Stop the Cap! reader Michael writes to alert us he found AT&T’s U-verse online Account Overview now includes a section called “Usage & Recent Activity” that includes a placeholder for a future usage meter.

“I canceled my U-verse TV and bumped my Internet speed up to 12Mbps last weekend, and I remember checking to see if my account updated sometime around the middle of last week.  The old website was still in use then.  Today was the first time I got redirected to the new site, which includes this new placeholder for a usage meter,” writes Michael.

Stop the Cap! reader Michael sent us a screen shot of his AT&T U-verse account, showing this placeholder for a future usage meter. (Click to view the full screen shot)

While customers like Michael are currently being told their “internet plan provides you with unlimited usage — there are no usage details to display,” the potential for usage meters can set the stage for future Internet Overcharging schemes down the road.

AT&T alienated many of its customers in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada when an extended usage cap trial was underway.  Complaints were filed against AT&T with the Better Business Bureau over dubious marketing practices that sold customers on unlimited broadband, only to dispatch letters to newly signed customers telling them it wasn’t unlimited… after signing up for service.

Stop the Cap! learned the Beaumont/Reno experiment was coming to a close this April.

Internet Overcharging schemes are vastly unpopular with consumers.  A 2008 study found an overwhelming majority of customers (81 percent) opposed to usage limits or usage-based billing, with 51 percent willing to take their business to another provider if implemented.

In Beaumont and Reno, customers threatened to cancel service when they learned of the experimental overcharging scheme being tested.  Some managed to get exempted from the trial.

Customers routinely reject the notion that a company already earning billions in broadband profits today needs to set the stage for even higher pricing and profits tomorrow.

AT&T has spent millions lobbying for the introduction of their U-verse system on favorable franchise terms with the promise it would deliver more competition and lower prices for millions of Americans.

For customers like Michael, usage meters are the first step towards breaking that promise.  When followed with formal usage limits or usage-based billing, higher broadband bills are a sure thing.

AT&T customers should contact AT&T and put them on notice — any effort to impose usage limits or usage-based billing will result in immediate cancellation of your AT&T account.

Stop the Cap! will continue to closely monitor AT&T and we’ll recommend further action should conditions warrant.

Update 3:00pm EDT 3/23 — AT&T tells Broadband Reports that whatever users are seeing, it’s some kind of website glitch, and that the company has no plans to implement a usage meter. “We did do some upgrades to our account management portal this weekend, but we haven’t been able to recreate this screen,” according to AT&T spokesman Seth Bloom.

While that’s good news for AT&T customers, we are unsure exactly how such a glitch could occur with such depth, including wording that specific Internet plans providing unlimited usage.  Further, specifying “U-verse Internet Usage” on the tab above it seems surprisingly specific for a “glitch.”

Barring any new evidence, we’ll take AT&T’s word for it, but readers should continue to report any further “glitches” they might encounter.  If possible, include the URL with any screen shots, which we’ll happily provide to the company in any effort to recreate the page.

Dampier

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission formally introduced its omnibus National Broadband Plan to America, Congress, and the telecommunications industry.  The FCC seeks nothing less that a transformation of broadband to better meet the needs of Americans for years to come.

The 376-page plan recognizes broadband is no longer a novelty.  It’s now becoming one of the essential utilities of life — joining power, telephone and water service as something virtually every American will eventually have in their home.  But while the Commission lays the general groundwork for future regulatory policy to help achieve that goal, it ignores the historical reality that made universal service for utilities possible.

I am a strong believer in reviewing past mistakes to avoid repeating them in the future.  That is why Stop the Cap! occasionally turns back the clock and reviews history.  Railroad robber barons, telephone company monopolies, and electric service providers all abused their positions and consumers paid through the nose for service until the government finally broke up the anti-competitive trusts that limited competition.

Just like today’s broadband players, in the early 20th century, electric companies asked for and received favorable treatment by Congress.  The industry argued such treatment was required to make investors comfortable with the enormous amount of investment required to construct power generation facilities, run wiring to homes, and obtaining easy access to American streets and backyards.  Regulations must be kept to a bare minimum, providers demanded.  Anything else, they claimed, would discourage critical private investment, would create job losses, and slow deployment of service to millions of Americans.  Sound familiar?

By the time the American public realized electric companies were abusing their monopoly positions to charge outrageously high prices, the half-measures legislators proposed to control rates and improve service were often ineffective.

Just as with electric service, any broadband plan that seeks to tinker around the edges of the problem will not solve the problem.  Providers will find loopholes, lobbyists to help water down the provisions they dislike, and lawyers to mount endless legal challenges to stall reform.

