Wisconsin Data Shows AT&T's 'Franchise Reform' Was A Joke Now consumers get higher prices AND no consumer protection laws... We've discussed how a significant number of states passed new state level video franchise laws at the behest of phone company lobbyists, but didn't really realize what they were signing up for. Bills that consumers were told would result in lower TV prices by making it easier for phone companies to jump into the TV business, in many cases were little more than phone company wish lists -- aimed at legalizing the cherry picking of next-gen broadband deployment, eliminating local authority (even eminent domain rights) and in some cases eliminating tough consumer protection laws. The one thing the laws were supposed to do -- lower TV prices -- never actually happened. One of the worst of these bills approved by duped lawmakers was in Wisconsin, where AT&T both wrote and lobbied for a bill that essentially gutted all consumer protections in the state under the auspices of cheaper TV. State residents used to have the right to prompt repairs, saw ensured refunds for service outages, mandated notice of rate increases or service deletions, and carriers had to provide a written notice of disconnection. Not any more. Now a new Wisconsin state audit shows that basic TV prices continue to skyrocket: A new audit shows that basic cable rates in Wisconsin increased an average of 21% over the past two years. That increase came despite a new law passed in December 2007 designed to increase competition and lower rates. The Legislative Audit Bureau report released Tuesday examined rates charged by cable service providers in 17 Wisconsin communities in both July 2007 and July 2009. Basic service charges increased more than 21%, and expanded basic charges went up more than 11% over that time. Of course prices didn't drop because when TV duopolies compete, they have the luxury of engaging in non-price competition, and not having to fully eat higher programming costs. That's something AT&T lobbyists knew, yet they promised lower TV prices anyway. Consumers now not only get the same higher prices they would have seen anyway under the old franchise model, but they're getting fewer consumer protections from anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior. Wisconsin consumers can thank AT&T, state lawmakers, and AT&T's astroturf operation TV4US for all of it.
|
 | | OTA antenna boy, that antenna is looking better and better.... | |
|  |  | | Re: OTA antenna We've been looking into ditching cable and going OTA. Do you know what one needs to buy (tuners, antennas, etc) to get OTA signals? (If it matters, we have 2 standard def TVs with no plans on upgrading to HD.) -- -Jason Levine Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | $40-$50 per tuner isn't a horrible price to pay.
Also, a decent suburban antenna with a pre amp will cost you less than $100. Payoff in what...2 months ?
My build:
- Channel Master Stealthtenna 3010 with preamp $60 - HD tuners x 2 (using 2 coupons) cost = $25 to me - Channel Master remote distribution amp 3414 = $45
Channels available (including subs): 53 Distance: +40 miles -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|  |  |  | | I got frustrated with UVerse a couple of weeks ago and cancelled service. I'm going OTA.
My main TV has an OTA tuner and it's HD My 2nd TV uses a DVD-Recorder from JVC with integrated Tuner.
Few things. 1. The picture quality is AMAZING. You will never get a better picture than an uncompressed OTA digital signal. Some of the network stuff comes thru with 5.1 Audio. Cable and Satellite can't compete with quality.
2. I have a small low profile antenna called a Stealth mounted on the roof peak. Digital signals are nothing like the old analogue. You might be able to do it with rabbit ears in your house. For many or most people, you will not need a 50ft tower outside your house. This will vary and you may or may not need at Rotor. I'm fortunate that all the transmission towers are located in a similar direction so one fixed mounting works for me.
Finally I didn't watch a lot of TV to begin with and 99% of what I watched was Network TV anyway. I wasted time channel surfing and found crap to watch but nothing I was really interested in. I haven't missed UVerse at all.
I use the DVD-Recorder as a PVR. I've never missed a show that I "Want" to watch. I download episodes of daily show and colbert. I watch a few movies. Spend a bit more time with my 4yr old son.
There are so many options...
I may never go back to cable. I feel so much better without it. I didn't expect that it be such a non-issue.
Maybe in 3 or 4 months I change my mind, who knows but for now I'm not spending $86/month for something I could mostly get for free OTA.
