pricing ranging from $19 – $167 a month, depending on how many channels and what type of broadband speed is desired.

Mediacom can beat AT&T’s broadband speeds in Springfield, as it upgraded to DOCSIS 3 service, permitting customers to get up to 50Mbps service from the cable company. AT&T’s U-verse tops out at 18Mbps in the Springfield area.

Residents can check to see if U-verse is available at their address by visiting the AT&T U-verse qualification website.

[flv width=”360″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSFX Springfield ATT Launches U-verse in the Ozarks 3-22-10.flv[/flv]

KSFX-TV in Springfield reports on the unveiling of U-verse in the greater Springfield area.  (1 minute)

Mediacom is the nation's eighth largest cable company, serving 1.3 million customers in 22 states

Customers across the country are growing increasingly annoyed with Mediacom, the nation’s eighth largest cable operator that scored rock bottom in this year’s Consumer Reports cable survey.

The complaints keep on piling up: unfulfilled service calls, uninformed customer service agents in the Philippines, poor quality service, and in one case, a supervisor more concerned about how a customer obtained her direct number than actually resolving the customer’s problems.

The fallout from irritated customers now extends beyond horror stories from some of the company’s 1.3 million customers in 22 states — it’s now costing the company rejection of extended franchise renewal agreements in some communities, and plenty of bad press.

Boone County, Illinois

Boone County, Illinois

Last spring, Boone County began discussions about renewing a cable franchise Mediacom had with the county for some 20 years.  Public meetings to discuss the renewal brought throngs of customers annoyed with Mediacom’s poor performance.

The Rockford Register-Star took up the story:

Candlewick Lake resident Roger McGee Sr. has been experiencing difficulties with his cable company since he moved to the gated community two years ago.

McGee, a former Huntley resident, said he’s spent more time trying to get resolutions to his cable and Internet issues than he ever imagined was possible. “Every single step of the way the customer service was horrible and mismanaged,” he said Wednesday. “I talked to Mediacom more than I talked to my wife in those three months.”

Mediacom representatives characterized the complaints as mere aberrations and suggested isolated complaints could be resolved without impacting the company’s franchise renewal.  But additional public meetings held later that summer illustrated Mediacom had problems in the north-central Illinois region where it provided service.  The Register-Star reported:

George Chorvat has experienced countless issues with Mediacom Communications, and he’s looking for relief. The Poplar Grove resident isn’t alone.

Chorvat attended the county’s second cable hearing Tuesday at the Belvidere Township Building along with roughly 20 residents to speak out about service woes and to provide input on the county’s nonexclusive franchise renewal, which is in the negotiation phase.

“You took away half of our movie channels and said it was OK because we had On Demand, but we do not and we’re paying the same price,” Chorvat said.

His challenge of the offerings provided by Mediacom was one of several problems residents said they face.

Some residents detailed months of waiting for maintenance cable wires to be buried underground. Others told of weeks without phone service or waiting at home for technicians to arrive for scheduled appointments only to find the cable company had canceled them.

Late last month, Boone County granted the cable company a one-year extension of its cable franchise, citing customer complaints as the primary reason for the short-term extension.  In addition, the county will hold a series of public meetings at three, six, and nine month intervals over the coming year to check on customer service concerns and how Mediacom responds to them before considering a five year franchise extension.

The interim extension also keeps Mediacom from using telecom-friendly legislation to obtain a franchise from the Illinois state government, bypassing local officials.  Statewide franchising in Illinois was the brainchild of AT&T, which wants to expand U-verse without having to answer to local communities.  Mediacom has the ability to hop on board the same provisions to avoid local control if local governments refuse to extend a franchise agreement.

“We need to make sure we keep some county control here,” board member Karl Johnson told the newspaper in February. “No matter how big we think we are here, they’re a whole lot bigger when they come through downstate.”

Johnson heard several complaints from Mediacom customers about missed appointments, incomplete wire maintenance, and some who went weeks without Mediacom phone or broadband service.

