"This will never end well."

Stop the Cap! and our allies Free Press teamed up to expose Frontier’s usage limits for what they are — a broadband ripoff.

KOVR-TV in Sacramento ran an excellent piece on Frontier’s latest embarrassing screw-up: driving their declining landline broadband customers away with unjustified and arbitrary usage caps.

One new piece of the story: Frontier could bring its usage rationing sideshow to a community near you.  As Stop the Cap! informed readers from the beginning, the company has quietly been tracking customers’ usage, looking for outliers they can suggest are using too much.  Now the company says it is ready to drop the hammer on heavy users.

Stephanie Beasly, Communications Manager — Frontier Communications:

“The company letters were sent to customers that are using an excessive amount of the network. Well beyond any reasonable amount for an average user and significant enough to negatively affect other customers’ user experience.

The letters are meant to communicate to these customers that their usage is in excess and we would like to work with them to adjust their plan or their usage. In most cases our customers were not aware of their usage patterns and are willing to work with us to adjust their plans to fit their lifestyles. We do not have a customer capacity on our network. We are looking to work with these customers to help prevent degradation on our network to ensure the customer experience.

The pricing structure was put in place to help us maintain the network experience for all customers. If you choose to use a significant amount of bandwidth we believe you should pay for the service accordingly.

The letters were sent to four markets across the company. We routinely review network usage patterns and these users jumped out as consuming an inordinate amount of bandwidth, enough to negatively affect other customers’ user experience.

All of Frontier markets are reviewed for usage patterns as the markets receiving the letters were reviewed. These specific markets were not targeted.

The customers using an excessive amount of data negatively impact the network for other users. Preventing us from providing adequate bandwidth to all of our users during peak and non-peak times.”

There is less and less to like about Frontier Communications, despite the fact they plan to deliver broadband service to rural Americans unlikely to see it from anyone else.  We’re glad someone is willing to provide the service, but 1-3Mbps broadband with arbitrary usage limits and potentially confiscatory pricing ($250 a month for residential customers), is a trade the devil might make.

Stop the Cap! will continue to organize opposition to Frontier’s foolish pricing schemes wherever they appear.  We will help customers find an alternate provider wherever possible, preferably one that remembers a customer should be treated like gold, not mined for it.

In suburban Sacramento, we highly recommend SureWest — a fiber-to-the-home service provider that not only has no Internet Overcharging scheme, but provides service at speeds that frankly embarrass Frontier’s last-century DSL.  They will even cover up to $200 of any early cancellation fee Frontier charges (and if Frontier tries, we want to know about it).

Our reader, Mr. Brown, was pleasantly surprised to find that SureWest’s speeds just blow Frontier out of the water.  He’s saying goodbye to his 6/0.5Mbps DSL line from Frontier and hello to 25/25Mbps service from SureWest that will also save him $10 a month!  He is also happy to see the back of Frontier’s Overcharging Nanny telling him to get off the Internet.

“[These caps] are a slippery slope and Internet providers need to know that action such as these will result in lost profits,” Mr. Brown wrote on KOVR’s website.  Departing customers typically drop -all- of their Frontier services, costing the company landline revenue as well.

Indeed, Frontier continues to lose more landline customers than its adds, and bungling policies like overcharging for Internet service will only accelerate the departure of angry customers.

Unfortunately, Frontier’s failures extend way beyond their broadband service.

The golden parachute for some, just not for you.

Frontier’s way of doing business has:

• given customers one more reason to cancel their landline service;
• ruined a fiber-to-the-home service that a child should be able to market successfully;
• irritated subscribers with “price protection agreements” that are little more than tricks and traps — delivering all of the protection to Frontier’s bottom line and making you pay the price;
• destroyed what few reasons remain for customers to waste their time with DSL broadband wherever cable or municipal providers exist;
• delivered big dividends and results only to shareholders, siphoning away important financial resources needed to upgrade their facilities.

In Everett, Washington Frontier cannot even manage the steady flow of customers canceling FiOS video service after news of a shocking $30 a month rate increase.  After telling customers they should “upgrade” their Frontier service to DirecTV satellite, those customers that tried encountered news that DirecTV never heard of the promotion Frontier was offering:

Two hours on the phone, six customer service people and a disconnected call — it wasn’t the introduction to DirecTV that one local man had hoped.

A FiOS television customer, Rick Wright sought to take advantage of an offer made last week by Frontier Communications and its partner, DirecTV.