The warning signs are already apparent in the FCC plan.  The agency seeks to cooperate with some of the biggest players in the industry that are responsible for what the FCC calls “the critical problems that slow the progress of availability, adoption and utilization of broadband.”

That ultimately means working with existing providers instead of creating the right conditions to welcome new players into the market.

America's broadband duopoly - just four percent of Americans have more than two providers to choose from

The anti-competitive, de facto duopoly pricing power available to cable and telephone companies has created an enormous digital divide for rural Americans who cannot pass “Return on Investment” means tests, prices broadband service out of reach for many, and seeks even higher pricing while proposing to limit service with Internet Overcharging schemes like “usage-based billing” and “usage limits.”

Where one lives is often the most important factor when considering broadband speed and service quality.  It’s the luck of the draw.  A customer on one side of the street may have the option of Verizon FiOS, a true fiber-to-the-home service providing equal upstream and downstream speeds far higher than the national average.  Across the street, a customer may only be served by another telephone company offering 1Mbps DSL with no alternatives.

Other Americans live within viewing distance of a utility pole where cable or telephone broadband service stops, giving them the choice of paying $10,000 to extend service, or living with dial-up or satellite fraudband.

Few phone or cable companies will ever consider invading another’s turf, even if customers begged.

But it gets worse.

The service customers can obtain from a provider varies even within its service area.  Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse is available in some neighborhoods, but not others.  What stops or slows service expansion?  Anything from a management decision on a whim to concerns by private investors, market conditions, cost controls, or changing revenue expectations that inhibit uniform service across the community.  Local governments used to manage this problem with franchise agreements that made approval conditional on supplying service across an entire community, but companies like AT&T lobbied their way to statewide franchising reforms that can eliminate local oversight.

The cable television industry has a better track record of providing uniform broadband service to customers in their respective service areas, but at what cost?  Time Warner Cable COO Landel Hobbs recently told a group of investors pricing for its Road Runner service can be increased at the company’s whim.  Comcast has already increased prices on its broadband service. Both companies have either tested or implemented usage limits and restrictions on their customers.

What makes these things possible?  Limited competition and insufficient oversight.

The FCC’s solution to limited competition includes vastly expanding wireless frequencies available to mobile broadband providers.  But here’s the problem.  The government will auction those frequencies off to the highest bidders, which are most assuredly the dominant industry players AT&T and Verizon.  For millions of Americans, that means no extra competition at all because their phone, broadband, video, and wireless service all come from these two companies.  The only way smaller players can compete in a bidding war is through consolidating mergers, which reduce the number of competitive choices in many cities.  If the government wants competition, it should provide incentives to spur its development.

Wall Street certainly won’t help much.  They loathe heavily competitive markets now, because inevitable price wars limit their returns.  Getting initial investment to construct new networks is problematic because investors don’t want excessive competition.  Providers howl it’s unfair for government to help their competitors, but their incumbency provides them with built-in benefits unavailable to new entrants.

The FCC recognizes the importance of broadband service as America’s next utility, but is afraid to regulate them as such.  They may have good reason not to try.  Comcast is presently suing the Commission in federal court, claiming they don’t have jurisdiction over broadband policy.  Should Comcast prove its case, the National Broadband Plan could be just another thesis for improved broadband, with no backing authority to implement its recommendations and regulatory changes.

That brings us to Congress.  While the FCC may bring its best intentions to the table with the National Broadband Plan, it’s very likely lobbying will force changes to what finally gets implemented, if anything.

The telecommunications industry never has a problem finding financial resources to hire lobbyists and spread lavish campaign contributions all over Washington.

They’ve already bought and paid for an enormous astroturf group called Broadband for America with 200 member organizations, virtually every single one backed by AT&T or Verizon money or personnel, or equipment providers who stand to earn substantially from broadband improvement.  They are running TV ads telling viewers private providers should be left alone to get the job done, something they’ve had a decade to accomplish with insufficient progress in key areas.

Many in Congress, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, will agree with BfA’s “hands-off” advocacy.  Early reaction from Republicans regarding the Broadband Plan is not favorable.  Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Florida), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce communications, technology and the Internet subcommittee, told the Washington Post he wants the agency to stay focused on bringing access to people who don’t have it.

“I am concerned, however, that the plan may contain stalking horses for investment-killing ideas, such as so-called net neutrality mandates or a return to outdated, monopoly-era regulation,” he said.

Many Democrats with large telecommunications companies headquartered in or near their districts are likely also to advocate caution.

Regardless of what the FCC recommends, Congress will ultimately control the outcome.