Springfield, Missouri

Springfield, Missouri

Cable customers who experience problems expect answers when calling customer service, but Springfield resident Nancy Walker found herself empty-handed after speaking with a Mediacom representative thousands of miles away — in the Philippines.

“I am really upset,” Walker told the Springfield News-Leader in February. “I want a local number I can call, not the Philippines.”

She finally resorted to calling the office number of a friend who once worked for Mediacom before that friend passed away.  A supervisor was more concerned about how she obtained that number than helping her, Walker said.

Mediacom disconnected its local call center about three years ago, and company officials admitted they route calls to call centers, including one in the Philippines.  Larry Peterson, regional vice president of Mediacom, said the company dropped the ball on Ms. Walker, finding the customer service she received “unacceptable.”  Peterson handed Walker his business card and promised any issues would be resolved.

For customers who do not have Peterson’s personal office number, many just have to take their chances.

Springfield’s Cable TV Advisory Commission, which actually holds almost no real power over Mediacom, thought the company could do better.

Commission member Rita Silic urged the cable company to find a way to route dissatisfied customer calls back to a local Mediacom representative.

Dave Iseman, editorial page editor of the News-Leader, opined Mediacom needs “a full-fledged apologetic jingle. And it better be a long one, considering the waiting time that can be necessary to phone in a complaint.”

Burlington, Iowa

The fact Mediacom rated near the bottom in Consumer Reports‘ latest ranking of telecommunications companies — 24th among 27 Internet providers, 15th among 16 television service providers and dead last among 23 telephone providers — didn’t escape the attention of Burlington-based newspaper The Hawk Eye.  The newspaper noticed local complaints were continuing to pour in about service quality and trouble reaching customer service.

Columnist Don Henry even wrote about his own personal experiences with Mediacom in December:

Mediacom last month took away the religious programming my wife enjoys: I guess she shouldn’t complain.

They also poked out one of C-SPAN’s eyes on Congress. The Nancy Pelosi House of Horrors remains fit for family viewing, but not the Senate Shell Game. No explanation of why and I watched both — but I’m not complaining.

We were satisfied with “expanded basic” — but Mediacom decided to improve our viewing experience by removing four channels and making us rent some new box gadget to see them, plus a few we didn’t need.

Lest you complain, you get one box free … until they automatically raise your bill a year later. Conservatives think God trumps Harry Reid, so our box went into Sandy’s exercise room. She’s not complaining.

Henry’s problems only got worse from there, including e-mail disruptions and other service outages.  He did what most customers do when their service is on the fritz — he called the cable company.  That turned out to be quite an adventure:

“For e-mail problems, press 1; otherwise, stay on the line.”

I pressed 1.

“For e-mail problems, press 1; otherwise, stay on the line.”

Burlington, Iowa

I pressed 1.

“For e-mail problems, press 1; otherwise, stay on the line.”

After maybe 10 replays, I disobeyed. I stayed on the line … and waited … and waited … until my patience wore thin enough to drive to the Mediacom office on Division Street. I talked to a rep who seemed blissfully unaware of any e-mail problems. It’s been over a day and I’m far from alone, I said.

“Well, nobody’s told us.”

Could you ask about it?

“I can’t do that.”

Could you at least adjust my bill for the lost service?

“I don’t know of that ever being done.”

You used to, when I could get someone by phone.

“Then you’ll have to call.”

Henry’s column struck a nerve among local residents, who flooded the newspaper with comments about their own horror stories, ranging from pesky squirrels chewing through fiber optic cables to tsunamis of spam after the company “improved” its e-mail service.

Phyllis Peters, communications director for Mediacom, admitted the company could improve its customer service, but decided to devote most of her attention to taking issue with… Consumer Reports‘ survey.  Peters wants customers to know Mediacom isn’t dead last in the country because the magazine didn’t ask customers about every cable provider in the United States.  She’s certain there are worse examples out there:

Peters said one reason the survey might rate Mediacom so poorly is because of the company’s ambition. Mediacom is the nation’s eighth largest cable company, and focuses on providing cable coverage to non-metropolitan areas. Expanding service over a large area means more fiberoptic cable and servers that must be monitored.

