Suburban St. Louis is getting some new jobs and a $20 million data center upgrade courtesy of AT&T, which has announced it has nearly completed hiring 64 additional U-verse technicians and will renovate and upgrade a data center in Bridgeton, Mo. to handle Internet traffic.

AT&T U-verse has captured nearly 100,000 customers in the greater St. Louis area, which is the primary reason the company needed additional technicians.

But St. Louis resident Charles McNed isn’t positive these jobs are as good as AT&T might lead people to believe.

“AT&T is probably adding jobs through a contractor,” McNed says. “Last year I worked for an AT&T contractor and the training was horrendous and the pay was awful.”

The Bridgeton data center, in a building currently leased by AT&T, will be upgraded once the company completes the outright purchase of the property.  AT&T expects to spend approximately $20 million on infrastructure upgrades.

The company held a ribbon cutting ceremony this morning to break ground on the building renovations, and to celebrate the forthcoming use of compressed natural gas-powered service vehicles.

Bridgeton, an economically challenged suburb northwest of St. Louis, is welcoming the new jobs and hopes workers will choose to live and spend their money in the community of 15,000.  Bridgeton has been losing population since at least 1980.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVI St Louis ATT Announcing More Jobs In St Louis 9-27-11.mp4[/flv]

KTVI in St. Louis reports on AT&T’s expansion in northwestern St. Louis County, Mo.  (2 minutes)

AT&T warns DSL customers they can watch 10 High Definition movies per month... and use their Internet connection for absolutely nothing else, unless they want to incur an overlimit fee of $10.

AT&T has released a phoney baloney video for their customers purporting to “explain” broadband usage and the company’s completely arbitrary usage limits on DSL and U-verse customers: “A single high-traffic user can utilize the same amount of data capacity as 19 typical households. Lopsided usage patterns can cause congestion at certain points in the network, which can slow Internet speeds and interfere with other customers’ access to and use of the network.”

Too bad these claims are not verified with actual facts.

Meaningless statistics

AT&T’s claim that less than two percent of their customers use 20 percent of available bandwidth is frankly meaningless to the company’s DSL and U-verse hybrid fiber-copper networks.  For years, phone companies made a marketing point that unlike cable broadband’s shared network, their DSL service was never shared with anyone else in a neighborhood.  Therefore, running it at a trickle or full speed ahead should have no impact on any other customer.  The only exception to this rule comes from phone companies that under-invest in their middle mile and backbone networks.  For AT&T, that means trying to serve too many customers on inadequate equipment ranging from a poorly planned network of D-SLAMs, which connect individual customers with a fatter pipeline back to the central office, or an inadequate network between the central office and AT&T’s regional backbones.  Fiber, such as that used by AT&T’s more modern U-verse system, completely solves any capacity issues.  Broadband traffic is only a tiny percentage of the bandwidth consumed by AT&T’s IPTV video service — the one that delivers U-verse TV to your home.  AT&T imposes no viewing limits on customers, of course.

Any actual capacity crunch would only show up during peak usage periods — when AT&T customers of all kinds pile on their broadband connection at the same time. AT&T’s usage cap regime does next to nothing to mitigate that kind of congestion.  Here’s why:

Since AT&T and other broadband companies routinely claim the average use per customer is well under 20GB per month, and only 2 percent of customers are currently deemed “heavy users” by AT&T, that tiny percentage of customers cannot create sufficient drag on AT&T’s DSL network even if they opened up their connections to full speed traffic.  In reality, the 98 percent of “average” users piling on the network during prime time would be the only thing capable of the kind of critical mass needed to create visible congestion.  What uses more capacity?  Two customers using their 7Mbps DSL lines to stream online videos concurrently or 98 customers all using their 7Mbps DSL lines at the same time for virtually any online activity?

The math simply doesn’t add up.

The Congestion Myth

AT&T targets their broadband customers with an unwarranted, arbitrary Internet Overcharging scheme they cannot effectively explain to customers.

As two week’s of hearings this month have demonstrated, Bell Canada’s similar arguments for its usage caps simply come without any evidence of actual congestion.  In fact, company officials modified their position to talk more about peak usage congestion, a problem that cannot be controlled with a usage cap well in excess of the average consumer’s usage.  In fact, only a speed throttle could control network congestion at the times it actually occurred.  AT&T also ignores when its customers are using its network.  Is a heavy user downloading files at 3 in the morning creating a problem for other users?  No.  Are the majority of their average-usage customers all jumping online after school or work creating a problem?  Perhaps, if you believed AT&T even had a congestion problem.

