"Hey, we're #19!"

The United States may be a leader in many things, but broadband isn’t one of them. The country has now fallen two more positions — to 19th place, behind South Korea, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and even Iceland, since the Berkman Center for Internet and Society released its last rankings in 2009.

In 2004, President George W. Bush complained about the U.S. falling to 10th place, which he declared was “ten spots too low.”

Now eastern Europe and former Soviet Republics in the Baltics threaten to overtake the United States, and countries in southeast Asia already have.  Innovation in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand means deploying fiber to the home service to the vast majority of the population.  Innovation in North America means conjuring up new pricing schemes to raise prices on broadband service and engage in competition-busting mergers and acquisitions.

But a USA Today editorial this week also places much of the blame on corporate influence inside Washington, which has promulgated legislative policies that favor telecommunications companies and throw customers under the bus.

“The simple answer is that other countries have policies that promote competition and innovation,” the editors write. “In contrast, policies here have allowed a few dominant players that control the least interesting parts of the broadband landscape (the cables and the wireless spectrum) to dominate.”

Indeed, a series of telecommunications laws enacted by Congress, combined with short-sighted policies at the Federal Communications Commission, have allowed a handful of super-sized players to own and control broadband service in America, resulting in providers establishing non-competing fiefdoms that avoid head-on competition.

The worst policy of all allowed broadband providers to keep competitors from reaching customers over existing broadband networks.  During the days of dial-up, you could purchase Internet access from the phone company, a large provider like MSN or AOL, or thousands of smaller regional and local service providers.  Simply dial a local access number and you were connected to the provider of your choice.  Now, U.S. law gives broadband network operators the right to restrict these independents from selling service over their networks.  Comcast need not sell anything other than Comcast Internet.  Frontier Communications can make a killing selling its own DSL service, while protecting that revenue from other Internet Service Providers who might sell the service over Frontier’s network for half the price.  Time Warner Cable voluntarily allows Earthlink and a handful of other companies to sell cable broadband service over its infrastructure, but at prices equal to or higher than what Time Warner charges itself.

Broadband providers argue that allowing competitors to sell service on their network would discourage future investment and rob shareholders a return on investments already made.  Today, major cable operators and phone companies are falling all over themselves denying they are in anything but the broadband business.  It has become an enormously lucrative enterprise, more profitable than television or telephone service.

USA Today compares the broadband landscape back home with that in South Korea — perennially the world’s fastest, and considerably less expensive than what North Americans pay for service:

South Korea has made broadband a national priority, mandating deployment and in some cases giving private companies incentives to build out. It has also prevented major players from monopolizing their businesses, encouraging competition and innovation. In South Korea, consumers can get broadband service from a cable or telecom company. But they may also choose among myriad independent providers that are given access to the physical infrastructure. This competition keeps prices down and the quality of service high.

[...] But over time, cable and telecom companies worked the courts and Congress to make sure that this competitive world would never come to be [in the United States]. [...] Wireless is a bit better. But the market has remained a near duopoly, with none of the smaller players emerging as a strong competitor to AT&T and Verizon.

The same open network concept has fought its way forward in Canada (where Bell has worked furiously to sabotage the business plans of independent providers) and in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand where all three governments have decided the best solution would be to scrap the ancient landline network and start fresh with an open-to-all-comers fiber to the home service.

Back home in the States it is business as usual with increasing broadband prices and the looming prospect of usage-limiting schemes designed to cut capital costs, monetize broadband usage, and stop cord-cutting.

The opposing point of view comes courtesy of dollar-a-holler, corporate-backed think tank The Heartland Institute, who is stuck quoting notorious industry-funded studies and think tanks like the Discovery Institute and the Technology Policy Institute:

The idea that European and Asian countries are lapping America in the race for broadband speed and penetration is a fallacy created with statistics comparing “persons” instead of “households.” Once you make that correction, the USA is firmly planted among the top of industrialized nations, as economist Scott Wallsten pointed out when he was a staffer at the Federal Communications Commission in 2009.

And as tech researcher Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics points out, if you measure Internet usage by gigabytes used per month — a better measure of the speed and utility of networks — the USA has nearly lapped Western Europe once and Asia twice.

Heartland Institute: "By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."