Give it a try. Worst case you go back to cable on one of Comcasts, new customer plans and save some money. | |
|  |  |  | | said by Jason Levine:We've been looking into ditching cable and going OTA. Do you know what one needs to buy (tuners, antennas, etc) to get OTA signals? (If it matters, we have 2 standard def TVs with no plans on upgrading to HD.) the kind folks above me pretty much coverd it all. and since i assume you already have cable in the house, theres one less step!
i am seriously considering it. right now im paying $105 a month for broadcast basic, phone, and lowest tier internet. i can tos the phone back to att (ugh) drop the basic, and in total save, about $70 a month.
my main problem is i rent so i have to be very carefull how i set it up.
only thing id add to the above is the antennaweb site may not show proper results, if you get none, or fewer than you know you should, tell it you live in a multistory, it showed none for me at all untill i did that.
antenna, there is no such thing as an "HD antenna" dont be fooled by marketing hype.
tuner, youl need a "box" for each tv, or atleast some device with a digital tuner. and if you have an old vcr or dvd recorder with out one you wont be able to record to them.
but with the $ youd save... you see where im goin here 
i wish you luck! | |
|  |  |  | | I'm 20-30 miles from the stations I watch. I used to get marginal reception with a medium range rooftop antenna. When the antenna started coming down in a storm I took it down and never bothered replacing it.
I was very surprised to find an indoor mant510 philips amplified antenna worked fine for me and I'm in a wooded hilly part of the country. I figured it would be worthless but I pick up everything in the region. In the summer wind, with the leaves on the trees, it sometimes cuts in and out if located on the far side of the house. If the antenna is on the side of the house facing your stations it helps, especially by a window.
If you already have a rooftop antenna I would use it, especially if you want to feed 2 televisions. If not it might be worth it to get an amplified indoor antenna (maybe $40 at wal-mart) and a $40-50 converter box (also at wal-mart) and see what your results are.
My main point is that I've found the range of getting a reliable signal to be much better with digital. 40+ miles out then you would probably need to invest in a decent rooftop antenna and mount which is more like $100-200.
I have 4 pbs subchannels that always have a combination of travel, cooking, history 24 hours a day and a 24 hr/day childrens subchannel, in addition to the standard pbs station schedule for the area. It's actually better than cable or satellite as far as I'm concerned. | |
|  |  |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Most DTV stations are now UHF, although a few are still VHF. That Antenna Web site will tell you.
You'll need an Antenna, RG-6 Cable, a splitter (to run to each TV) and since you want to use it with Standard Def TV's you'll need two Converter boxes. If you mount the Antenna in an attic you could probably get by with that. If you want to mount it outside you'll need a mount (Like a roof tripod or a bracket/pole for a sidemount, or a chimney mount (not recommended personally.) You'll also need a grounding block, and to run a ground wire to the antenna and mount back to your house grounding rod. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
 |  MordhemLove it, Hate it. join:2003-07-10 Baltimore, MD | FTA Satalitie might be a better choice  | |
|
 VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | Is their a time limit on these deals? Can the State back out after a certain amount of time? | |
|  |  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 | Re: Is their a time limit on these deals? Can not if the lobbyists are any good. that would be too good a deal for consumers. | |
|
 gballMaster YodaPremium join:2000-11-28 South Bend, IN | wow [sarcasm] this comes as a complete surprise to me!! [/sarcasm] | |
|  Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
| Municipalities were opposed In fairness to "local" lawmakers, the municipal governments that I spoke with here in SE WI were opposed, and I think one of them said outright that AT&T had bought themselves this law in Madison. Regardless, it was totally predictable, business as usual. | |
|  |  |
 |  maartenaElmoPremium join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA kudos:1 | Really? I was SOOO surprised by this! Who could have ever expected this to happen! -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|  |  JBear join:2005-02-24 canada | Re: Really? I think those consumer protection laws were there for a reason, no? | |
|
 jjoshuaPremium join:2001-06-01 Scotch Plains, NJ kudos:3 | No kidding. A company looking out for the best interests of their customers? HAHAHAHAHAH. | |
|  SLDPremium join:2002-04-17 San Francisco, CA | Any time a large company lobbies for "competition", you know they are finding an end-around to screw consumers. | |
|  |  |  Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
| Re: Why should cabl/telco eat higher programming costs? Is it possible that Karl's point is that in a regulated rate system, there can be more incentive for service providers to negotiate hard on rates because they don't want to drop services and piss off customers, while they cannot raise prices much?
In a far-less-regulated duopoly, while collusion is illegal, they both increase prices in a little tit-for-tat game so that no matter who you use, you get screwed.