Industry maven Dave Burstein does not, and Burstein talked to two chief technology officers at AT&T who told him wired broadband congestion is a “minimal” problem for the phone company.

Upgrades and Cord-Cutting, Delayed

Two things usage caps can do is help your company delay necessary upgrades to meet customers’ broadband needs, whether they are “heavy users” or not.  AT&T has shown itself historically to be slow to invest, and cheap when it does.  AT&T’s wireless network is bottom-rated by consumers thanks to inadequate network capacity.  The company elected to upgrade on-the-cheap to an IPTV platform that still relies on copper phone lines to deliver service that simply cannot compete in quality and capacity with Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network.  But investors love the fact the company counts every penny, even if it means inconveniencing and overcharging customers for their services, usually offered in duopoly or monopoly markets.

AT&T’s usage caps on U-verse are even less credible than those imposed on their DSL service.  U-verse is a fiber to the neighborhood network with near limitless capacity for broadband and video.  In fact, the only “congestion” comes from the copper phone lines that limit how much bandwidth can be supplied to your individual home.  But no matter how much you use, you will not affect your neighbors because your copper phone line is shared with nobody else.  In fact, the biggest chunk of U-verse’s bandwidth is reserved for their video services, which makes arguments about excessive Internet usage on that pipeline un-credible.

What AT&T’s usage cap does assure is that you will not drop that video package from your U-verse service anytime soon.  That lucrative revenue from expensive video packages cannot be forfeit without a fight, and a nice deterrent in the form of an arbitrary usage cap does wonders to keep that cord cutting to a minimum.

Meters That Don’t Measure

One of the worst ongoing problems with Internet Overcharging schemes like AT&T’s is the broken usage meter.  Stop the Cap! has received hundreds of e-mails from AT&T DSL and U-verse customers who report AT&T’s usage meter is either unavailable, broken, or is wildly inaccurate.  With absolutely no independent oversight, and no consistently accurate usage measurement, charging anyone overlimit fees with a broken meter doing the counting is unconscionable.  Yet AT&T may well try.  The company has already been sued by one law firm for what it alleges is an unfair usage meter on the company’s wireless service — a meter that consistently overcounts usage in AT&T’s favor.

AT&T admits they cannot even accurately measure their own customers' usage.

Once getting over the broken meter, customers are directed to a pointless usage-estimator — the ones that tell you about how many tens of thousands of e-mails you can send and receive under AT&T’s cap regime.  In fact, these statistics are irrelevant for the vast majority of customers who never think of sending 10,000 e-mails or exchanging 2,000 pictures or songs.  That’s because customers do not use the Internet to exclusively do those things.  Even with the guestimator, they are left checking a broken usage meter to ponder whether or not they can watch one more show or download another file without incurring a $10 overlimit penalty (or more).  That “generous” limit AT&T touts suddenly doesn’t look so ample when the company gets to the wildly popular activity of streamed video.  AT&T’s own video warns you can only watch 10HD movies a month over your broadband connection — and absolutely nothing else.  No web browsing, e-mail, or photos or music.  Ten movies a month.  Still thinking of dropping your U-verse video subscription now?

Yet AT&T has the nerve to claim, “Our goal is to provide you with the best Internet service possible.”  Really?

Thankfully, not every member of the investor class is thrilled with nickle-and-diming broadband consumers for usage that costs the providing company next to nothing.

The Economist excoriated AT&T for its unwarranted usage limits on its blog earlier this year:

The use of caps allows providers to dish out bandwidth with one hand and take it away with the other. The companies have vastly increased the capacity of various copper, coaxial and fibre lines, but artificially separate out a portion—at least half and often much more—for video which a set-top box or a broadband modem spits out as an apparently distinct service. Cable firms simultaneously push out hundreds of digital channels, while telecoms firms rely on multiple digital streams from live broadcast or cable TV or on-demand pay-per-view. It is as though the water main were divided as it entered the home and a steady, modest stream was made available for showers and at the tap, while most of it was always at the ready for a coin-operated washing machine.

