While Time Warner Cable trumpets upgraded broadband services in many of the states it provides service, South Carolina and some other southeastern areas are the exception.

Stop the Cap! reader Brett writes Time Warner’s broadband experience in South Carolina is so four years ago.

“Check out the paltry speeds that Time Warner Cable offers in Columbia. As far as I can tell we are the slowest region around.  The very best package they offer, with PowerBoost, is 10Mbps for downloads, 512kbps for uploads,” Brett writes.  “How sad.”

Most Columbia customers get less than that.  The standard Road Runner package has been stuck at 7Mbps down and 384kbps for some time.

While broadband speeds have not changed, the rates have.  Time Warner Cable announced rate increases throughout the Carolinas in December, boosting prices for many services.

Time Warner Cable spokeswoman Rose Dangerfield said needed upgrades were part of the reason for the rate increase.

“The company spent $380 million in the past year to upgrade equipment in South Carolina and North Carolina,” she said.

A review of Time Warner Cable’s speeds in the Carolinas and the states of Virginia and Alabama makes one wonder where the money went, because Brett shares company with other customers across most of the region.

Shaw sets the bar lower.

Shaw Cable, western Canada’s largest cable company, has quietly lowered usage caps on virtually all of their broadband plans, while “forgetting” to change the date on their Terms of Service:

• Lite was 13GB, now increased to 15GB ($2/GB overages)
• High Speed was 75GB, now decreased to 60GB ($2/GB overages)
• Xtreme was 125GB, now decreased to 100GB ($1/GB overages)
• Warp was 250GB, now decreased to 175GB ($1/GB overages)
• Nitro was 500GB, now decreased to 350GB ($1/GB overages)

Shaw’s terms of service page documents changes implemented by the cable company and includes the revision date, changed whenever the terms change.  Not this time.  Blogger “Thewunderbar” documented Shaw left the revision date on the document unchanged, suggesting the cable company hadn’t made any adjustments to their service since July, 2010.  After publishing his piece, Shaw quietly updated their website to reflect the correct date.

Cable and phone companies in Canada have established a unique, unchecked duopoly.  They are systematically increasing prices while decreasing the amount of service provided to Canadian consumers.  Shaw’s decrease in usage limits comes with no corresponding price cut for Internet service.

At a time when Netflix streaming is attempting to make inroads into Canadian homes, broadband providers who also have interests in pay television (cable, phone or satellite) are working overtime to make sure no consumer believes they can safely cancel their cable-TV service and watch everything online.

Over the past four years, Canadian ISPs have embarked on a wide range of Internet Overcharging schemes:

• The elimination of flat rate, unlimited broadband service;
• The introduction of low usage allowances designed to trip up an increasing number of consumers leading to,
• The introduction of stinging overlimit fees for customers exceeding usage limits, at prices marked up from 500-5000 percent above wholesale;
• The introduction of speed throttles which artificially slow your broadband experience to speeds sometimes just above dial-up;
• The ongoing limbo dance of usage caps that decrease in size over time, exposing more consumers to overlimit fees, making them think twice about everything they do online.

Nobody has successfully monetized the broadband experience like Canadian ISPs have.  Even as their costs to deliver the service continue to rocket downwards, companies keep on increasing prices, exposing Canadian consumers to unwarranted bill shock from unjustified overlimit fees.  What does it cost Shaw per gigabyte?  An estimated 1-3 cents.  What do they charge you?  Up to $2.

It’s nothing short of a rip-off, and Stop the Cap! urges Canadian consumers to contact their member of Parliament and demand immediate action to ban these innovation-killing, job-retarding, unjustified overcharging schemes.

DecisionMakers: Frontier vs. Citynet, Part One  (10 minutes)

Bray Cary

Bray Cary, who runs a Sunday news-talk-interview show on his network of West Virginia-based television stations, turned his attention back to the mediocre broadband picture across the state.  Once again, the “free market can do no wrong”-host showered attention and praise on Frontier Communications for their promises to improve West Virginia’s bottom-of-the-barrel rankings in broadband adoption, availability, and speed.  Only this time, one of his guests took him to school on why Frontier Communications is not the state’s broadband savior.