Here are our recommendations you should consider sharing with your elected officials:

Congress and the FCC must be willing to stand up to the telecommunications industry which is not delivering world-class broadband service.  The United States is falling behind in access, pricing, and speed.  Simply accepting the provider argument that they should be left alone in an unregulated, duopoly marketplace is not an option;

Congress must deliver to the FCC clear authority to regulate broadband service and enforce Net Neutrality.  Recent court cases argue the Commission presently lacks that authority.  Congress should take every possible step to ensure the courts this isn’t the case.

Increased oversight of the broadband industry is essential.  Why does an industry making billions in profits need to consider usage limits and usage-based billing designed to deter residential use of broadband service?  Such limits are designed to protect cable-TV revenue that could disappear if Americans dump their television channel packages in favor of watching everything online on their existing broadband account.

Congress should not stand for an unregulated duopoly controlling a service that is becoming as essential as water, energy, and the telephone.  As broadband becomes an essential utility, why is the government not stepping in when the COO of the nation’s second largest cable company — Time Warner Cable, tells investors he can raise broadband prices on a whim?  Is this the 21st century version of the Robber Baron Era?  Robust competition guarantees no executive can make such a statement.  Congress must act to bolster competition, including financial and tax savings incentives for new providers willing to enter markets of all sizes;

Wireless mobile broadband spectrum auctions do not promote competition because the biggest incumbent players are sure to win the bulk of the frequencies, guaranteeing more of the same anemic competition.  Some of the newly available blocks of frequencies should be reserved for bidders who do not currently serve the market where those frequencies are available.  Only that guarantees new competition in wireless;

Free or deeply discounted access to basic Internet service at broadband speeds should be a part of any National Broadband Plan, to ensure access to every American who wants it.

Tomorrow, the Federal Communications Commission is anticipated to release its long-awaited National Broadband Plan (NBP) for the United States.

The proposed road map to better broadband is supposed to bolster availability in rural communities, improve access in urban and suburban areas, and lay the groundwork for 21st century service and speeds.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Blair Levin, executive director of the FCC Broadband Initiative, have provided plenty of clues along the way.  But one thing is certain — the true impact of the NBP will be to pass a de facto national stimulus program for corporate lobbyists, who will spend the rest of the year loving the goodies in the plan and lobbying away the parts they don’t.

Everyone but consumers have plenty of cash on hand to pay for a full assault on Capitol Hill, bending the ears of lawmakers to deliver the changes they can believe in, and outlawing the changes they don’t.  Since those words will be underlined with fat campaign contributions, more than a few lawmakers are likely to listen.

National Public Radio’s Morning Edition asked the question, will the National Broadband Plan come up short? (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The Winners

Public Institutions: To be a health care provider, a school, or library is a good thing these days.  Some of the most generous and non-controversial elements of the NBP will be directed to public institutions.  The cosmetic impact can’t be beat.  Every elected official sees great potential from ribbon-cutting a showcase project that improves health care, local schools, or a nearby public library.  To all three will come fast access fiber connectivity, tele-learning funding, and support for educating the public about broadband.  Libraries will be given special attention to address connectivity, schools will likely find free or low cost fiber in their future, and the digitization of health care records and results will also promise improvements in health care delivery.

None of these projects will create a significant competitive impact on current broadband players, and even earmark-wary politicians will pose for the cameras to launch an inner-city library’s fiber project.  Public safety will also be provided for with plans to improve connectivity and leveraging broadband for our first responders.

Wireless Companies: It can’t hurt to be a big telecommunications company with a wireless division, either.  That’s because one of the major priorities for the NBP will be finding additional wireless spectrum to improve mobile data services in hopes they can provide increased access in rural communities and increased competition in urban ones.

More airways for mobile data will be “a core goal,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in February.  That means AT&T and Verizon stand to gain the largest benefits from expanded spectrum.  Smaller carriers like T-Mobile and Sprint will also benefit to a lesser degree.  The FCC wants to double the number of frequencies available to wireless carriers — 500MHz that must be reallocated from other uses and delivered to providers in new broadband spectrum auctions.

Those with the deepest pockets will win the most spectrum, which assures in priority markets where spectrum is in demand, AT&T and Verizon will likely outbid others.

With a mobile broadband future at stake, that guarantees added pressure on smaller players to merge so they can pool resources to compete for needed airwaves.  That could ultimately reduce competition and choice among wireless providers. Pricing is unlikely to drop either, so long as providers try and recoup their auction expenses.

Levin, in particular, is a proponent of wireless competition.

“We don’t know necessarily whether wireless is going to provide perfect competition to wired. But we do know it’s a very important piece of the puzzle,” Levin believes.

Consumers know better, especially in a country replete with $60-for-five-gigabytes monthly usage plans.