Increasing speed on the internet portion, which would allow consumers to give up on TV subscriptions, is balanced by capping volume. If a consumer does not monitor usage, his internet access can be withdrawn or, in AT&T’s case, overage fees of $10 charged for every additional 50 GB of usage. […] [That] $10 charge applies whether the limit was breached by 1 MB or a smidgen under 50 GB.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Usage.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s new video on broadband usage is based on facts not in evidence and only adds to consumer confusion about arbitrary Internet Overcharging schemes.  (4 minutes)

San Francisco city officials last night remained in a stalemate with AT&T over the installation of hundreds of utility boxes to aid the company’s U-verse fiber to the neighborhood system.

Since 2008, AT&T has sought to install the metal cabinets — dubbed “lawn refrigerators” by critics — that would house links with AT&T’s fiber network and copper wire connections leading to individual homes.  The plan has been in limbo since the threat of lawsuits and controversy over whether the boxes could reduce the visual appeal of neighborhoods and harm property values.

AT&T’s latest plan, now also on hold, seeks to allow the company to install 726 4-foot-tall cabinets around the city.  That’s completely unacceptable to groups like San Francisco Beautiful, which say the cabinets block public sidewalks and attract graffiti, eventually leading to urban blight.  The group wants AT&T to install the boxes on private property or underground.

[flv width=”600″ height=”358″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KGO San Francisco Showdown Over ATT Boxes 6-23-11.flv[/flv]

KGO-TV in San Francisco covers the fracas over AT&T’s “lawn refrigerators” — cabinets designed to support its U-verse fiber to the neighborhood service.  (2 minutes)

Surprise! A Greensboro, N.C. couple woke up to find AT&T installing these boxes in their front yard. (Courtesy: WFMY-TV)

With the matter generating intense media scrutiny, local politicians have become cautious and a Board of Supervisors vote on the matter has been repeatedly postponed.

AT&T’s U-verse cabinets have been controversial in many areas where they suddenly appear in public rights-of-way, often in front yards.

In Greensboro, N.C., Doris and Dave Robinson learned this the hard way when a tractor, backhoe, and truck appeared in their front yard one morning to install a six foot high metal cabinet with an ominous warning painted on the front telling passersby – “WARNING – AT&T Underground Cable.”

Doris Robinson called and wrote AT&T to no avail, and took their story to a Greensboro television station to warn the neighbors.

“It’s just hard to believe that anyone can come onto our property, put something on the property we disapprove of and leave it on our property,” Dave Robinson told WFMY News. “It’s just not right.”

Doris added, “It struck me as being just terrible to be digging in your front yard and they hadn’t said a word to us.”

In the case of North Carolina, it turns out they don’t have to.  The North Carolina legislature passed laws at the behest of AT&T giving them near carte blanche access to easements established for utilities.  In the past, these have been used for buried and overhead wiring.  Today, they are increasingly used to place enormous metal cabinets, sometimes on the ground, other times attached to a utility pole.  Many have fans that can be heard several yards away.

In California, it will take an affirmative vote by local government officials before AT&T can install similar equipment in San Francisco.

[flv width=”480″ height=”340″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFMY Greensboro ATT U-Verse Service Means Giant Boxes On Homeowners Front Lawn 6-29-11.flv[/flv]

WFMY-TV in Greensboro shares the story of Doris and Dave Robinson who awoke one morning to find AT&T installing boxes nearly six feet tall on their front lawn.  (5 minutes)

On January 27, 1878 America witnessed the establishment of its first telephone exchange run by the District Telephone Company of New Haven, Conn. In addition to bringing the first phone service to Connecticut, District Telephone also published the world’s first telephone directory.  By the early 1920s, when America’s Bell System was taking hold in most cities, the company — now named Southern New England Telephone, had spread its network across most of the state.  SNET prospered for decades until Southwestern Bell (SBC) bought the company in 1998.  SBC rechristened itself AT&T in 2005.  It has been all downhill from there for many customers.

Today, AT&T Connecticut is the dominant phone company across the state, an unusual anomaly in the northeast, presided over mostly by Verizon Communications.  They also dominate the inbox at the office of the state Attorney General, who receives regular complaints about the phone company’s performance in the state:

In 2008, AT&T began installing refrigerator-sized cabinets on telephone poles and in right-of-way locations, often within feet of homes.  These Video Ready Access Devices (VRADs) connect AT&T’s U-verse fiber to copper wire telephone lines going to individual customers.  Dubbed “lawn refrigerators” by critics, the boxes are not only an unsightly 4-6 feet tall, they are also often noisy because of internal cooling fans.  More than one has burst into flames, thanks to malfunctioning power backup batteries found inside.