If you measure how many mouse clicks customers in New York make on a Thursday afternoon, we could be number one as well!  Gigabytes used per month does not measure the speed or price of service on broadband networks, considerations that actually do impact broadband rankings.

Mr. Wallsten is a familiar favorite go-to-guy for The Heartland Institute.  He’s also the choice of Time Warner Cable, who paid him $20,000 for a 2010 essay: “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.”

There is big money to be made writing corporate-funded research reports.  Bret Swanson knows that very well, having been involved with the Discovery Institute, a “research group” that delivers paid, “credentialed” reports to telecommunications company clients who waive them before Congress to support their positions.  Swanson is also a “Visiting Fellow” at Arts+Labs/Digital Society, which counted as its “partners” AT&T and Verizon.

The gentleman from Heartland also quotes from the misnamed “Progressive Policy Institute,” which counts among its funding partners, AT&T.

It would have been probably easier (but ineffectively transparent) to simply quote from AT&T and Comcast directly.

The Heartland Institute, unsurprisingly, believes letting existing broadband providers deliver service exactly the way they want is the best option:

The digital economy — one of the only vibrant economic sectors left — doesn’t need more government “investment” or regulation. It needs only for government to butt out and let the market work the magic that continues to bring us the marvels of the modern age.

That magic will cost you $50 a month and rising.  If some providers have their way, while the rest of the world abandons usage caps, American providers can’t wait to slap them on, reducing the value of your service even further.

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks sold AWS spectrum in areas shown here to Verizon Wireless, virtually guaranteeing the cable industry will not compete in the wireless phone business.

Two years ago, Cox Communications was hungry to get into the wireless phone business.  It announced it was launching “unbelievably fair” wireless — an oasis in a wireless desert of tricks and traps on offer from competing wireless companies.  No more expiring minutes, the option of affordable flat rate service, and no hidden fees or surcharges were all supposed to be part of the deal.

“Our research found that value and transparency are very important to consumers when choosing a wireless service plan, but they are not finding these qualities in the wireless plans offered today,” Stephen Bye, vice president of wireless said back in 2010, introducing the service. “Total loss of unused minutes as well as unforeseen overage charges on bills are just two examples of what our customers have told us is just unfair.”

Those same issues still exist for wireless customers today, but Cox won’t be a part of the solution.  The company announced this past May it was exiting the competitive arena of wireless and would simply resell Sprint service instead.  Last month, it announced it wouldn’t even bother with that, and will transition its remaining wireless customers directly to Sprint.

What changed Cox’s mind?  The cost of building and operating a wireless network to compete with much larger national companies.  It simply no longer made sense to build a small regional wireless carrier and rent the rest of your national coverage area from other providers, who set wholesale prices at a level high enough to protect them from would-be competitors.

The lesson Cox learned first has now been taught to America’s largest cable operators Comcast and Time Warner Cable (and its sidekick Bright House Networks).

All three cable operators have effectively signed a non-aggression treaty with Verizon Wireless, agreeing to sell their unused wireless spectrum acquired by auction in 2006 at a 50% markup to Big Red.  In return, Verizon will market cable service to wireless customers.  It’s the ultimate non-compete clause so wide-reaching, Verizon stores will soon be selling Time Warner Cable right next to Verizon FiOS, something unheard of in the telecommunications marketplace.

It’s a win for Verizon Wireless, which accumulates additional wireless spectrum and peace of mind knowing the cable industry will not enter the wireless communications business.  Cable companies get to profit from their purchase of the public airwaves and see the potential of a dramatic reduction in customer poaching, as cable and phone companies stop fighting each other for customers.  Ultimately, it means customers could eventually pay the cable or phone company for all of their telecommunications services from television and broadband to wired and wireless phone service.  What consumers enjoy in one-bill-convenience may eventually come with higher rates made possible from reduced competition.

Verizon Wireless' currently unused AWS spectrum favor the east coast, but not for long.

Verizon will pay $3.6 billion to Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House Networks for the spectrum.  The deal has stockholders cheering because that payment represents a tidy profit for cable operators who did absolutely nothing with the spectrum they purchased five years ago.  It also makes AT&T even more intent on completing its own spectrum merger with T-Mobile USA.