In this round, Cary invited Frontier’s senior vice president Dana Waldo and Citynet president and CEO Jim Martin to discuss where the state’s broadband is today and where it is going tomorrow.

The community of French Creek can't get Frontier broadband even after promising the company dozens of new broadband customers.

Cary wears his opinions on his sleeve, and he’s no fan of the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program, believing private companies will deliver West Virginia from its broadband doldrums. That’s wishful thinking Cary can afford as he browses the web from well-wired cities like Charleston.  But if you live in a community like French Creek in Upshur County, that talk isn’t going to get you broadband from Frontier or anyone else.  Stop the Cap! has heard from residents in the community who have delivered petitions from dozens of residents ready and willing to sign up for -any- broadband service, but Frontier hasn’t responded.

Martin opines that as long as stimulus money is available, using it to get the best bang for the buck could improve service for residents from the Panhandle to the Virginia border, instead of simply improving Frontier’s bottom line.

Cary did seem concerned that Frontier was ill-equipped to deliver service to all residents, regardless of cost.

Martin argues Frontier’s broadband network will do nothing to stimulate competition and bring better service.  Martin wants funds redirected into a robust middle-mile statewide backbone, preferably fiber-based, that is open to all-comers at reasonable wholesale pricing.  Citynet has been aggressively complaining about broadband stimulus grants in the state which seem to benefit a handful of companies and projects that don’t actually result in service to individual residents.

The reality is, Cary’s “free market” approach will not deliver service to tens of thousands of West Virginians who will never get wired because of “return on investment” requirements for service in the mountainous state.  Martin’s middle-mile mentality won’t bring access to the last mile, critical for wiring individual homes, either.  But one thing Martin does see that Frontier doesn’t — fiber is the future.

There is a third way to get service without waiting from Frontier’s 1-3Mbps service with an Internet Overcharging scheme or Martin’s middle-mile network that goes past your home but never stops there — petition your local government to empower itself and build a community-owned network that answers to residents, not to Frontier’s dividend-obsessed shareholders.

DecisionMakers: Frontier vs. Citynet, Part Two  (9 minutes)

Just shy of one month after adoption, the Federal Communication Commission’s Net Neutrality rules face a legal challenge by one of the parties that helped write them.

Verizon Communications filed suit Thursday in the same federal court that in April threw out much of the authority the FCC thought it had over online telecommunications.

“We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,” said Michael E. Glover, Verizon’s senior vice president and deputy general counsel. “We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

Verizon’s lead attorney in the case in Helgi Walker, who will be a familiar face in the court — Walker successfully argued the original case Comcast brought against the Commission for trying to regulate its Internet service.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's cowardly cave-in on strong Net Neutrality was rewarded with... a lawsuit from Verizon to overturn the regulations the company helped write.

But Verizon wants an even greater shot at success, asking for the same panel of judges who ruled in the Comcast case to also hear its challenge.

“Verizon has made a blatant attempt to locate its challenge in a favorable appeals court forum,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director of the Media Access Project.

Outgunned.  Again.

The earlier decision in the Comcast case not only stripped the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband under a regulatory framework established under the Bush Administration, it derided the logic behind it.  During arguments, the FCC’s general counsel acknowledged he was likely to lose the case, and actually asked the Court for guidance on how to write better rules.

Remarkably, Verizon’s legal challenge comes after the company worked closely with the Commission to moderate Net Neutrality regulations.  The rules issued in December exempted wireless communications and were criticized by consumer groups for not truly representing a free and open Internet.

Rob Pegoraro, a Washington Post columnist, was incredulous the phone company was spending subscribers’ money fighting net policies that nearly mirrored the voluntary agreement it reached with Google last year.

“Okay, so you’re going to spend some of my money to fight a minimal set of regulations written to stop you from tampering with my Internet access? How is that supposed to make me feel comfortable doing business with you?

“(Note to Verizon: You are not only an enormous telecom conglomerate, you are The Phone Company. You don’t get to say “trust me.”)

“Then I got more annoyed.

“The regulations that Verizon regards as an affront to the Constitution match up closely with the proposal that Verizon published with Google in August–a suggested regulatory framework that many people, myself included, criticized for its minimal restrictions on wireless broadband services.