Since wireless broadband is increasingly delivered by the same companies providing wired broadband, wired providers show few signs of fear from bolstered wireless competition.  AT&T U-verse and AT&T Mobility are AT&T.  Verizon FiOS, DSL, and Verizon Wireless are all Verizon.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable are both major investors in Clearwire, a wireless “competitor.”

Equipment & Infrastructure Providers: If you haven’t bought shares in Corning, manufacturer of fiber optic network components, or Cisco, which supplies broadband infrastructure, you might want to consider it.  Both companies, among dozens of others, stand to reap millions in profits from the sale of components to construct 21st century broadband.  All of the major equipment manufacturers and their respective trade associations have already submitted piles of comments to the FCC to help identify priorities and speed implementation of the NBP.  Not only do they promote the use of their products, they also speak in terms of helping to create  thousands of new jobs for those building the next generation of broadband.  What’s not to like about that?

Big Broadband Users: Major companies like Google and Amazon are expected to benefit from improved broadband, especially if it also includes increased competition and open access to privately owned networks.  Constructing larger national and regional networks assures increased capacity and reduced pricing, especially if networks face additional competition.  To underscore the point, the NBP is expected to announce a review by the FCC of the wholesale rates big carriers charge for access.

The Losers

Broadcasters: The nation’s broadcasters are clearly the biggest potential losers in the NBP.  Threatened with plans to capture large amounts of the UHF television band and selling it off to wireless providers may cripple at least some of the nation’s free over-the-air broadcasters.  For some at the FCC, the fact that less than half of all Americans watch television over-the-air must have made their frequencies a rational target.  Most Americans pay a cable, telephone or satellite company to deliver local stations.  If the FCC reallocated half of the current UHF dial and sold it to wireless carriers, the remaining channel space would mean a far more crowded, interference-prone TV dial.

Some wireless industry advocates of the reallocation plan believe stations can get by with reduced power on a network of cell-tower-like relay transmitters delivering signals to more distant suburbs in their service area.  Reduced power means reduced interference, they advocate, although it also means significantly reduced coverage areas, especially for rural Americans which depend on distant stations for free over-the-air television.

Right now, the NBP reallocation proposal will likely be “voluntary,” meaning stations can give up their channel and move to a different one, earning compensation from a federal auction fund to pay 100 percent of the expenses involved with the channel change.  The National Association of Broadcasters, the television industry’s trade association, fears what begins as “voluntary” may evolve into “compulsory.”

Open Access Proponents: Least likely to be included in the NBP is a broad-reaching requirement that broadband providers open their networks, usually a duopoly in most American cities, to would-be competitors at fair terms and prices.  The industry has been down this road before with traditional telephone service, and spent countless millions fighting proposals that would allow consumers to choose different local telephone companies.  In the end, choice for residential phone service over landlines never really got off the ground because the terms and conditions never made economic sense to would-be competitors.

Should the FCC try to mandate that cable and telephone industry broadband lines be opened to third party competitors, that will unleash a full scale lobbying assault on Washington.  In an election year, antagonizing big telecommunications companies is unlikely.  Besides, the industry can always sue, claiming any open access mandate violates their corporate constitutional rights.

The Jury Is Out

Consumers: That’s you and I.  Don’t expect the FCC to announce large, government-constructed, fiber to the home projects for every American now living with a broadband duopoly that delivers the least amount of speed for the highest possible price.  When a significant minority of Americans believes any government project to improve broadband is really a Barack Obama Socialist Wiretapping project, no national scale version of municipal fiber is forthcoming.  Not even close.

Most of the media attention will likely focus on speed goals, cosmetic projects for local institutions, and general statements about increased competition.

The immediate benefits for consumers will be nebulous at best.  We’ll likely gain more from Net Neutrality protections.  The only likely direct benefit, should it come to fruition, is the plan to create a nationwide, free wireless network to ease the digital divide.  Specific speeds, technology used, and service areas aren’t known at this point.  But private providers will work particularly hard to prevent this plan from ever seeing the light of day.

Consumer complaints about telecommunications companies have been skyrocketing.  The Better Business Bureau reports that the most complaints the group received in 2009 pertained to cell phone providers and the cable, telephone, and satellite-providers.

Consumers are screaming for competition and they get rate increases instead.

Without clear measures promoting increased competition and oversight, American broadband will evolve into an expensive, usage-limited experience for most urban customers, and “good enough for you”-slow speed DSL service delivered by a de facto telephone company monopoly in rural areas.

Relief for consumers does not come from handing additional few-strings-attached benefits and resources to the same providers that are responsible for the current state of broadband service in America.

Hollywood: Lobbyists for the music and movie studios have been peppering Washington with demands that broadband-related legislation include increased penalties and restrictions to reduce copyright theft.  They seek a mandate that repeat copyright offenders be banned from broadband service, that consumer electronics incorporate digital rights management technology to thwart unauthorized distribution or access to copyrighted content, and increased financial penalties for those who try.