The agreement has concerned consumer advocates because it seems to signal Verizon is content making money primarily from its wireless business, and will repay the favor from the cable industry by pitching phone customers on cable service.  That could ultimately spell big trouble for Verizon’s stalled FiOS fiber-to-the-home network.  Verizon may find it easier and cheaper to end its aggressive entry into Big Cable’s territory by simply reselling traditional cable television products.  It can still market wireless products and services to cable subscribers and not endanger the new atmosphere of goodwill.  Rural broadband, where cable never competes, could be served through wireless spectrum, for example.

For now, Verizon says it intends to continue competing with its FiOS network, but the company stopped deploying the service in new areas nearly two years ago.

The deal will go before regulators at the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission for review.  What will likely concern them the most is the appearance of collusion between the cable companies and Verizon.

“A flag is raised when two rival networks move to start selling each other’s services,” a person familiar with the concerns of federal antitrust officials told the Washington Post. “They lose their desire, impetus, to compete. That is a big antitrust flag.”

Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, expressed serious concern as well.

“Verizon was supposed to be the great competitor for Comcast in the video space, while Comcast has been looking for a wireless play to match the Verizon bundle,” he said. “The deal signals bad news for consumers, who can expect higher prices for video, fewer choices and higher prices for wireless.”

Who owns what

Four years into the deal, consumers may not know what company they are dealing with, as cable operators will be able to market Verizon Wireless service under their own respective cable brand names.

The deal is also trouble for lagging Clearwire, which had been providing wireless broadband service to both Comcast and Time Warner Cable.  Under the agreement, both cable companies will end their relationship with Clearwire, which is particularly bad news for the wireless company because of its ongoing financial distress.  Sprint, which has heavily invested in Clearwire, may ultimately find itself with an investment gone sour, troubling news for the third largest wireless company manning the barricades against a nearly-complete duopoly in wireless service between AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Cable stock cheerleader Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein seems thrilled with the prospect.  In a research note to his Wall Street clients, Moffett says AT&T could benefit from the Verizon pact with Big Cable by ending up in a “more duopolistic industry structure without paying for it.” If the FCC approves the non-aggression pact, the deal “would amount to an unmistakable step towards the duopolization of the U.S. wireless market, inasmuch it would leave T-Mobile, once again, stranded without a 4G strategy.”

Cable investors, he adds, are likely to be excited the cable industry won’t spend billions of dollars in capital building a wireless venture, and instead has agreed to work with competitors to cross-sell products and services.  With little competitive pressure, prices won’t be falling anytime soon.

That’s great news for investors, even if it is “unbelievably unfair” for consumers.

Bloomberg News explains the deal and its implications in the wireless industry spectrum battle.  (2 minutes)

Wireless operator (and cable company) Rogers Communications likes to spend big dollars pushing the message Canada is in the midst of a wireless spectrum crunch — a big reason why it wants “equal treatment”-bidding in upcoming spectrum auctions that may include “set-asides” exclusively for emerging Canadian wireless competitors.

But apparently the spectrum shortage only impacts areas outside of the province of Quebec, because Rogers plans to experiment with a new LTE wireless video on demand service it plans to pitch Quebecers, perhaps as early as next year.

Rogers CEO Nadir Mohamed told the Montreal Gazette the cable company intends to enter the Quebec market with an “over-the-top” on-demand video service, distributed over Rogers’ growing LTE wireless broadband network.  While Mohamed was quick to say this doesn’t mean Rogers intends to launch a full-scale competitive invasion against provincial providers Videotron, Ltd., and Bell Canada Enterprises, it is pre-emptively getting into the business of serving cord-cutters who drop traditional cable packages to watch online video.

The new service is expected to be accessible on phones, tablets, and Internet-enabled televisions and video game consoles, presumably through a wireless Internet adapter.

Mohamed

“Video for wireless has huge potential for growth,” Mohamed told the Gazette. “It’s sort of the mirror image of (how cable evolved), which went from video, to data to voice.”

Nothing eats bandwidth like online video, and Rogers traditionally caps this and other usage on their mobile wireless network, citing spectrum and capacity shortages. But Rogers sees few impediments serving up certain kinds of online video: namely their own.