But it's also important to consider who-owns-what all the way back to the studio. Think about the gold standard of AT&T and Western Electric: AT&T's revenues were limited by regulation, but WE's prices were not. Since WE made all of AT&T's and the RBOCs' equipment, WE just set the prices high, and the operating companies submitted "cost plus" ROI plans to regulators. AT&T was a guaranteed moneymaker.
Things are not quite as cozy and locked up now, but in cable companies and content providers we don't have the transparency to see who is really paying for what. We don't have a good accounting of lineage, ownership, bundling, and back-scratching arrangements that might indicate conflicts of interest or ludicrous concessions. Vertical monopolies are bad for consumers, except the rich lazy ones. (See story on Comcast buying NBC.) -- USNG: 16TDN2870 Find your Lat-Long: Geocoder | |
|  |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Re: Why should cable/telco eat higher programming costs? I think you missed the point. The lack of competition means they don't have to resist price increases, they can just roll them over to the consumer easily in lockstep with each other.
If the market was more competitive, and margins were thin, they'd basically have to fight content providers attempts to keep raising the price constantly. Basically, they would say "No." -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|  |  |  Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
| Re: Why should cable/telco eat higher programming costs? said by KrK:I think you missed the point. The lack of competition means they don't have to resist price increases, they can just roll them over to the consumer easily in lockstep with each other. If the market was more competitive, and margins were thin, they'd basically have to fight content providers attempts to keep raising the price constantly. Basically, they would say "No." Maybe I am still missing the point, but I think that's what I meant with the tit for tat statement. And so on.
When there is a monopoly, regulation is supposed to keep consumers from getting gouged. However, the "competitive providers" theory doesn't work very well in a network effect world. -- USNG: 16TDN2870 Find your Lat-Long: Geocoder | |
|
 |  DoubleKDoublek join:2003-03-04 Beloit, WI | I initially supported the bill and contacted my representatives with my point of view, that is, it is complete garbage that AT&T has to maintain all of the physical equipment and manpower associated with what should be data lines and another company does not have to factor these costs into their overhead and can resell AT&T's services cheaper then them.
Somewhere along the way a few more pieces of garbage got added to the bill which could have stopped at data defined as digital bits of information therefore applying to both Cable, Telco and Wireless. The rest of the laws from what I read where fine. Admittedly I am not an attorney or do not play one on the internet.
We all know something stinks in this Country, it isn't just Wisconsin. Damn lobbyists! When will we ever ban pacs and lobbying. | |
|  Oxygen69Premium join:2008-12-08 Madison, WI | There is a company called Hilbert Communications, LLC based out of Green Bay, WI. It claims to be the midwest's larges "rural wholesale communications service provider", really nothing more than a private AT&T subsidy.
Troubling things have been found out Hilbert. Mainly that Tommy Thompsom (The former Republican governor) is closely linked to Hilbert, Mckinley Reserve, and AT&T. Hilbert is linked corporately with "Mckinley Reserve" (a company that has done some BAD business deals in Dubai. (Word on the street is that the head of "McKinley Reserve" has a bounty on his head from the Dubai government.)
They sent a press brief Jan 22, 2 days after Obama was elected to office, that they were creating a network of companies.
Tommy Thompson (R) (and former Bush Health and Human Services Secretary) former governor of Wisconsin is a senior adviser at the company "McKinley." Seems like maybe someone had "Inside information" & was influencing possibly to get that bill for AT&T through.
Hilbert Communications sent in a NTIA application for over $100+M ... Hilbert has been doing AT&T's "dirty" work now since about 2006 in "White space" areas.
There are multiple companies as an off shoot of the original company called "Bug Trussel" (Spiralight Network [formerly Lightpoint network]), Dakota Wireless, Bug Trussel Wireless, Cloud 1, Intelegra).
Definitely make one think about AT&T! | |
|  |  2 edits | Re: Other companies also doing AT&T's Dirty Work! Of course, NONE of this stink was the responsibility of current Gov Doyle (D), 'eh ?
It was all the fault of the GW Bush loving Thompson, who hadn't held an elected Wi office since 2001 ? ? -- 3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net 'It looks just like a Telefunken U47 !' | |
|
 | | How exactly is this any different from what the mob would do?
Hopefully one day everyone who was responsible for this goes to prison, and has their assests handed back to the people that they stole from. | |
|  | | By the constitution, a company is considered as a person, because people work at a company.
When companies are given rights beyond people (Which again, people are regulated, it's called laws), these companies become above the law. | |
|  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ | The law makers can put back any law they want; so what is THEIR problem? | |
|
 | |
|
|