The perfect addition to any front yard... new boxes from AT&T. (Courtesy: Stopthebox.org)

AT&T’s often careless placement alienated residents, who complained they impeded views of turning drivers and pedestrians navigating sidewalks.  Many suggested the boxes reduced property values, especially when installed in front yards without screening or shrubbery to partly hide them from view.

One Trumbull man took his ire all the way to the state Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC), eventually winning noise dampening and two AT&T-supplied pine trees for the box in his backyard.

By 2009, AT&T was realizing “cost savings” promoted in the deal to merge with SBC — by laying off engineers and technicians responsible for maintaining the company’s landline network.  Service complaints soared, leading then-state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to charge AT&T was cutting accountability for faulty phone lines and flimsy service.  In fact, even as service quality deteriorated, AT&T was lobbying to dispense with service standards altogether, arguing disappointed customers had other choices.

“AT&T is literally hanging up on consumers — slashing jobs and service quality, even after violating state customer service standards,” said Blumenthal. “Our message to the DPUC: don’t let AT&T off the hook. Preserve customer service standards to protect consumers.”

In 2010, service complaints had grown so bad the DPUC finally acted, by fining AT&T the maximum amount possible — $1.2 million.  Blumenthal called it a ringing wake-up call for AT&T.

But by December of last year, AT&T had still not paid the fine, and was caught by Blumenthal trying to negotiate a secret discounted settlement directly with the DPUC, cutting the state Attorney General out of the negotiations.  Blumenthal released a statement blowing the whistle on the reported talks:

Blumenthal

“AT&T’s stalling should be stopped — and the fine enforced,” Blumenthal said. “This multibillion dollar company sought secret negotiations — cutting out my office and the public — to reduce its fine for failing to meet legally required service standards. We halted its concealment; and now AT&T should stop its delay in paying taxpayers the fine that it owes.”

“AT&T was fined for failing consistently, year after year over a decade, to fix phone lines in a timely manner. Failure to repair lines quickly endangers public health and safety, especially seniors and the handicapped for whom a working line is literally a lifeline.”

Richard Blumenthal went on to represent the state in the U.S. Senate, but his successor, George Jepsen is proving to be every bit as tenacious as the state’s new Attorney General.  In March 2011, the DPUC formally imposed a fine of $745,000 on AT&T after negotiations with the phone company, which also required AT&T to meet its service standards.  The fine was reduced because AT&T had previously made refunds and settlements with customers independent of the fine.  The company is appealing it anyway.

“While I believe the full, $1.2 million penalty was warranted, the $745,000 fine sends a clear message to AT&T that it needs to improve its response to out-of-service customers.” Jepsen said. “The company’s responses in the future will be closely monitored.”

But has AT&T fixed the problems in the state of Connecticut?  Judging from press accounts, the answer may be no.

James Bruni, who lives in Hamden, had U-verse installed in his new home back in December, and there has not been a day since when the service has worked properly.

“We have had tech after tech come into our home, each one telling a different story,” Bruni says. “When our TV [picture] freezes, our phone and Internet go out as well.”

When that happens, Bruni’s home alarm, connected to his U-verse phone line, is subject to going off as well.  Many home alarm systems signal an alert if they detect a phone line has gone out of service, a possible sign of a robbery in progress.

Bruni has kept a log of AT&T’s comings-and-goings since December.  He counts 23 technician visits, working both inside and outside of the home.  When calling customer service, he is left on hold for extended periods, and often has to explain his issues repeatedly to technical support each time he calls.  He takes virtually every service AT&T offers, but not for long.

“I have had it with how I have been treated as a customer.”

Former Bridgeport city councilman Gilberto Hernandez proves AT&T doesn’t treat the well-connected any better than anyone else in the state.  Hernandez, now over 75, was so desperate to get repeating service outages fixed, he took his case to the consumer reporter at the Connecticut Post.

Hernandez’s wife is very ill, but he can’t depend on his AT&T landline to summon help in case of an emergency because it is always out of service.

Hernandez says the answer to his problem is a new overhead line installed through the neighborhood.  But AT&T won’t pay for that.  Instead of making an investment to correct long-term problems, the company prefers short-term fixes, which often fail within days. Performing short term repairs may help boost on-time appointment and service repair requirements, but when not followed up with more extensive repairs and upkeep, the problems just keep coming back.