That’s not a message the company continues to deliver consumers on its “I Want My LTE” website, part of a robust lobbying effort to get its hands on as much new spectrum as possible, even if it means locking out would-be competitors.  In fact, leaving the impression the company has spectrum to spare is so politically dangerous, Mohamed took the wind out of his own announcement by mentioning, as an aside, their networks still don’t have enough capacity to deliver full-motion video to a large number of customers at the same time.

“I think wireless networks in the foreseeable future will not have the capability to deliver full-motion video to a large number of customers at the same time, even with LTE,” he said. “So what you will see is an integration of wired and wireless, where the wireless network will off-load the traffic to a wired network.”

Rogers’ decision to limit the service, both in scope and range, is also designed to protect itself (and other cable operators) from unnecessary competition.  Rogers won’t offer a full menu of video services outside of its traditional cable system areas in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland, and only Quebec residents (where Rogers doesn’t sell cable TV) will have the option of signing up for the wireless video-on-demand service.

Storm damage in eastern Massachusetts. (Courtesy: WGBH Boston)

The northeastern United States got more than its fair share of severe storms these past few months.  Remnants of Hurricane Irene caused severe flooding, heavy rainstorms that followed didn’t help.  But one of the worst of all was the Halloween Nor’easter that left serious wind damage in some areas, heavy snowfall in others, leaving customers without power, phone, cable, and broadband service for days, if not weeks.

Telecommunications companies including Cablevision, Charter Communications, Comcast, Cox Communications, Dish Network, Time Warner Cable, and Metrocast Communications of Connecticut are under fire across the region for not providing automatic service credits for impacted customers.  Charter and Comcast are both facing a class action lawsuit filed last week by a Massachusetts law firm that accuses the cable operators of “gouging” their customers by not automatically crediting affected subscribers for lost service.

Jeffrey Morneau of Springfield, Mass. law firm Connor, Morneau & Olin says up to 1.2 million Charter and Comcast customers were without service, but the companies will only provide credits on a case-by-case basis, and only if customers request them within a short time after the outage occurred.

“If you pay for a service and you don’t get it, the company can’t keep your money,” Morneau said.

Stop the Cap! readers in Massachusetts and New Hampshire report Comcast will grant reasonable service credit requests, assuming you get through to ask for them.

“Hold times are epic,” reports Tom Turlin, a Comcast customer in Massachusetts.  “I managed to get my credit by using their web contact form instead.”

Most providers require consumers to request credits for outages within 30-60 days of the service interruption, and time is running out for Nor’easter credits.

“Most people think they will only get 50 cents back so why bother, but actually with today’s huge cable bills, credits can be substantial,” Turlin says. “I received almost $15 back on my bill.”

Only AT&T, Connecticut’s largest phone company, agreed to automatically credit customers the company determined were without service for at least 24 hours.  Customers who don’t receive credit automatically can appeal to the company for credit they believe they are entitled to receive.

Here’s how different companies are responding:

AT&T: “We will give U-verse TV customers in Connecticut who experience a service outage for longer than 24 hours a pro-rated credit,” AT&T said. “In addition, we will voluntarily give similar credits for U-verse Voice and U-verse High Speed Internet service customers who experienced a service outage for longer than 24 hours. Customers are not required to take any action: the credits will be applied automatically on the customer bill for impacted customers within the next several billing cycles.”

Cablevision: “While state law provides for consumer credits for qualifying outages for cable service only, Cablevision has been providing a credit to customers on an individualized basis for all their services,” Cablevision said. “Customers will be credited when they notify us that they had a service outage. We are extending our normal period to request refunds to 45 days from the date of the storm.”

Charter: Customers must call or visit the cable company offices in person to request service credit.  “We are providing credit to customers for the entire time they were without service, from the time they lost power to the time their Charter services were fully restored, and we are providing credit for all services,” Charter said.

Comcast: “In order to receive a credit, a customer must contact Comcast and identify the time period during which they did not have access to Comcast services,” Comcast said.

Cox: “We need our customers to call us after their service is restored to report that they were without Cox services, and for how long,” Cox said. “We then credit their accounts from the time of the service outage until service was actually restored.”

DISH Network: The satellite provider is waiving service and equipment fees for consumers who need their equipment realigned, reinstalled or repaired due to the storm. “DISH subscribers who indicated that they were without service due to the storm were provided a credit for their time without service,” DISH said. “In addition, DISH subscribers who needed to suspend their service due to storm damage were allowed to do so at no charge.”