[...] “And not only did Verizon think that its proposed set of rules would be good for business last summer, it did so as recently as 2:25 p.m. Thursday, when a post on its public-policy blog favorably cited those suggestions.”

Nate Anderson at Ars Technica isn’t sure why Verizon is spending time fighting rules it supposedly agrees with either, and he produced a chart proving it:

Excerpted below are the main Verizon/Google provisions, followed by their matching item in the FCC’s “open Internet” order from December. All are exact quotes.

Despite the perceived rush to court, legal challenges against the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules were widely expected.  The FCC continues to tell the press (on background), it believes it has the authority to enact Internet-related regulations and policies.  But many court watchers familiar with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals think it is more likely than not Verizon will prevail on similar legal arguments Comcast used to win its case.

What then?

Pegoraro: “I’d like to think that it would be fitting if the FCC responded by returning to the regulatory strategy it should have adopted in the first place: putting broadband Internet services back under a simplified form of the “Title II” common-carrier regulation that most operated under until 2005.”

“But if the FCC couldn’t find the gumption to choose that more aggressive but more legally grounded option before, why would it now?”

Since federal courts ruled that corporations are people, shouldn’t that mean those corporations also deserve the same privacy rights you and I enjoy?

AT&T intends to find out at the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of FCC v. AT&T Inc., an effort to win privacy rights for itself and keep potentially embarrassing documents out of the hands of third parties.

At least one court — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes the very-business-friendly state of Delaware, agreed with AT&T.  It ruled that since a corporation is also defined as a  “person,” it deserved enhanced protections available to ordinary citizens.

In AT&T’s world, that includes adjectives — all things personal, as in “personal privacy.”

The implications of such an interpretation are stunning, and judicial activism on this scale would deliver a golden platter of new rights to corporate interests that would wipe away oversight and more than a century of accepted business law.

AT&T could use its new powers to deny requests for documents and other materials, on the principle it would violate its privacy and potentially “embarrass” the company.  AT&T as an entity could get the right to remain silent and enjoy double jeopardy protections from repeated investigations.

It would be like watching a Law & Order episode with a corporate logo propped up at the defense table.

Overreach much, AT&T?

Many members of the U.S. Supreme Court apparently thought so during last week’s arguments, judging from the astonished reactions to AT&T lawyer Geoffrey Klineberg’s reasoning.

“Anything that would embarrass the corporation is – is a privacy interest?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked. “You talk about personal characteristics. That doesn’t mean the characteristics of General Motors. You talk about personal qualities. It doesn’t mean the qualities of General Motors. [The 'personal privacy' of a corporation] is a very strange phrase to me.”

Chief Justice John Roberts was also skeptical of AT&T “adjective”-shopping, noting several examples of adjectives with different meanings from their root nouns: “craft and crafty; squirrel and squirrely; pastor and pastoral.”

AT&T is no stranger to the federal court system, pouring millions of dollars into a range of legal actions that suggest the company takes its “Rethink Possible” slogan to literal extremes in some business-friendly legal venues.  [Stop the Cap! covered an earlier California case where AT&T argued consumers do not have the right to file class action lawsuits against the company.]

At Issue: Earlier AT&T Wrongdoing

In 2004, SBC Communications (which now owns AT&T) overcharged the government to provide technology services to several Connecticut schools, under the government’s E-Rate program (funded by telephone ratepayers).  After earlier abuses in the program were exposed and the federal government was threatening to expand investigations, SBC turned themselves in and handed over documents demanded by the Federal Communications Commission.  In return for its cooperation, AT&T got to admit no wrongdoing, but did pay a half-million dollar fine.

That didn’t sit well with CompTel, a Washington-based phone company trade association.  In 2005, Mary Albert, the group’s assistant general counsel e-mailed a request for copies of the documents collected by the FCC in the case.

“I made the request because I was very surprised to see the FCC enter into a consent decree in a case like this,” Albert said. “There has been a serious problem with E-Rate fraud over the years. I don’t mean to accuse AT&T of fraud, but there were clearly [enough] problems with its billing [to the program] that it reimbursed the government.”