The Post reporter sought an explanation from AT&T about Hernandez’s problems, and the phone company forwarded the matter to the company’s hired gun — the public relations firm of Fleishman-Hillard.  After a delay, the firm told the reporter Hernandez signed off on AT&T’s repairs… four days before Hernandez called to report there was a problem.

The reporter summarized AT&T’s performance in Connecticut as spotty:

During the hearing [over AT&T’s quality of service], AT&T defended its record, saying it already paid people off for the rotten service by not charging them for the time their phones were out and for crediting them and paying other penalties to the tune of $5.3 million between 2001 and 2008.

The DPUC did find AT&T was particularly good at reducing the number of troubles reported per 100,000 customers and showing up for maintenance appointments. AT&T has met appointments for repair work more than 90 percent of the time. Installation of new service is also a strong suit for AT&T, where it showed up for more than 99 percent of appointments. The company also installed new service within five days of ordering more than 95 percent of the time.

But repairing stuff, at least within 24 hours, is not AT&T’s bag. The company never managed to put better than 72 percent of repairs back in service within 24 hours between 2001 and 2008.

AT&T Internet Rationing Board - Do More With Less!

Today should be your last day for doing business with AT&T’s DSL and U-verse services.  If you feel strongly about your broadband usage being counted and limited, it’s time to bail out of AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme, which took effect earlier today.

From this day forward, AT&T DSL customers are limited to 150GB of usage and U-verse customers top out at 250GB before the overlimit fee kicks in — $10 for every 50GB customers exceed the cap, billed in $10 increments. It’s classic AT&T Math, where $1.01 of usage is rounded up to $10.00.

AT&T certainly got off on the wrong foot on day one.  We’ve received more than a dozen messages today from customers who find AT&T’s usage meter offline, showing this message:

“We’re sorry, but we’re unable to display your Internet usage at this time.”

Do you think AT&T would accept that excuse if you enclosed a note telling AT&T you are unable to pay your Internet bill at this time?

On an ongoing basis, we intend to hold AT&T’s feet to the fire until they rescind this unwarranted overcharging scheme.  While company officials claim it is intended to protect their customers from a handful of “heavy users,” they also argue they have plenty of capacity for everyone.  The company cannot have it both ways.

Therefore, this week’s message to be shared with your friends and family is:

AT&T’s Broadband Network Is Not Good Enough to Handle Your Broadband Needs: Shop Elsewhere

AT&T’s wired broadband network, just like their bottom-rated wireless service, cannot handle their customers’ broadband needs.  The company proved that today by having to introduce a broadband rationing scheme, limiting customer usage.  Despite being America’s largest telephone company ISP, AT&T apparently cannot handle the traffic, telling DSL customers to lay off after 150GB and their “advanced” U-verse network customers to get offline after 250GB of use.  Evidently the company isn’t willing to invest some of their enormous profits to provide an ongoing level of broadband service their customers deserve to get, especially when compared with their closest cousin: Verizon.

“While Verizon is installing fiber optics to many of their customers’ homes and providing unlimited, blazing fast Internet service, AT&T admits through their own actions their network isn’t good enough to provide that same level of service to their customers — so now they are limiting the use of it,” says Phillip Dampier, editor at consumer group Stop the Cap! “If I was an AT&T customer, I’d shop around for an alternative provider that has a network robust enough to actually deliver the service customers pay good money to receive.”

AT&T’s U-verse service was touted to customers as delivering a next generation of broadband and television service that could provide healthy competition to cable television.

“AT&T wants U-verse to compete with the big cable companies, but usage caps tell us they can’t manage to do that,” Dampier says. “If their network is so great, why do they need to slap limits on customers?”

AT&T’s representatives claim the limits are intended to reduce congestion from a handful of heavy users, a claim that does not make sense to Stop the Cap!

“AT&T’s existing terms and conditions allow them to deal with any customers who create problems for other users on their network,” Dampier said. “Instead of expanding capacity or dealing with the so-called ‘handful’ of troublesome users, they have slapped an Internet Overcharging scheme on all of their customers.”

Stop the Cap! points out the irony AT&T has plenty of capacity for hundreds of television channels, but doesn’t have enough capacity to provide a worry-free High Speed Internet experience.

“AT&T’s U-verse has no problems finding space for more shopping channels, foreign language networks, and niche channels, but can’t find their way clear to leave customers’ unlimited Internet accounts alone,” Dampier adds.  “Their priorities are all wrong — giving you channels you didn’t ask for while taking away the service you do want.”