MetroCast Communications of Connecticut: It will provide customers with a refund on their next invoice after contacting the company. “The credit equals a prorated amount of the affected customer’s monthly charges for all MetroCast services, calculated based on the number of days during which such services were interrupted, and are included in the customer’s next invoice,” MetroCast said.

Time Warner Cable: Customers must contact the cable company online, by e-mail or phone and request credit for the number of days they were without service.  Most service credit requests that can be verified are granted within hours, and will appear on the next billing statement.

WSHM in Springfield covers the ongoing dispute city officials have with Comcast, who is refusing to automatically provide storm credits to customers impacted by the October Nor’easter.  (2 minutes)

Cogeco’s disastrous investment in a Portuguese cable company may be the beginning of the end for the Canadian cable operator.  Cogeco, which primarily serves smaller communities in Ontario and Quebec, may eventually find itself the property of Rogers Communications, Inc., particularly if its messy overseas cable operation can be dispensed with soon.

The Financial Post suggests rumors of Cogeco’s increasing efforts to rid itself of Portugal’s Cabovisao could be a prelude to a bigger sale of its Canadian cable operation to Rogers.

Cogeco’s interest in Portugal’s cable industry came after the company determined there were limited opportunities to invest or acquire cable operations in the highly concentrated North American market.  In 2006, it spent $660 million to acquire Cabovisao, two years before Portugal felt some of the worst impacts of a global economic crisis that continues to this day.

Cogeco's financial mess in Portugal.

Portugal’s efforts to stabilize its economy have brought widespread salary reductions and tax increases, making luxuries like full-priced cable service untenable.  Subscribers have been canceling in droves, either because they found a better deal from a competitor, or because they could no longer afford the monthly bill.

Earlier this summer, Cogeco wrote-off its entire investment in Cabovisao and has been rumored to be shopping the cable system for a quick sale.

One analyst told the newspaper if Cabovisao is for sale, Cogeco may be perceived to be “throwing in the towel” on the strategy of investing abroad — and moreover, paving the way for a takeover by Rogers.

Rogers already holds a nearly one-third equity interest in Cogeco.  Being rid of Cabovisao could make Cogeco that much more attractive to Rogers, whose systems largely surround Cogeco’s operations.

The only thing remaining in the way of a wholesale takeover could be the Audet family, which controls the majority of shares in Cogeco.  Earlier this summer, it was clear the Audets had no interest in selling, but that may be changing with the unwinding of its international investment strategy.

Cablevision Systems may be engaged in a long term effort to position itself for a sale, some New York investment firms have come to believe.  The most likely buyer?  Time Warner Cable.

The bulk of Cablevision’s assets are located in several boroughs of New York, Long Island, New Jersey and Connecticut.  Virtually all of their service areas, outside of the acquisition of Bresnan Cable in the mountain west, are adjacent to Time Warner, making an acquisition by the nation’s second largest cable operator a natural fit.

This isn’t the first time rumors of a Cablevision sale have been floated.  The Dolan family has run the cable operator for decades, with family patriarch Charles Dolan still controlling a sizable interest in the company.  Barron’s notes the senior Dolan is currently in his 80s.  Son James, current president and CEO of Cablevision, seems more interested in his leadership role at Madison Square Garden, spun-off from Cablevision last year.

“I think the Dolans have positioned the company for a sale,” Mark Boyar, who heads Boyar Asset Management, told Barron’s.

Boyar points to Cablevision’s ongoing efforts to minimize their involvement in side businesses, such as MSG and cable networks like AMC, spun away from Cablevision on June 30.

Buyers like transactions to be simple and straightforward, and Cablevision’s operations increasingly meet both standards.

On its own, Cablevision’s growth opportunities come mostly from rate increases, which subscribers routinely complain about.  The company already enjoys the highest penetration rate among major cable operators and the highest average monthly revenue per subscriber — $150 a month vs. $113 for Time Warner Cable.  With a depressed economy and fierce competition from Verizon FiOS, growing the business (and the stock price) has become increasingly difficult in a maturing industry unlikely to attract new subscribers.