Klineberg

Under federal law, documents collected by the government have to be made public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), so long as those documents do not violate national security or expose certain personal, private information (typically home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, etc.)  Companies also have long-standing, existing exemptions protecting confidential trade secrets and other proprietary business information.

Albert expected to receive documents with “blacked-out” information protecting AT&T’s trade secrets, but instead she ended up with nothing.

AT&T argues the release of -any- of the documents would embarrass the company and violate its personal privacy.  It demanded, and got the FCC to withhold release of the documents and the dispute has been working its way through the court system.

The FCC argues corporations can’t sue over invasion of privacy.  Why?  Because they are an entity, not a person.

How does someone violate the privacy of a corporate entity that doesn’t live, breathe, or even blush?

Legal observers say the case isn’t really about protecting AT&T from potential embarrassment — it’s about curtailing the government’s right to request and receive documents from companies as part of its oversight process and to investigate potential wrongdoing.

On cue, Lawrence J. Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies (which receives substantial funding from AT&T), argues AT&T’s arguments have merit because if corporations are not protected under FOIA’s law-enforcement exemption, they will be less forthcoming to the government.

In other words, if you don’t give AT&T what it wants, it will bury, shred or hide important documents when regulators come looking.

"If you have to ask how much, you can't afford it."

Knology, which bought out Sunflower Broadband last year, has elected to carry forward the old owner’s Internet Overcharging schemes, charging broadband customers penalty rates for exceeding their usage allowances.

The company’s explanation for their overpriced bandwidth comes with a tall tale about their competitors they simply made up out of thin air:

Data transfer allotments allow Knology to offer higher speed service with lower prices. Unlimited, open usage plans offered by other providers typically employ network controls to slow down the high usage customers.

That’s news to us, and to their nearest competitor AT&T.  They deny speed throttling any of their U-verse or DSL customers.

While the company’s download speeds are impressive — up to 50Mbps — their upload speeds are not, topping out at a paltry 1Mbps.

Knology's pricing is nearly identical to its predecessor Sunflower Broadband, except for the $5 rate hike for its most popular Silver plan.

Knology claims they expand usage allowances based not on network capacity, but by the percentage of customers they gouge with overlimit fees:

Data transfer allotments: Each level of internet above includes the amount of data transfer indicated measured in Gigabytes (GB). The data transfer allotments are increased regularly, based on usage patterns, to ensure the number of customers who go over their allotments remains under 10%. Additional GB of data transferred beyond the allotment is billed at $1.00 per GB if not purchased at a discount before the end of the billing period. The percentage of Knology customers charged for extra data transfer beyond their allotment was 6.1% in April 2009.

Paul Bunyon, Knology's new director of marketing

Bemusingly, customers with time machines who can travel into the future and determine they will exceed their allowance for the month can pre-purchase an increase in their usage allowance at a discount.

No time machine?  Then you either pay the standard overlimit rate, watch your usage like a hawk, or potentially over-buy excess usage that expires at the end of the month.

Customers tell Stop the Cap! the company’s single, unlimited use package is “the same piece of garbage it always was,” writes Larry who lives in Lawrence.  He had high hopes Knology would do the right thing and abandon Sunflower’s overcharging schemes.

“Apparently not, and after a month with their unlimited service, I have scheduled my U-verse installation with AT&T,” Larry writes. “Even on Knology’s limited packages, they don’t provide the speeds they promise.”

Larry also says the higher speed tiers Knology offers deliver diminishing returns.

“If their uplink is congested, or the web sites you visit are busy, it won’t matter if you have 10Mbps or 50Mbps — the speed is effectively the same,” he says. “Besides, upload speed is more important these days and 1Mbps is just plain lousy in 2011.”

“Bye, bye SunKnology.”

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

Last year, Stop the Cap! told you the story of Mark Williams, the Lee, Massachusetts resident that was quoted an installation fee of $12,000 from Time Warner Cable.

The town intervened, claiming the cable company was violating its franchise agreement by not providing standard cable installation for any customer who also received electric and phone service.  Time Warner agreed to reduce the fee to $4,000 — still unacceptable to Williams.  Months later, and after a threat of sanctions from the Board of Selectmen, Williams got his cable-TV, broadband, and phone service installed for $35 — the same rate other Berkshire customers pay.