Should the FCC incorporate these concepts in the NBP, it will likely create a consumer backlash because of past memories of overzealous copyright controls that hamper legitimate use of purchased content.  It will also raise opposition from consumer electronics manufacturers.

Cable and Telephone Providers: There are benefits and risks to companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, AT&T, Frontier Communications, and Windstream, among others.

Reform of the much-maligned Universal Service Fund, which currently benefits traditional telephone customers, could be a game-changer for many companies.  Currently, Verizon and AT&T pay more into the USF than they receive from it.  That is especially true for Verizon which is abandoning rural markets by selling off service areas to smaller providers.  The USF provides a subsidy for rural phone companies to deliver affordable service at comparable pricing enjoyed in larger communities.  By transitioning the USF into a Broadband Service Fund — using the money to construct and improve broadband service — many companies stand to benefit.

Frontier, CenturyLink, and Windstream are among those specializing in “rural phone service” and could use funding to defray the costs of broadband networks otherwise built with investor money.  Verizon and AT&T could earn broadband funding for projects in their service areas currently not delivering broadband, or only providing anemic DSL service.

That has cable companies worried, particularly if the funds can be used to provide service in areas where they already offer service.  Even worse, the thought of a new wireless broadband entrant in a community already served by cable and telephone company broadband.

McSlarrow

The cable industry is also worried about a proposal to let consumers ditch cable-owned cable boxes in favor of their own purchased alternatives.

Cable companies rent tens of millions of cable boxes that they control and manage. The FCC wants consumers to be able to purchase and manage their own devices capable of utilizing the services cable operators provide, without having to pay several dollars a month to borrow one from the cable company.

Kyle McSlarrow from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association sent a letter Friday to Genachowski offering the FCC a compromise.  Offering seven points the NCTA says cable is willing to voluntarily abide to, McSlarrow suggests consumers should be able to buy such devices, but that they should not be required to access every possible service on offer from his cable members.  Indeed, such devices also must incorporate security and copyright controls to limit unauthorized access and use of cable-delivered content.

That guarantees the same success rate consumers have today with CableCARD technology, which few consumers use or understand.

Regardless of what comes from tomorrow’s National Broadband Plan, look beyond the happy talk, general promises, and visionary language.  The devil is in the details, definitions, schedules, and clear path from tomorrow’s platitudes into next year’s broadband improvement reality.

When AT&T’s U-verse system arrived in Lawrence, Kansas residents rejoiced at the prospect of finally getting broadband service that didn’t come with Internet Overcharging schemes attached.  Sunflower Broadband, the local independent cable system, tied its fortunes to broadband usage allowances as low as three gigabytes per month.  Exceeding the allowance kicked in an overlimit fee for every extra gigabyte used.

As AT&T continues to make inroads in Lawrence with U-verse, which doesn’t have usage limits, customers noticed and began dropping Sunflower.  The cable system also noticed, and has increased plan allowances.

On the low end, the Bronze plan still charges $17.95 per month for 3Mbps/256kbps service with a three gigabyte allowance .  The Silver plan — $29.95 per month — received a speed and allowance upgrade.  Up from 7Mbps to 10Mbps, the monthly limit has now doubled to 50 GB per month.  Upload speeds remain an anemic 256kbps, however.  The biggest change comes for Gold plan users.  For $59.95 per month, the company offers 50/1Mbps service with a considerably more generous allowance — 250GB per month, up from 120GB.

Sunflower Broadband's Old Pricing/Service Plan (from January 2010)

Sunflower also sells a flat rate, unlimited plan called Palladium that doesn’t offer customers a set speed.  The company cut the price from $49.95 to $44.95 a month, perhaps in response to an underwhelmed customer base.  As we reported in January, Palladium speeds do not impress many Sunflower customers.  But some local residents report speeds are improving for those moved to Sunflower’s new DOCSIS 3 platform, an upgrade from Sunflower’s older system, where most of the speed complaints were noted.

The Lawrence Broadband Observer says AT&T and Sunflower are becoming close competitors in most respects, except upload speeds:

The one area where Sunflower still lags is upload speed, which even on the high-end plan is still limited to 1 megabit. This seems puzzling, and the 50 down to 1 up ratio of is greater then any other DOCSIS 3 cable company I was able to find, and makes it difficult to use services like photo and movie uploading, file sharing and online backup services. If Sunflower ever raises their upload speeds, they might just be able to lure this former customer back into the fold!

They could lure many more back if they dropped the hated usage limits and overlimit fees.  DOCSIS 3 provides substantially improved bandwidth, making such limits unnecessary.