Among the only prospects for subscriber growth on the horizon comes from satellite TV subscribers.  But that alone may not be enough to keep investors satisfied, much less excited.  A sale could bring shareholders a massive return on their investment, particularly if a bidding war breaks out between likely buyers Time Warner Cable and Comcast.  Shareholders ultimately own the company, and should the Dolan family lose their love affair with cable, Cablevision and their subscribers will likely find themselves on the auction block.

Time Warner Cable intends to implement a series of rate increases for 2012 across many of their service areas, beginning with a 4% rate hike for their cable television service that will take effect in December.

A cable company memo received by Stop the Cap! indicates this isn’t likely to be the only rate increase from the cable operator, with possible rate adjustments for broadband and phone products to be announced at a later date.  The cable television portion of your bill will increase because of what the company calls “dramatically higher programming costs, additional programming and features, and continued investment in the company’s network and customer service operations.”

Some examples of the new rates¹, which will vary slightly in different service areas, includes new pricing for the company’s DVR box in some regions:

• Digital Cable (was $72.99) $77.49
• Talk & Surf (was $86.99) $89.94
• Watch & Surf (was $118.99) $125.49
• Watch & Surf Plus (was $141.99) $148.49
• DVR Service (was $11.95) $12.95 (additional equipment rental charges may apply)

¹Time Warner Cable Maine

Customers currently on price protection agreements, term contracts, or special rate promotions will not be impacted by the rate increases until the expiration of their contract or promotion.  Customers will receive an official notification of the rate adjustment on their next billing statement.

A Time Warner Cable customer in the East Village experiencing a cable, phone, and Internet outage Tuesday got an original excuse from a call center employee at the cable company:

The box that controls the cable, Internet, pretty much everything else for Time Warner Cable in my area of the East Village is located in the basement of a building. In order to service this box, Time Warner Cable needs to contact the super of the building and be let in.

The super of the building, according to the service rep, REFUSES TO LET TIME WARNER INSIDE.

“Why is he refusing?” I asked.

“He wants free cable,” the rep responded.

Apparently, Time Warner has tried to reason with the man, but he refuses to budge. Today, he’s refused to answer the door or his phone. He’s cut off all communication.

“It’s a very unusual situation,” the rep said.

The entire story of the hostage crisis is up on Adam Hunter’s blog, along with plenty of comments from fellow New Yorkers upset with the building superintendent, the cable operator, or both.

What made an unusual situation even stranger is the Time Warner employee actually gave out the address of the building where the standoff was occurring, with the not-much-of-a-stretch-notion that perhaps outraged customers might walk down the street and pay the hostage-taker a visit.

“How close are you to 2nd Avenue,” the representative asked.

“I live between 1st and 2nd, closer to 2nd. I’d love to go over there and try to speak with the super to help resolve this,” Hunter replied.

“Well,” the rep said, “I can’t see any reason I can’t give you the address.”

The drama attracted the attention of the Village Voice, who tracked down the alleged offender, only to be promptly hung up on, and a Time Warner representative who actually confirmed the whole story:

“It does appear that we had an issue with accessing the building where one of our nodes is located,” the representative told the newspaper.  “We did have to remind the landlord of city ordinance that requires us to have 24/7 access to our infrastructure.”

Regardless of who wanted what, Time Warner Cable customers experiencing the effects of several outages in lower Manhattan this week are entitled to service credits.  Just visit Time Warner’s New York City website, complete the e-mail form listing the day(s) you experienced service outages, and request credit accordingly.  Make sure you remind them of the services you have so you are properly credited.

Most cable operators are doing a better job of providing telephone service than traditional telephone companies, according to a new J.D. Power and Associates survey.

Among the worst providers across all regions were Frontier Communications, which scored dead last in the East and North Central regions, and cable operator Charter Communications, which won the lowest score overall for service in the western United States.  Cox delivered the most consistently reliable service across three of the four regions it serves, although it was beaten by Bright House Networks in the south.

The results:

The study measured customer satisfaction with both local and long distance telephone service in four regions throughout the United States. Five factors were examined to determine overall satisfaction: performance and reliability; cost of service; billing; offerings and promotions; and customer service.

Satisfaction with performance and reliability-the most influential factor contributing to overall satisfaction-has declined by 6 percent to an average of 7.4 (on a 10-point scale) in 2011 from 7.9 in 2011. Within this factor, satisfaction with the service provider’s ability to keep outages to a minimum has experienced the greatest decline.

