Poplar Bluff seeks $120,000 in counterclaim against Internet provider

POPLAR BLUFF, Mo. -- A counterclaim filed by the city of Poplar Bluff in Butler County Circuit Court Wednesday is seeking $120,000 in unpaid bills from Poplar Bluff Internet.

In seeking damages for breach of contract, the city alleges Poplar Bluff Internet, doing business as SEMO.net, has not fully paid the new rates for Internet services that became effective Sept. 15. The amount owed from Sept. 15 though March 15 is about $120,000 and continues to accrue on a daily basis, according to the counterclaim.

The city contends Poplar Bluff Internet has breached its contract with the city by refusing to pay the balance due after numerous demands have been made for the payment. Legal costs and interest on the amount owed also are being sought by the city.

City attorney Wally Duncan and a telecommunications lawyer, Carl Lumley of St. Louis, also responded to the suit filed by Brian Becker, the owner of Poplar Bluff Internet, who is seeking more than $1 million from the city and Municipal Utilities and City Cable.

Becker alleges his firm "has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial loses as the result of the defendants' wrongful actions." The losses include lost customers, inability to obtain new customers, lost goodwill, lost profits, attorneys' fees and damages resulting from overbilling.

The city maintains "Municipal Utilities and City Cable is a department of the city, not a separate legal entity, and therefore is not a utility company and cannot be sued."

In its answer to the lawsuit, the city denies most of Becker's allegations and requests each of the five counts in the lawsuit be dismissed because they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Count 1 alleges the defendants charge a price greater than their costs for access to the broadband network in violation of state law. Court 2 seeks a declaratory judgment stating the defendants may charge only a price equal to their costs.

The city contends "it is not subject to that law because it is not a telecommunications company and the law does not require the defendants to charge rates equal to their costs."

Count 3 alleges the defendants used improper means to interfere with Becker's business expectancies by purporting to terminate his access to the broadband network and misrepresenting the city was subsidizing his business.

To the extent the city has engaged in competition with Poplar Bluff Internet, the city contends "it has been fair competition justified by the legitimate economic and public interests of the city and its constituents."

Count 4 alleges the defendants are engaging in anti-competitive conduct with the intent of monopolizing the broadband Internet market in Poplar Bluff.

The city maintains its activities and arrangements regarding its cable television system are regulated by the Missouri Public Service Commission and the Federal Communication Commission, and therefore "are not subject to the Missouri antitrust law." The city also contends it is not a sole source or monopoly regarding either video or Internet facilities.

Count 5, which was added in Becker's first amended petition, alleges a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

The city contends it has not granted Poplar Bluff Internet "any license to use any name or mark associated with the city" and "has in no way granted the plaintiff any franchise."

Becker is represented by attorneys Paul Kidwell of Poplar Bluff and Jonathan Dalton and Brad Ziegler of St. Louis.

Pertinent address:

Poplar Bluff, MO