[...]When Wright called initially, the Frontier customer service person was familiar with Frontier’s offer and transferred Wright to DirecTV to get an installation date before cancelling his FiOS TV service. At DirecTV, Wright spoke to six people over a two-hour span before being disconnected. Wright called back to DirecTV the following day only to be told that he was misinformed about the offer. Frontier spokeswoman Stephanie Beasly said Thursday that she was taking care of Wright’s problem.

On Friday, more than a week after Frontier first announced its new offer, Wright said his television service still remained up in the air. Several other FiOS television customers in Snohomish County reported difficulty in getting the free DirecTV offer.

Late last week, Frontier acknowledged some miscommunication between the company and its partner, DirecTV. On Thursday, Beasly said she believed those issues had been resolved. She did not return a request for further information Friday.

DirecTV spokeswoman Jade Ekstedt suggested in an e-mail that FiOS customers should contact Frontier directly for assistance.

“The offer … is a valid Frontier Communications promotion that includes DirecTV service, and DirecTV always works with its partners on valid offers that they introduce into market,” Ekstedt wrote, when asked whether DirecTV is honoring Frontier’s offer.

Complaints are arriving at a steady pace, reports the Washington State Attorney General’s office.

This is a story that never ends well.  But don’t worry — the executives responsible for the notorious bungling have their spots on the compensation lifeboats already reserved.  Too bad customers will likely go down with the ship.

KOVR-TV in Sacramento worked with Stop the Cap! and Free Press to develop this story about Frontier’s unjustified Internet Overcharging schemes.  (4 minutes)

Just a week after exposing serious insufficiencies in a 911 emergency services database, a report from a Syracuse, New York television station finds Time Warner Cable’s “Digital Phone” service has a new problem — incoming calls increasingly are not getting through.

Callers using Verizon, Frontier, or cell phone lines are getting recorded messages indicating “all circuits are busy” when trying to reach customers using the cable company’s Voice Over IP phone service.  Time Warner officials are well aware of the problem.

The cable company tells WSYR-TV the problem is on inbound calls only, and is being caused by an unusual spike in the volume of calls to the company’s customers.  When all incoming lines are in use, callers will hear a recorded message.

The company says it is working to expand incoming call capacity in the next week to ten days, and until then advises callers to simply keep trying — once another customer hangs up, a line will be available for your call.

Time Warner says they routinely expand call capacity based on predicted call volumes, but this winter the number of inbound calls went beyond expectations.  Time Warner bundles its “digital phone” service with cable and broadband packages, and has picked up a significant percentage of customers who have cut the cord of their traditional phone company.

WSYR-TV in Syracuse covers Time Warner’s latest glitch — problems with their ‘Digital Phone’ service.  (Warning: Loud Volume) (2 minutes)

One of the biggest impediments to freeing up space on cable television systems is the amount of analog television programming viewers still watch over televisions not connected to set top boxes.  Time Warner Cable customers, already weary from paying $7 or more a month per television to rent digital boxes could eventually be in luck, if they own certain televisions made by Sony or Samsung.

The cable operator announced at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show it would begin testing delivering cable television directly to some television sets equipped to receive the Internet.

Time Warner Cable’s test of IPTV would deliver the cable lineup over its broadband network, which removes the need for an expensive and unsightly cable box.

Since the cable company would only deliver the channels customers were authorized to receive, boxes with complicated digital tuners and encryption schemes would be unnecessary.  For the first time in years, consumers could once again get the full cable lineup just by plugging a single cable into the back of their television.  No boxes, no TV set remotes rendered useless, no cableCARDs, and no more tangled cables behind the set.

The company could also eventually dump their DVR boxes, which require regular service to maintain and replace worn out hard drives.  The future of DVR’s is “cloud storage,” — your recordings would be stored at the cable company on their equipment, ready for on-demand access.

Could the days of the set top box be numbered?

The new IPTV service can also deliver advanced graphics and provide better on-screen programming guides, and even open up the potential to integrate Internet applications with the television experience.

IPTV already exists today with AT&T’s U-verse, which delivers all of its video programming over the same bandwidth their phone and broadband services rely on.  But U-verse still has a box attached to each television in the home.

Consumers could end up saving plenty if they got rid of expensive rented cable equipment.

But there are some downsides — the biggest being the currently limited number of televisions equipped to handle Time Warner’s proposed implementation of IPTV.

IPTV has often also opened the door to concerns from content producers about stream security — could a consumer capture perfect digital copies of movies over the cable company’s IPTV network?  And what happens politically if the cable company tries to deliver unlimited cable TV over the same broadband network it tried to limit in the past.

Cable providers and phone companies are trying to keep video subscribers happy in hopes they won’t drop service.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable both announced last week they are trying to build virtual cable systems that would deliver their channel lineups live to tablet computers, starting over home Wi-Fi networks.  Verizon and AT&T are also working on similar features.