Sunflower's New Broadband Plans & Pricing (February 2010)

Dick Armey, head of FreedomWorks, a notorious industry-backed astroturf group, was a big proponent of Wisconsin's "statewide video franchise" bill pushed by AT&T

Wisconsin residents, in 2007 you were promised more competition, lower prices, and better service from your pay television and broadband provider.  Two years later, two things are certain:

1. The Wisconsin Video Competition Act was didn’t exactly deliver what was promised to consumers by those pushing the legislation, but paid off handsomely for the one company lobbying the hardest for its passage — AT&T.
2. You had a lower bill in 2007 than you now have in 2009.

A new audit released by the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau exposes the truth AT&T’s astroturfing friends never wanted you to know: despite the passage of a new law in December 2007 that promised increased competition and lower rates, the average basic cable rate in Wisconsin actually increased an average of 21 percent over the past two years.

The Bureau analyzed ten providers’ monthly charges for basic and expanded basic service in 17 Wisconsin municipalities at two points in time—July 2007 and July 2009—using data reported to us by the providers. Over this two-year period, charges for basic service increased an average of 21.2 percent, and charges for expanded basic service increased an average of 11.5 percent. The reported data do not suggest that competition has had a substantial effect in reducing either basic or expanded basic video service charges or in slowing their rates of growth during the period we reviewed.

Wisconsin consumers were promised something very different.  So just how did Wisconsin get snookered into passing legislation that was supposed to help consumers, but in reality just helped AT&T?

Dick Armey, chairman of FreedomWorks, an industry-backed astroturf group that heavily promoted the bill, emphatically promised the Competition Act would bring prices down.  On November 19, 2007 Armey wrote:

The Wisconsin Video Competition Act would allow consumers to take advantage of new technologies by streamlining the franchise application process for potential providers. When companies compete to provide service, consumers win through more choices, lower prices and better service.

Unfortunately for consumers, the Video Competition Act was little more than a custom-written giveaway to AT&T.  From the bill’s earliest draft language crafted by lobbyists working with legislative aides, to the big budget sales job employing 15 lobbyists and a major media budget, AT&T ran the show from start to finish according to Madison’s Capital Times newspaper.

TV4US counts AT&T among its corporate sponsors

TV4US (also known as WeWantChoice.com), an AT&T-supported astroturf group, ran television ads around Wisconsin promoting the bill.  In May 2007 the group sent every state legislator binders filled with what it claimed were the names of their constituents who wanted “an end to the cable monopoly” and competitive choice.  As The Center for Media & Democracy discovered, several people named, including two state lawmakers, didn’t support the bill and hadn’t given permission for their names to be included.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TV4US Ad Wisconsin.mp4[/flv]

TV4US ran this ad across Wisconsin in 2007, promoting “cable competition.”

TV4US’ primary press contact Lizanne Sadlier just also happened to be employed by lobbying firm Fleishman-Hillard, which “has built its reputation by using strategic communications to deliver what its clients value most: meaningful, positive, and measurable impact on the performance of their organizations,” according to a press release from the group.

Fleishman-Hillard and AT&T are well acquainted with each other.  In fact, the PR firm was instrumental in rebranding the phone company as “the new AT&T” after the SBC-AT&T merger.  To this day, AT&T has several company bloggers actually employed by Fleishman-Hillard.

In March of 2007, the Wisconsin Merchants Federation turned up at a state hearing about the Competition Act. This struck several observers as odd, considering the WMF primarily concerns itself with retail store tax policies and strengthening retail theft laws. The WMF seemed well-prepared to articulate the proposed law’s benefits, which included, according to them:

• increased competition in the video entertainment business;
• creation of good-paying jobs;
• bring (literally) hundreds of millions of dollars in capital investment to our state.

PR Watch wanted to know exactly what prompted the WMF to not only testify about a non-issue for retail stores, but also who wanted the group to get involved, and who exactly belongs to the WMF.

WMF’s David Storey told PR Watch that his group sees AB 207 / SB 107 as an economic development issue. “Where consumers have choices, not only are the consumers served, but the economy in general is served. The economy is made stronger,” he explained. “And this is all about consumer choice in the video entertainment field.”

Storey said that no particular member had asked WMF to support AB 207 / SB 107, but that he was personally interested in the issue, as the former Deputy Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Commerce. Asked for a list of WMF members, Storey responded that one was not available, but that information would hopefully be added to the WMF website in the future.