“The brutal winter weather that plagued much of the country clearly took a toll on service levels,” said Frank Perazzini, director of telecommunications at J.D. Power and Associates. “In fact, the proportion of customers who contacted customer service to report an outage jumped to 21 percent in 2011 from 12 percent in 2010.”

According to Perazzini, a key driver for mitigating losses in satisfaction due to outages is effectively managing customer expectations regarding service restoration. On average, customers who experience an outage are advised that service will be restored within 30 hours, while actual service restoration time averages 25 hours. Overall satisfaction among customers whose service was restored approximately three hours earlier than the time quoted by the service provider averages 705 on a 1,000-point scale. In comparison, among customers whose service was restored three hours after the estimate given by the provider, satisfaction averages 591.

The study also finds that among customers who use an alternative phone service (for example, cellular or Internet service, rather than wireline), the proportion who replace wireline telephone calls with cell phone calls, texts and email remains relatively unchanged in 2011, compared with 2010. However, use of Internet calling services such as Skype or Vonage has increased to 21 percent in 2011 from 16 percent in 2010. Customers who use Internet calling services are significantly less satisfied with their telephone provider (622 on average, which is 14 index points below the industry average of 636) and are more likely to switch telephone providers (23% vs. the industry average of 16%).

Suddenlink will introduce an Internet Overcharging scheme beginning with their customers in Amarillo, Tex. Oct. 3rd, according to a company document obtained by Stop the Cap!  But the new usage cap and overlimit fee scheme will not be limited to Texas.  The company’s internal memo notes the new limits will eventually be imposed on customers nationwide, and incredibly, the cable operator claims it will make their Internet service better:

Early next month, October 2011, Suddenlink will notify residential (non-business) Internet customers in Amarillo, Texas, of a new usage allowance plan (AP) that is designed to further enhance their Internet experience.

This allowance plan will be introduced to other residential Internet customers, in other Suddenlink communities, in the following weeks and months.

An introductory letter will be mailed to Suddenlink residential Internet customers, when our allowance plan goes into effect in their community. The introductory letter to Amarillo customers will be mailed on or about October 3, 2011.

In addition to the introductory letter noted above, we will launch a new Web page on or about October 3, 2011, at suddenlink.com/allowanceplan.

This new page will provide additional information about the allowance plan in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs).

Suddenlink's national service area

On the first instance of exceeding the limit, the customer’s Internet service will be suspended until the customer reads and agrees to a web notification message that includes an understanding that on the fourth instance of going over their usage cap, customers will be billed $10 for every 50GB increment that exceeds their allowance, whether it is by 1MB or 40GB.  That pricing is identical to AT&T’s usage cap overlimit fee.

Amarillo residents already pay $55 a month for 15Mbps standalone broadband service from Suddenlink.

Stop the Cap! reached out twice today to Suddenlink officials to get their reasons for implementing the usage allowance program, what the specific allowances might be, and when the usage caps will reach markets beyond Amarillo.  We have still not heard back from them as we “go to press” but will update the piece if and when we do receive their comments.

Suddenlink’s employees are being trained on how to handle the inevitable complaints when customers discover their bills have suddenly increased.  Their employee FAQ:

Q. I only went over my allowance by 1 gigabyte, but I was still charged $10. I thought I would not be charged $10 until I was 50 gigabytes over my allowance. What happened?

Of the very few customers who go over their monthly allowance, we have found that most go over by a significant amount. Accordingly, to make this process as fair and simple as possible on all customers, we do not start charging until the third time someone goes over the allowance – and, once that happens, we automatically assign additional allowances to the account, in standard 50-gigabyte installments, at a standard price of $10 for each installment.

Customers can use all or some of that additional allowance, depending on their individual situations. What’s more, if they exceed the additional allowance of 50 gigabytes, another 50-gig allowance is automatically applied, again at the standard price of $10.

To help customers manage their Internet accounts, we have provided a way for them to monitor their monthly usage at Suddenlink.net.
• If you’re already registered at Suddenlink.net, log on, go to “My Account,” and then click the link for “My Internet Usage Summary.”
• If you’re not already registered at Suddenlink.net, visit that site, look toward the upper right corner for the log-in box and the link that reads “Don’t have an account? Sign up now!” Follow that link to a set of instructions on how to register your account, and then, when you’re finished, click the link for “My Internet Usage Summary.”