Frontier's Fiber Fantasies

Frontier FiOS is the fiber-to-home network that gets no respect, at least from the company that now runs it.

What Verizon considers its crown jewel, Frontier Communications considers an afterthought. Since buying up several million landlines from Verizon, Frontier has reluctantly adopted the fiber-to-the-home service already up and running in a handful of areas Verizon sold off.

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter said Frontier would not increase pricing on its services, in fact stating they had not had a price increase in several years.  But just months after winning approval of the deal with Verizon, Frontier stunned customers and regulators with one of the largest rate increases ever seen in the cable television industry: a $30 monthly increase for basic cable.

Understandably, angry customers have been calling Frontier in droves demanding an explanation.

Stop the Cap! reader Betsy was floored when a Frontier representative actually suggested to her its FiOS network wasn’t worth the trouble, and the representative was telling all of the customers calling they should “upgrade” to satellite TV instead.

“How do you even respond to that?  I thought I heard her wrong — I had the speakerphone on, but after the Frontier rep said it, my 87 year old mother who was listening hollered ‘that’s a bunch of bull****’ from the other room,’” Betsy shares.

“My mother almost never swears,” Betsy tells Stop the Cap! “But she was living with us when our family endured satellite’s rain fade, the neighbor’s trees, the picture freezes, and the equipment issues for almost ten years — why would we go back to that?”

In fact, it was Verizon’s FiOS network which attracted the Washington State family to take the satellite dish off the roof and toss it.  So it came as quite a shock to have a Frontier representative try and get her to rip a state of the art fiber network out to go back to DirecTV.

Frontier wants their customers to give up on this...

“Does anyone at this company have a clue what they are doing?  Using their logic, we should go back to dial or hand crank telephones,” Betsy concludes.

We wondered if this was a fluke, but then we found Frontier telling customers nearly the same thing in Ft. Wayne, Ind.

The Journal-Gazette reports Frontier’s rate hike in the Pacific Northwest foreshadowed similar rate hikes likely in the midwestern city that is Frontier’s second largest market, behind Rochester, N.Y.

Frontier Communications FiOS cable customers could be facing a monthly increase of $12 to $30 in coming weeks.

Many of the affected subscribers have a $99 bundle for monthly TV, telephone and Internet services. As an alternative, Frontier will offer DirecTV satellite service free for the rest of the year for customers paying for telephone and Internet, a spokesman said Wednesday.

“We will be making more information available by Tuesday of next week,” said Matthew Kelley, adding that existing customer contracts will be honored.

“With DirecTV, it really is a chance to get three services for the price of two. The channel lineups are pretty comparable.”

DirecTV offers more than 200 channels, Kelley said.

...and "upgrade" to this instead.

“Don’t sign me up,” Betsy writes when we showed her the Journal article.  “Channel lineups don’t mean much when you can’t watch them.”

Betsy’s satellite dish took a beating not only from the weather and efforts to find a clear view to the sky, but also from some birds advertising for a mate.

“The woodpeckers just loved to attack the dish — the jack-hammering sound could be heard all over the neighborhood when they got going,” she said.

Frontier’s Kelley admitted the company is small potatoes in the cable world, and simply can’t compete for good programming prices.

But even those of us at Stop the Cap! know that smaller players need not negotiate programming contracts themselves — they can join one of several groups that pool smaller providers together to grab substantial volume discounts.  Municipal players manage to find reasonable cable programming prices, but a multi-state corporate player like Frontier apparently cannot.

Bruce Getts, business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 723, shrugged off Frontier’s FiOS failures.

Getts, whose union represents 700 installers, repair technicians, customer service representatives and dispatchers at Frontier told the newspaper more people are going online to watch TV anyway, so the impact of the price hike might well become moot.

Unfortunately, Frontier is the same company testing an Internet Overcharging scheme in the Sacramento area that makes online viewing an expensive proposition, even more expensive than Frontier’s FiOS rate hikes.

“I think people will rue the day they let these bozos take over our phone service,” Betsy says.  “It looks like our family has a reason to cancel service with Frontier and head to cable.”

After an outpouring of complaints from UK mobile data customers, T-Mobile’s UK division has announced it is backing off implementing ‘new and improved’ usage caps of 500MB per month, down from the 1-3GB customers used to enjoy.  But the change of heart will only apply to existing customers.  New customers will find themselves second class citizens of the T-Mobile family — stuck with a 500MB allowance other customers won’t have to cope with.