One thing that is clear is that many of WMF’s partners in lobbying for AB 207 / SB 107 have ties to the telecom industry. The Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups, which is a member of the Wisconsin Video Choice Coalition, has received funding from AT&T and from SBC Wisconsin, which is now part of AT&T. The group also offers “discounts on assistive devices for the telephone such as volume amplifiers from the AT&T Special Needs Center.” Another Wisconsin Video Choice Coalition member, the Wisconsin Technology Council, lists AT&T among its major sponsors. Fellow coalition member Women Impacting Public Policy is a Washington DC based group that receives funding from AT&T and Verizon, among other corporate sponsors.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Press event promoting Wisconsin bill Aug 2007.flv[/flv]

In August 2007, WMF turned up at a press event with other bill supporters to promote the results of a poll conducted by the Mellman Group, which isn’t a respected polling firm but rather a Washington, DC public relations firm that “develops effective communications strategies that lead people to choose our client’s product or service, join their organization, hold their opinion, or vote as we would like.” ^[1] (13 minutes, video begins at ten second mark)

In short, no matter where consumers turned during the push for the Wisconsin Video Competition Act, that big AT&T logo was always somewhere in sight.

Before the legislation was passed, some were warning Wisconsin the dog and pony astroturf show wasn’t actually working for the best interests of Wisconsin consumers, but were instead looking out for the best interests of AT&T.  Charles Uphoff is chair of the Fitchburg Broadband Telecommunications Commission, and wrote this back in 2007:

Lobbyists for telecommunications giant AT&T have been pressuring Wisconsin legislators to pass sweeping changes in the laws regulating cable TV with a million-dollar media campaign and behind the scenes arm-twisting that would make Karl Rove blush.

Under the guise of promoting increased consumer choice, lower cable rates and high-paying union jobs, AT&T is trying to steamroller bills that would prohibit any meaningful regulation of video service rates; eliminate funding for public access, educational and government channels; and effectively guarantee statewide franchises for the telecom giant in perpetuity.

Among the more astonishing features of this dubious legislation is a provision that specifically prohibits the state or local municipalities from reviewing franchise transfers. While initial applicants would have to establish their legal, financial and technical qualifications to obtain a statewide franchise, once granted, statewide franchises can be literally transferred to anyone — even politicians. Video franchise holders wouldn’t even have to inform the affected communities until 10 days after the transfer had been completed.

[…]

So how about the claim being made in the TV ads that cable rates have gone up 246 percent and the “Video Competition Act” would increase choice and save consumer millions? It sure sounds good, but these assertions are, at best, misleading. In the city of Fitchburg, for example, the basic cable rate has risen less than 6 percent over the past 10 years and is currently at $8.19 a month. Admittedly, premium packages have risen much more sharply, largely driven by the cost of content providers like the NFL Network, MTV and ESPN, but AT&T would be facing the same kind of costs if they want to include these offerings.

So if you are expecting whopping decreases in your cable TV bills if this legislation passes, don’t hold your breath. In fact, the ability of municipalities or the state to even regulate basic cable rates would be gone.

What’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t an isolated incident. Wholesale deregulation of the video services industry under the guise of fostering competition is being pushed in legislatures all across the country, backed by big money and conservative ideologues like former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a Texas Republican whose right-wing “think-tank” has been pushing this legislation since before it had a bill number. Weeks before most members of the Wisconsin Legislature had even seen the bill, Armey’s Freedom Works Foundation was trying to line up sponsors. Major contributors to Dick Armey’s cause include AT&T, Verizon and Exxon-Mobile.

Sadly, the recent trend in video services and telecommunications has been toward increasing the concentration of ownership and control of the media, resulting in fewer consumer choices and less competition, not only in terms of price, but also in terms of ideas. The opinions expressed here are strictly my own, but it seems to me that in the arena where competition is most important to our democracy and our future, the competition of ideas, the net effect of these bills will be to decrease competition through the elimination of public access as a vehicle for information, dialogue and discussion of things that matter to our communities.

Despite playing fast and loose with the facts, the astroturf groups, aided by AT&T’s generous campaign contributions to Wisconsin state legislators helped grease the way towards passage of the Video Competition Act, which was signed into law in December 2007.

But rate increases for consumers aren’t the only problem impacting Wisconsin residents.  Collateral damage for those interested in public affairs television programming is now also becoming apparent.

One of the biggest opponents of the statewide video franchising law has been the Wisconsin Association of PEG Channels (WAPC).  “PEG” stands for public access, educational, and government access channels found on virtually every cable system in the country.  These non-profit channels are provided in the public interest to give subscribers access to customer-produced video programming, local government public meetings and hearings, and educational programming from local schools and universities.  They are traditionally financed by the cable system as part of their franchise agreement.  In return for tearing up local streets and yards, systems give something back to the community by making room for these public access channels, and often also provide equipment and training to assist in program production and distribution.