Williams did have to spend around $1,500 to bury an underground cable that runs some 600 feet from the nearest utility pole to his home.  Williams wasn’t interested in overhead wiring and didn’t mind paying the additional fee to have the cable buried where he wanted it.

Lee, Massachusetts is located in broadband sparse western Massachusetts

Cable companies routinely deny cable television services to customers who live in sparsely populated areas, where the company is not expected to earn back its wiring investment within a short period of time.  In such cases, either the customer (and other interested neighbors) split the wiring costs or they go without service.  But Lee’s franchise agreement insisted the cable company wire any customers in its franchise area who also have access to other utilities, which includes nearly everyone.

Other communities trying to get their outlying residents cable service could find providers amenable if they insist on similar clauses during franchise renewal negotiations.

Williams tells The Berkshire Eagle he is grateful for the support of his town government, especially patent attorney Malcolm Chisholm of the Lee Cable Advisory Committee for taking on Time Warner on his behalf.

“He’s a real terrier and sinks his teeth into something until it’s done right,” Williams told the newspaper.

Kent Carper says magicJack has been stiffing Kanawha County for 911 fees the Florida-based phone company has refused to collect from its customers in West Virginia.

Carper, who serves as president of the County Commission, is taking his case to the West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) with the hope they’ll order the West Palm Beach-based YMax Communications, which owns the service, to start paying up.

“There’s nothing ‘magic’ about magicJack,” Carper told the Charleston Gazette. “It erodes the ability of the 911 center to pay for the services it’s being mandated to provide. MagicJack is not paying a penny, and their position is they don’t have to.”

Kanawha County currently collects a surcharge of $3.34 a month from landline and “digital phone” customers, $3 a month from those with cell phones.  If the county wins its dispute, the costs for 911 service will far outweigh the $19.95 a year magicJack charges for its own service.

Even Carper admits, “They’re practically giving away telephone service.”

It’s a high stakes battle for magicJack, because if it loses, other counties will surely follow with demands for 911 surcharges of their own.  magicJack officials argue they cannot collect the fees Kanawha County wants because of the way the product is marketed — typically through annual subscriptions.

magicJack’s lawyers also argue the company is not selling a true “voice-over-IP” (VoIP) service, comparable to Vonage, cable’s “digital phone” products, or other similar services.

The Federal Communications Commission partly defines VoIP as a single service for making and receiving phone calls over the public telephone network.  That’s a distinction that allows most Skype customers to avoid getting hit with fees and surcharges — Skype has a business firewall between their incoming and outgoing services. SkypeOut, which allows callers to connect with non-Skype customers, is a subscription service and does not support 911 calls.  SkypeIn service requires most users to dial from their computer, not a traditional phone line, unless a customer optionally rents a phone number from Skype.

The inventor of magicJack, Dan Borislow, said in legal filings with the PSC that customers are only buying a license for the device and the accompanying software — making and receiving calls are handled by two different services that customers get for free as part of the annual license:

The magicJack is a portable device that can be used by a customer anywhere in the world by plugging the device into a computer USB port, provided the computer has a broadband connection.

Upon purchasing a magicJack device, a customer receives a one year license, with the option to renew for an additional year or years, of software commonly known as a “softphone”. The software allows the magicJack device to operate.

The softphone operating software license gives the customer the option to subscribe to magicIn, which is a service offered by YMax. MagicIn permits a customer to obtain a phone number and to receive phone calls via his or her magicJack device.

The softphone license also permits a customer to subscriber to a service offered by magicJack known as magicOut. Subscription to the magicOut service allows a customer to make outgoing calls to the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands through his or her magicJack device.

A magicJack purchaser who subscribes to magicOut or magicIn is not charged for either subscription, and the purchaser is also not billed for incoming or outgoing calls made or received through the magicJack device.

Kenawha County is West Virginia's most populous, home to Charleston, the state capital.