The company claims it changed its mind after hearing from customers, but we suspect the real reason for the sudden change was word the British regulator OFCOM was considering an investigation, suggesting T-Mobile could have violated its own contract with customers by not providing 30 days of advance notice.

There were also reports angered customers seeking an early end to their contract were meeting resistance from T-Mobile’s customer relations department.  Customers who quit early face steep early cancellation penalties, despite the fact they should be waived if a mobile provider materially changes the service consumers thought they were getting when they signed up.

Another object lesson learned: Internet Overcharging schemes often start with “generous” allowances that some providers will lower if it means reducing demand on their networks, without ever bothering to lower prices for customers.

Virgin Mobile has begun notifying their Broadband2Go customers of how they plan to continue delivering “an outstanding customer experience”: by throttling the speeds of any customer who exceeds 5GB of usage per month.

Many Virgin Mobile customers have been in touch with Stop the Cap! about they feel is bait and switch pricing engaged by Sprint’s prepaid mobile division.  At issue — customers who invested $75-150 in equipment to sign up for a service they were sold on being “unlimited.”  Virgin Mobile made the “unlimited” part of its service the focus of its marketing.

The company characterizes the decision to adopt an Internet Overcharging scheme “a difficult choice,” but it’s one that that will ultimately help the company’s bottom line while costing many of their customers a substantial amount of money for a service they might never have purchased had they known it was going to be limited.

As is the case with almost every Internet Overcharging scheme we’ve seen, the same marketing that promised an “unlimited” experience now promises that such usage limits won’t impact most customers.  In fact, the company’s notification states, “you can send over 500,000 e-mails or browse the web for 250 hours a month!”  Of course, nobody except spammers send that much e-mail, so that kind of boasting is ultimately meaningless to customers.

What is more meaningful is that Virgin’s new 5GB cap will effectively mean customers have to heavily ration their online experience, especially if it includes multimedia.  In fact, customers won’t be able to watch more than a handful of HD movies using the service.  That’s a $40 movie pass some customers would have passed up had they known it came with limits.

This notification arrived in our e-mail box this morning. Despite the spin, the e-mail is likely to enrage customers, especially those who only recently invested money in Virgin Mobile equipment they can no longer return for a refund.

In fact, Virgin Mobile’s return to the land of Internet Overcharging is nothing new for the company.  Customer response to the company’s earlier prepaid wireless broadband plans were, to say the least, underwhelming.

Virgin Mobile’s new usage limits are less about “delivering the same quality service you’ve come to expect” and more about protecting Sprint’s more lucrative postpaid mobile data customers who pay more to use the same 3G network.  While Stop the Cap! agrees delivering an unlimited wireless broadband service remains a difficult challenge with the current limits on wireless capacity, Virgin Mobile’s about-face comes uncomfortably fast — just six months after unveiling and heavily promoting its “unlimited” service.  Just as with Clearwire, Sprint has managed to oversell its network and not invest sufficiently in expanding it to meet customer demands.  Nor has either company educated customers about the inherent limitations wireless broadband has, especially on an overcrowded network.

Sources tell us Virgin Mobile, much like Clearwire, suffered from some customers trying to use peer to peer software, sometimes for days on end (simply a ridiculous endeavor on most of the wireless networks we’ve experienced).  But the company did little to explain to customers that such software often does not work well on these types of networks, and using it 24/7 is likely going to create issues not only for that customer, but for others as well.  Instead, blanket usage limits punish everyone.

Customers deserve more than platitudes from Virgin Mobile.  Any customer that wants to cancel their service should be given a full refund by Virgin for equipment costs they incurred when signing up.  Further, Virgin Mobile’s customer policies do not generally allow money on account, but as of yet unspent, to be refunded to departing customers.  That policy should be waived in this instance.  Any unspent funds should be credited back to the customer’s credit card or refunded by check.

Despite promises from AT&T and their astroturf friends that telecom deregulation would result in lower prices for Ohio residents, the company announced this week it was -increasing- prices for basic landlines — the service Ohio’s poorest rely on most from the phone giant.

AT&T Ohio residential customers are receiving notices with their recent bills that effective Jan. 7, monthly service will increase by $1.25, the maximum amount allowed under Ohio’s new deregulation law.  Before taxes, fees, and surcharges, Ohio phone rates for basic residential service will increase from $14.25 to $15.50.

It’s the fourth rate hike in four years for Ohio landline customers who were promised savings as a result of telecommunications deregulation.

But in fact AT&T’s lobbyists recommended and got language in the legislation that actually reduced the competitive test required for AT&T to win approval of rate increases.