Peters said the top-ranking cable company Wow, which had top scores on almost every attribute in the ratings, serves a much smaller, consolidated area than Mediacom. Wow is the 12th largest cable provider in the country, and services parts of Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. Consumer Reports was enthusiastic about the company, but acknowledged its small size.

“We would like to be higher in the rankings. We’ve put a lot of effort into customer service, and we did add a lot of calling staff,” Peters said. “Those things have moved forward in a significant way, and it takes a while for perception to change.”

It may not always be easy to get a Mediacom representative on the phone, but the company offers the fastest Internet service in Burlington, she said. The company offers a standard download speed of 12 megabytes per second, and that service can be upgraded to 20 megabytes per second for a higher price.

Competition for Burlington residents’ broadband needs come mostly from Qwest, which offers most customers 1.2 Mbps DSL service, although the company can provide up to 7 Mbps in selected neighborhoods.

Max Phillips, president of the western Iowa division of Qwest, told The Hawk Eye he doesn’t know if the company will be able to provide higher speeds to Burlington in the near future.

“We have a long-term plan to bring higher speeds, but our business is constrained by the government model,” he said, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Carthage, Illinois

Carthage, Illinois

Mediacom has been out of luck securing a franchise renewal in Carthage because of ongoing customer complaints about the quality of service being provided to Hancock County residents.

Carthage has been without a Mediacom franchise agreement since the old one expired last June.

A proposed renewal was shot down by the city after a vote failed to approve it, citing reception complaints.  Mediacom has been asking the city for a franchise renewal ever since, but the city has resorted to four-month extensions, waiting to see what service improvements were forthcoming in the interim.

Mediacom installed new hardware in the community, which it felt would improve reception, and city officials were hopeful the noted drop in complaints reaching them was an indication of that.

But in February, complaints began arriving at the city’s doorstep once again.

Carthage Mayor Jim Nightingale said he heard two complaints right after the city council offered the latest extension.

Now he’s withdrawn the offer.

Mediacom can always appeal to the state of Illinois to seek a new franchise under statewide franchise laws, but discussions with city officials are continuing for now.

Prior Lake, Minnesota

Prior Lake, Minnesota

Communities looking for competitive alternatives to Mediacom usually find phone companies who refuse to offer video service in Mediacom service areas, because the cable company typically chooses smaller communities where such “telco-TV” projects don’t meet the minimum Return On Investment requirements necessary to build them.  Some communities served by independent phone companies or are lucky enough to find a willing fiber-to-the-home provider are in better shape, unless the cable company files suit to stop such projects from moving forward.

The community of Prior Lake, twenty miles outside of Minneapolis, and its 16,000 residents are a case in point.

Last fall, Mediacom filed suit against Integra Telecom, a Portland, Oregon-based provider of competitive voice, broadband, and television service that won a franchise agreement to provide “telco-TV” in Prior Lake and nearby communities within its existing service area.

The suit claims city officials discriminated against Mediacom by not compelling Integra to meet the same terms and conditions Mediacom agreed to in a 1999 franchise agreement. Specifically, Mediacom wants Integra held to the same requirement it agreed to in defining its service area.  Because Integra is not planning on matching Mediacom’s service area house by house, Mediacom claims they are in violation of Minnesota law.

That suit is awaiting a hearing in the state Court of Appeals expected to begin this month.

The dispute between Mediacom and the city has led one state senator to write legislation clarifying the existing cable franchise laws in Minnesota.

Senator Scott Dibble (DFL-Minneapolis), has introduced Senate File 2535.  The bill would allow telephone companies to provide competitive service within their natural service areas, instead of being required to match incumbent cable operator coverage areas.  For example, a cable company might serve a broader area where multiple phone companies provide service.  Under current state law, competing phone companies could be required to wire every area where the incumbent cable company provides service, even inside other phone company’s service areas.  Senate File 2535 recognizes the current telephone company service area boundaries as acceptable enough to proceed with a video franchise agreement.