Billy Jack Gregg, the PSC’s former consumer advocate who was hired as a consultant by the Kanawha County Commission, thinks that’s nonsense. Gregg suspects magicJack is trying to avoid being designated as a VoIP provider because of mandated fees and surcharges that could come along for the ride.  Gregg testified few, if any magicJack customers are aware of “magicIn” or “magicOut,” and they don’t have the option of choosing one or the other anyway.

Gregg left Wal-Mart employees scratching their heads when he proved his point trying to only purchase the magicOut outgoing call service.  They had no idea what he was talking about.

Presumably, neither does the PSC which has rejected repeated attempts from magicJack and YMax to dismiss the case using those arguments.  Hearings are scheduled for March 1-2.

Carper says he has nothing personal against magicJack — he just wants the company to realize its refusal to collect and pay 911 fees affects the county emergency operations center’s ability to serve the public.

“Simply put, the failure of any provider to collect and remit fees impacts public safety and the ability of Metro 911 to serve the citizens of Kanawha County,” he said. “It erodes our ability to afford these emergency services.”

Some outside observers have zeroed in on a related matter — the very steep $3+ monthly 911 fees demanded by the county, West Virginia’s most populous and home to the state capital, Charleston.

Most 911 surcharges in the United States range between $0.35-0.50, with some larger cities across the country charging one dollar.  Some state laws prohibit fees in excess of $2 per month.

In earlier filings, magicJack’s lawyers appeared amenable to negotiating smaller payments, but not the $3+ county officials are demanding.

The Boston Globe’s video review of magicJack was more charitable than the accompanying write-up, which called its marketing “gaudy,” “sleazy,” and “crude.”  Author Hiawatha Bray also didn’t think that highly about the quality of the service he received, saying the product doesn’t inspire confidence and is not suitable as a home phone replacement.  Still, for long distance calls, a second line, or for travelers, magicJack can save you money.  (2 minutes)

Verizon's iPhone Herd Mentality: Pay, pay more, and pay again.

We’re still trying to wrap our heads around this “deal” spotted in the Verizon iPhone FAQ by Gadgetell (underlining ours):

I just purchased a new smartphone during the holiday season, but if I knew that iPhone 4 was going to be available soon I would have waited. What are my options now?

Current Verizon customers who purchased and activated new smartphones, feature phones or certified pre-owned phones between 11/26/2010, and 01/10/2011, are eligible to receive up to a $200 Visa debit card when they purchase an iPhone 4 at full retail price by 02/28/2011 and return their existing phone. Note: This offer is only available on consumer accounts with five lines or less, who are purchasing iPhone 4 through Verizon Wireless retail stores, telesales, or through verizonwireless.com.

So, if you have recently bought a new Android or Blackberry phone during the holiday season, you can turn it in and essentially get your money back.  But Verizon isn’t giving you $200 — it is paying only as much as you spent on the phone to be returned, up to $200.

Verizon says that earns you the right to go and get in line to pay full retail price for a new iPhone in February.  No discounts or subsidies for you!  The 16GB iPhone runs $649.99 and the 32GB iPhone costs $749.99.

We’re basking in the savings.  Gosh, thanks Verizon!

Not only are customers giving up Verizon’s “new handset subsidy” — often worth hundreds of dollars, they also lose their New Every Two discount and other savings from promotions like Verizon’s Smartphones Talk Free $9.99 monthly discount for 24 months.

For those who simply must have the iPhone, Verizon will make you pay dearly for not waiting.

Having owned the iPod Touch (essentially the iPhone without the phone) and Motorola’s Droid X, I can testify the price penalty Verizon wants you to pay for the iPhone isn’t worth the asking price.  Move on, there is nothing to see here.  This is even more true considering the next generation of the iPhone will likely be introduced in just four months.  What will you do then, and how much do you think Verizon will extract from you all over again to get that phone?

There is no doubt Apple’s iPhone is a fine phone, but there are cheaper ways to get one, ranging from opening a new line on your Verizon account and passing your old phone down to a family member, to finding one on eBay, subsidized in part by selling your existing phone.

Frontier used Time Warner Cable's usage cap experiment against them in this ad to attract new customers in the spring of 2009. Now they're no better.