Under old Ohio law, AT&T had to show they had at least five competitors in a service area; today that number has been reduced to just two, leaving virtually the entire state wide open to unfettered rate hikes.

“It is unfortunate residential consumers will have to pay more for basic landline service, especially during these difficult economic times,” Consumers’ Counsel Janine Migden-Ostrander told the Times-Reporter.

The Ohio Consumers’ Counsel tried to have the rate increase rolled back, arguing under the new law, AT&T Ohio failed to show proof that even two competitive services are available.

But AT&T’s lobbyists made sure the company really did not have to respond, because the new law provides for automatic approval if Ohio’s Public Utility Commission fails to deny rate hike requests within a 30 day window.  In this case, they did not rule on the Consumer Counsel’s appeal within 30 days, which effectively ceded the issue to AT&T’s favor.

While large numbers of Ohio residents continue to drop landline service in favor of cell phones or phone service from the cable company, Ohio’s rural and poor consumers are the least likely to cancel landline service, and face the brunt of the rate hikes, even as they cannot buy (or afford) products like U-verse AT&T said would be possible with statewide deregulation.

Verizon’s silence on data plan pricing for the coveted Apple iPhone is deafening.  In the absence of definitive information, Verizon’s refusal to comment Tuesday about what it plans to charge its data hungry iPhone customers has triggered rampant speculation.

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported Verizon was going to keep pricing stable for its unlimited data plans and extend them to iPhone owners, if only to further tweak AT&T’s stingy data plan allowances and pricing:

Verizon Wireless, the country’s largest wireless carrier, is confident enough in its network that it will offer unlimited data-use plans when it starts selling the iPhone around the end of this month, a person familiar with the matter said. Such plans would provide a key means of distinguishing its service from rival AT&T Inc., which limits how much Internet data such as videos and photos its customers may use each month.

But that was before Verizon officials conspicuously avoided answering direct questions about data plan pricing at Tuesday’s press event.  Verizon’s FAQ for those interested in the iPhone doesn’t help (underlining ours):

Are there minimum service and data pricing requirements?

Yes, iPhone customers will need to choose from any of the current Nationwide plans. Customers will also be required to activate a data package, pricing will be announced at a later date.

ComputerWorld seemed to deliver the highest predicted inflation rate of Verizon’s data pricing — guestimating it will cost iPhone owners up to $120 a month for unlimited wireless data:

“Data plans for Verizon iPhone could range from $20 to $90 a month or even $120 unlimited a month,” Rob Enderle, an analyst at Enderle Group told the publication. “The iPhone uses an awful lot of data, so they will have to charge heavily for data and it will be fairly expensive.”

If Verizon wanted to find some way to kill Apple iPhone addicts’ enthusiasm for the phone on Verizon, charging a potential $330 a month for a single line plan is probably the way to do it.

Verizon Wireless has seen some success getting their off-contract customers who have stubbornly refused to upgrade their phones to jump on board the smartphone craze… by lowering their prices.

The entry fee for smartphones on most carriers includes the up front cost of the device (often $199 for the most coveted phones) and a $30 monthly mandatory data plan.  That’s a price too high for many consumers to pay in this economy, and the result has been an increase in the number of customers letting their two-year contracts expire.

AT&T has tried to reduce the bite with a paltry $15 monthly plan that only includes 200MB of usage per month, which is nearly pointless for smartphone users who want to really use the multimedia features the phones were designed to provide. Verizon responded with a holiday season promotional offer charging $15 a month for an even lower 150MB per month, with widespread speculation the “limited time only” part of the offer will soon become “available every day.”

But for most smartphone customers who plan to regularly use data-hungry applications, neither “budget plan” will suffice.  That leaves one alternative for Verizon customers — the $29.99 unlimited plan.  Ouch.

To prod price-sensitive customers, Verizon has offered family plan members the option of upgrading their old phones to new smartphones, and has sweetened the deal with a $10 price break.  While technically a credit on the “additional line” charge, some Verizon employees pitch the discount as a reduction in price for the mandatory data plan.  Where $30 a month sounds obscene, $20 a month sounds somewhat better.

The offer has proven sufficiently successful that Verizon has now extended it until Jan. 30 (note just prior to next month’s iPhone introduction) and any customer who has not upgraded their phone in the last 180 days qualifies.  A new, two year contract is required and the offer is good if you want to add a new secondary line.

Unfortunately, the offer does not extend to the primary line.  Verizon would probably see an even larger number of upgrades if the offer extended to every legacy phone on a customer’s account.

The $9.99 credit applies for 24 months.  Over the life of the contract, that is worth $240 in savings per smartphone, which isn’t bad from America’s Cadillac wireless carrier.