Integra's service area in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region, which is not identical to Mediacom's service area, is one point of contention between Mediacom and Prior Lake officials

Prior Lake City Manager Frank Boyles and Senator Claire Robling (R-Jordan), both testified in favor of the bill at a recent hearing held by the state Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications. The bill was approved unanimously and now moves to the State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee, of which Robling is a member.

The League of Minnesota Cities is also calling on its members and the public to support SF2535 which could speed competition across Minnesota.

Text of Senate Bill 2535:

A bill for an act relating to cable communications; clarifying requirements for the granting of additional cable franchises; amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 238.08, subdivision 1.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 238.08, subdivision 1, is amended to read:

Subdivision 1. Requirement; conditions.

(a) A municipality shall require a franchise or extension permit of any cable communications system providing service within the municipality.

(b) No municipality shall grant an additional franchise for cable service for an area included in an existing franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area served; (2) public, educational, or governmental access requirements; or (3) franchise fees. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply when the area in which the additional franchise is being sought is not actually being served by any existing cable communications system holding a franchise for the area. Nothing in this paragraph prevents a municipality from imposing additional terms and conditions on any additional franchises.

(c) An area for an additional cable franchise is not more favorable or less burdensome if the franchisee is a telephone company, as defined in section 237.01, subdivision 7, and the area of the franchise is no less than the area within the municipality in which the telephone company offers local exchange telephone service. This paragraph is in addition to and not a limit to the authority of a municipality to grant an additional franchise for cable service.

Nothing beats an overcharging scheme like cell phone text messaging.  What originally was envisioned as a small text paging add-on has become a massively lucrative service from America’s cell phone companies who rake in millions from one line messages.  In 2008, 2.5 trillion messages were sent from cell phones worldwide, up 32 percent from the year before, according to the Gartner Group.

Woe to those who send or receive text messages without a special texting plan.  Although the actual cost to send and deliver dozens of text messages is literally a fraction of a penny, almost every carrier charges a uniform 20 cents per message sent or received.  A text-happy teen can rapidly skyrocket your cell phone bill, as one Massachusetts father discovered.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WWLP Springfield Cell Phone Bill Shocker 12-26-09.flv[/flv]

WWLP-TV in Springfield reports on a Massachusetts dad confronted with a $500 text message cell phone bill last year.  (1 minute)

Texting plans typically add a few dollars to your cell phone bill, although unlimited texting can cost you a ten spot every month per phone from some providers.  For those customers receiving unwanted text message spam, most simply pay the bill, which only adds to provider profits.  Carriers promise they will credit customers receiving unwanted text messages, and several will block them altogether for no additional charge.  Carriers claim the popular text messaging service adds value to subscribers, and frankly utilizes less of their network resources than customers making quick voice calls back and forth.

Yet prices for cell phone text messaging keep increasing.  Some carriers originally charged just five cents per message.  Yet since the number of wireless phone companies have shrunk from six to just four today, prices have increased: first to 10 cents per message, then 15 cents, and today a near-uniform 20 cents per message. That generates profits credit card companies can only drool over.  In fact, doing the math, sending 140 bytes of data in a typical text message costs you one cent for every seven bytes of data.  That’s $1,497.97 per megabyte.

Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin) has had his share of constituent complaints from those who’ve received surprise enormous bills.  Kohl is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights.  He began investigating why text messaging costs so much.

“Text messaging files are very small,” Kohl says, “as the size of text messages are generally limited to 160 characters per message, and therefore cost carriers very little to transmit.”

Perhaps even less than Kohl suspects.  Text messages are limited to 160 characters because they ride across barely-utilized control data circuits cell phone companies use to manage calls.  Because these circuits are idle or underutilized, yet still occupy part of the spectrum, riding text messages across these channels costs carriers next to nothing, and don’t bog down wireless networks.  But that staggering bill can sure bog down your budget.