I'd be preaching to the choir if I had to convince Madison readers of the total incompetence of Charter Communications.

As I write this, I'm huddling in a corner on the north side of my apartment — coincidentally the only place I can pirate a usable Internet signal from neighbors. To my total lack of surprise, my own service is out of commission for the umpteenth time. I'm hesitant to call Charter, mostly because I don't feel like sitting through a precious hour of looping advertising and clumsy automated menus. So I'm led to wonder — why must Madison, students and residents alike, be forced to pay exorbitant amounts for deficient service?

I needed a crash course on the technicalities of the problem. In accordance with state law — more accurately, a state-sanctioned monopoly — Charter can comfortably charge, well, pretty much whatever it wants.

The outdated and unnecessary law mandates that any new cable service provider must individually negotiate a contract with every town or city in the state that they hope to serve and frankly — who would want to do that? As a result, competition with Charter stands at nearly zero, with prices that are far from zero.

In recent years, Charter's dominance in the television market has taken a baby step back with the availability of DirecTV and DISH Network, yet satellite isn't a practical option for many students who move frequently or don't live in Madison full-time. But with the current state laws, the only practical competition must be through satellite, so if students aren't willing to deal with a hardwired satellite dish every time they move, they are out of luck.

Competitors in the Internet market, however, have been trying to "pass go" in Charter's monopoly. The competition-squashing state laws only apply to cable TV, so for years, mistaken consumers have merely assumed that because they didn't have options for cable, that applied to Internet service as well. In the past few years, Madison has been trying to set up citywide wireless to offer an affordable, portable and practical option to its residents. This attempt could be likened to David versus Goliath.

Mad City Broadband, one of the city's two wireless providers, offers wireless access for $24.99 to Madison residents, or for $14.99 to residents associated with the University of Wisconsin. With the click of a mouse, you can access Charter's website and order — "Only online!" mind you — their high-speed internet for $14.99 a month, but with a 5 mbps speed, in contrast to Mad City's speed of only 1 mbps.

With the same price, why would anyone want the inferior service? Therein lies the catch: always read the fine print. After the promotional period of six months is over, the price skyrockets to $59.99 per month, an increase of $44.99. Wouldn't that be a shock on month No. 7's bill?

Even with Charter's ridiculous price games, it isn't surprising that Mad City and ResTech, the city's other wireless provider, are struggling. Criticisms of their service range from its slow speed to total lack of signal in most parts of the city. The lower price for university affiliates is practically useless because the university offers free wireless in most of its buildings.

The biggest problem lies in a catch-22: The wireless service can't improve without more money to update transmitters, yet ResTech and Mad City are losing customers — and money — due to bad service. Where does this money go? That's right — Charter.

Although the state doesn't directly give support to Charter's monopoly over Internet service in Madison, it does so indirectly. Wireless signal strength partially depends on the number of access points, which are transmitters mounted on utility poles. However, many of Madison's utility poles are old and out of code. Without being updated, these poles cannot be utilized by ResTech and Mad City. As a result, the wireless service cannot even reach many parts of the city, and in the areas it does reach, there aren't enough transmitters to allow dependable service.

With a little research, one will find that the nooks and crannies of the issue are so complex it is nearly impossible to understand why Madison is still paying so much for so little. We can only graze the surface of Charter's customer service problems: obscenely long hold times, useless support technicians and missed service calls are only the beginning of Charter's total lack of customer respect.

The only way a change can be made is with a viable alternative to Charter's high-priced Internet service, yet Mad City and ResTech wireless have tried to do just that — and failed. These small companies cannot succeed against Goliath without Madison's support, as well as a major change in state law. So the next time your Charter Internet goes out, consider bypassing the whole complaint process and canceling your service altogether. The library isn't that bad, right?

Laura Brennan (lbrennan@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in communicative disorders