The Video Competition Act was no friend to PEG channels.  By moving to statewide video franchise agreements, local communities no longer had much say over their public access channels, and the bill’s passage quickly provided a convenient opportunity to bury PEG channels, kill their funding, or outright renege on local agreements.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Hunting PEG Channels on U-verse.mp4[/flv]

AT&T’s U-verse doesn’t make it easy for video customers to find PEG channels.  In Wisconsin, the channels are housed on a website that appears on screen on channel 99, the equivalent of TV Channel Siberia for the remote control channel surfer.  From there, consumers have to navigate a series of menus on their remote control to find the right channel.  Mike Ryan, director of West Bend Community Television, discovers just how ponderous this procedure is, even for those dedicated to finding his channel.

In the case of Charter Cable, they’ve managed to go one step further and help destroy one city’s public access channels.

Funding for the Wausau Area Access Channels had been provided in part by the franchise agreement between the City of Wausau and local cable provider Charter Communications. While Wausau Access Channels served the greater Wausau area, only the City of Wausau franchise agreement provided any funding.

When the state passed the Competition Act replacing local franchise agreements with a standard state wide franchise, Wausau PEG support fees were eliminated after a three year sunset. That sunset would occur December 31, 2010. The City of Wausau has not received any PEG support fees from Charter Communication during the three year sunset period.

Apparently unwilling to meet even a three year commitment, Charter Cable’s non-payment led Wausau mayor Jim Tipple to announce Monday that the city would not continue to fund the station in 2010 because of budget constraints.

“We realize this is a tough decision, not only for the city of Wausau but for the entire community,” Tipple said.

The City of Wausau is pursuing legal remedies against Charter. PEG fee revenue had funded 60% of the station’s annual budget of $100,000.

“The City does not want the channels to go dark, but it can no longer fund them alone,” said John Jordan, Wausau Access Coordinator.

“We are stunned to hear about the closure of the Wausau community channels. It is hard to believe that residents of Wausau will no longer be able to see and participate in community television. We warned this could come with the passage of the Video Competition Act. We just didn’t expect it quite this soon,” said Mary Cardona, WAPC Executive Director.

On January 1, 2011, more stations will be in Wausau’s position. On that date, all dedicated PEG fees end as a result of the passage of the Video Competition Act.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAW-WAOW Wausau Public Access Cut 12-21-09.flv[/flv]

WSAW & WAOW-TV, both in Wausau, Wisconsin headlined their newscasts with news that the community’s public access channels were on the chopping block. Loud Volume Alert (4 minutes)

The Cable Consumer Repair Bill (AB606) recently introduced by Representative Gary Hebl (D – Sun Prairie) could resolve serious problems with the Video Competition Act that took effect in January 2008. Since then, cable companies and AT&T have moved community channels to out of the way locations on the line-up, subjected the channels to interference problems, imposed transmission equipment costs, and withdrawn a commitment to provide dedicated revenue for public, education, and government access stations.

Of course, the industry players don’t like it one bit.  “Wired Wisconsin,” a non-profit group claiming to seek cutting edge broadband technology for Wisconsin, who unsurprisingly counts AT&T as a “partner,” thinks Hebl’s bill will gut the Competition Act.

“Even though the VCA was passed less than two years ago, we’ve already seen a great deal of progress under the bill.  It’s generated real competition, helped improve prices, created hundreds of new jobs, spurred millions in investment in infrastructure, improved customer service and expanded consumers’ access to new video providers, services and features all across the state,” said Wired Wisconsin’s executive director Thad Nation.

The state’s audit of cable pricing would seem to belie Nation’s views. That he holds them should come as no surprise.  After all, Nation is the former executive director of TV4US, the AT&T-backed astroturf effort that helped enact the law Nation seeks to defend.

“On balance, the law hasn’t been good for consumers but has been very good for the companies that wanted it. Two years from now, I don’t think you will be able to say that consumers saved a lot of money if any at all,” Barry Orton, a telecommunications professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Has the bill brought about any savings for Wisconsin consumers?

“We haven’t seen it. I think the short answer is ‘no,’ ” said Curt Witynski, assistant director of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, which represents 582 local governments.

“I think the public relations effort of AT&T and others was remarkable in convincing state legislators that this law would bring about all kinds of competition, and that consumers would benefit from it. But that hasn’t been the case,” Witynski added.

Indeed, with additional rate increases announced this week by AT&T’s U-verse, the much-heralded savings promised by AT&T and its various astroturf elements have become only more elusive for the hard-hit consumer struggling through ongoing economic challenges.  Those challenges aren’t exactly the same for AT&T, which increased its dividend payment to stockholders and has plenty left over to continue astroturfing its way to statewide video franchises in other states it serves.