Kent: The days of system upgrades are over.

Finally, we offer some tips at suddenlink.com/allowanceplan, about ways to keep usage within the monthly allowances we’ve established.

Q. Can I have fewer than 50 gigabytes or less than $10.00 applied to my account the next time I go over?

Not at this time. The 50-gigabyte installments and $10 per installment charges have been standardized in all areas where we’ve rolled out this allowance plan, to make the process as fair and simple as possible on all customers.

Q. I don’t recall being notified that this was starting in my area. When did that happen?

We mailed letters announcing this change to all customers in your area several weeks before the allowance plan was put into place. I’m sorry if you missed that letter, but rest assured, very few customers – less than 1 out of every 100 – go over their allowance. And for the very few customers who do go over their allowances, charges are waived the first couple of times.

Q. What gives Suddenlink the right to do this?

We occasionally make changes to our Internet services, consistent with our Residential Services Agreement, which is published on our website. This allowance plan is one of those changes.

If asked: To view our Residential Services Agreement, go to Suddenlink.com, and look for a link near the bottom of the page titled, “Terms & Policies.” Click on that link and then look for another link titled, “Residential Services Agreement.” Click on that link and then scroll down the page until you see the sections related to Internet service, such as Section 46.

Suddenlink’s new Internet Overcharging website is not yet active, so we are unsure exactly what plan limits will be, but Suddenlink has been no stranger to usage caps.  The company introduced a usage meter in several markets in the summer of 2009, and used to claim usage limits were partly to handle traffic loads on a limited number of cable systems that were in the process of upgrading.  Once the upgrades were complete, the caps were supposed to be relaxed or retired.

Then, Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent appeared on CNBC last September to announce that people don’t realize the days of system upgrades are over and it was time to rake in the profits:

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Suddenlink’s journey to usage caps includes all the hallmarks we foretold in an article published on Stop the Cap! in 2009:

1. Establish a foundation for usage caps.  In their 2009 FAQ, Suddenlink conflated broadband usage with electricity: “What is “Internet usage”?  Much like electric usage is measured in kilowatts, and water usage is measured in gallons, Internet usage is measured in gigabytes (GB).”
2. Establish a ‘pulled from the air’ number of gigabytes (which often conveniently later becomes your usage allowance) and then tell subscribers what they can do with that.  In Humboldt County, Calif., in March 2011, Suddenlink began telling “heavy users” what other customers were doing with what the company deemed a more appropriate, average amount of Internet service.  Suddenlink also told customers the Internet service they were providing was for “entertainment only.”
3. Tell customers such tools are actually for their benefit.  See above.
   
4. Lie to customers when a usage meter suddenly shows up or terms and conditions are quietly changed to support an Internet Overcharging scheme.  In 2009, Suddenlink introduced a usage meter but tried to reassure customers, telling them: “Does Suddenlink plan to set a maximum usage allowance for its Internet customers, like other companies are doing? Do you plan to charge extra if a customer’s usage is too high?  Those steps are not part of our current plan. Our only goal at this time is to help the few customers whose usage is well above (two to three times higher than) the typical range to identify the reasons for that high usage and take steps to protect and secure their computers and accounts.”

You used too much. Look what you can do with an "average" amount of usage instead.

Now usage caps will protect and enhance Suddenlink’s profits on Internet service.  Remarkably, Suddenlink put itself in the “predicament” of facing increased customer demand of the Internet through its own marketing.  The company’s website heavily promotes its bandwidth-heavy Suddenlink2GO™ service to “watch TV online anytime, anywhere in the U.S. on any computer for FREE when you subscribe!”

But “free” becomes $10 for every 50GB if you watch too much.

How to Get Unlimited Back: If you are a Suddenlink residential customer who does not want to face restricted-use Internet, you can avoid the limits by switching to Business Class service, which will not have caps.  Unfortunately, pricing information was not immediately available to us.  One customer in Lubbock noted he paid $69 a month for 6Mbps Business Class service and $107 a month for 107Mbps residential service, so expect to pay comparatively more for lower speed service.