Stop the Cap! reader Mike in Elk Grove, California reports his departure from Frontier Communications carried a goodbye kiss he’ll not soon forget: a $680 final bill made up primarily of early termination fees:

“I just got my Frontier bill after canceling (they canceled me because I ported my number to another provider),” Mike writes.  “The bill cycle was through 2/14/2011 (my contract ends on March 6, 2011).”

The bill was for $679.72.

More than 22 months into his 24 month contract, Frontier charged him early termination fees at the same rate he would pay if he departed 14 days into his term:

• High Speed Internet Loyalty Fee: $200
• Netbook Term Fee: $300
• California Unlimited Term: $200

The only reason his final bill was not higher is that he received some service credits for the partial month he was not their customer.

Needless to say, Mike is livid.  He is one of several Sacramento-area customers who received letters from Frontier threatening to terminate his Internet service if he did not reduce his usage.  When Mike ultimately decided to reduce his usage to zero and switch providers, Frontier dumped every termination fee it could find on Mike’s final bill.

But before Mike opens his checkbook, he (and any other customer gouged with early termination fees) should remember this:

Frontier cannot bill you early termination fees and expect to be paid when they unilaterally changed the terms of the contract.

From Frontier’s Terms and Conditions for High Speed Internet:

Our Right To Make Changes

UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW, WE MAY CHANGE PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS AT ANY TIME BY GIVING YOU 30 DAYS NOTICE BY BILL MESSAGE, E-MAIL OR OTHER NOTICE, INCLUDING POSTING NOTICE OF SUCH CHANGES ON THIS WEB SITE, UNLESS THE PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE GUARANTEED BY CONTRACT. YOU ACCEPT THE CHANGES IF YOU USE THE SERVICES AFTER NOTICE IS PROVIDED.

When Mike (among others) signed up for Frontier service, their broadband service did not carry any usage limits.  Frontier’s “price protection agreement” claims it will “lock in” your current price.  But Frontier violated their own contract when they sent letters to customers threatening to terminate their broadband service for using Internet service that had no specified usage limit and demanding they pay a higher price of up to $250 a month to continue service.  So much for “price protection.”

You are not obligated to accept Frontier’s unilateral action and can notify the company they have made a “materially adverse” change to your contract by specifying that you exceeded a never-defined usage limit (100GB), and that the company sought a price increase ranging from $99-250 to continue service with them.  If you exceeded 100GB a year ago, you would not have received this letter.  Today you will — and that is a change you need not accept.

Frontier defaulted on their obligations to you as a customer, and your recourse is to cancel the contract, penalty-free.

Frontier Communications’ outrageous term contract fees were precisely what got the company in hot water with the New York State Attorney General in 2009, and the company settled charges with refunds and waivers for those unjustly billed cancellation fees Frontier was not entitled to receive.  Apparently they have not learned their lesson.

Your response:

1. Send a registered, return receipt requested letter to Frontier notifying them under the terms of their own contract, you do not accept the changes outlined in their letter limiting your broadband service.  Your original contract with Frontier did not include a specified usage limit and now using more than 100GB results in a request to pay more or reduce usage.  That represents a “materially adverse change” in your agreement.
2. Under these conditions, you are exercising your right to depart, penalty-free, from your term contract with Frontier Communications.
3. Warn Frontier that any attempt to collect early termination fees or other cancellation fees will result in civil action appropriate to protect your credit rating and will trigger a complaint with the California Attorney General’s office.
4. Keep copies of all correspondence and record dates, times, and names of any representatives you speak with, as they will be helpful in any official investigations that follow.
5. Also be sure to proceed with the terms found on the back your Frontier bill to protest erroneous charges, preferably in writing.  You want a paper trail and you want to protect your credit rating from any adverse collection activity.

Mike has already contacted local media about his case, which is a smart idea.  Warning other consumers about the potential costs of doing business with Frontier is likely to only further deteriorate their reputation in the Elk Grove area.  Alienating and overcharging your customers is a great way to get them to share their story with as many people they can find, and that only makes a bad company look worse.

WROC-TV Rochester reported back in October, 2009 that Frontier was on the hook for hundreds of dollars in refunds to some customers. (2 minutes)