Frontier bills are often confusing, as this example from 2009 illustrates.

Some of Frontier Communications’ 230,000 customers in Oregon are enduring billing snafus after the company accidentally cancelled promotional discounts, resulting in higher bills.

Frontier recently completed a billing system change for those formerly served by Verizon Communications, but The Oregonian reports some customers found bundled service promotions and service contracts established with the former owners suddenly canceled, eliminating discounts that delivered de facto “rate increases” as much as $20 a month.

Frontier had promised customers their “services and pricing plan will remain the same” after the billing system conversion.

Many of the worst-impacted customers subscribe to Frontier’s adopted FiOS fiber-to-the-home service.

Albert, a Stop the Cap! reader with Frontier FiOS, says the “abuse of FiOS customers” has continued since Frontier bought Verizon’s landline and fiber network in the state.

“First they wanted to jack the rates up, then they tried to sell us an ‘upgrade’ to satellite TV, and now it’s just the latest in a series of bill screw-ups from a company that couldn’t run things right if it tried,” Albert tells us. “My contract with the company says ‘no rate hikes while the contract is in effect,’ so they just made it no longer in effect and presto, a rate hike.”

It took four phone calls to straighten things out.

“Frontier’s customer service offices are apparently in other states, and a lot of their people don’t seem to know about FiOS, need supervisors to intervene on everything, and still cannot fix things,” Albert writes. “On the fourth call, I finally got someone who was able to cross-reference my older bills and find the promotion I was supposed to be on, and got me back on it.”

Albert says Frontier really has not offered much to sell people on the company’s fiber optic network.

“Frontier FiOS is a big secret with the company, and the last thing in the world they want to sell you is Frontier FiOS TV,” he reports.

The newspaper reports Frontier’s confusion over promotions and billing have impacted others as well.  Some of the problems have prompted customers to file complaints with the Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC), which says it has seen “a big increase” in consumer issues since Frontier’s billing system changeover.

Frontier promised the state it would not raise any rates in Oregon without notifying the Commission, and so far the company has kept its word. But that doesn’t hold true for Albert.

“Dropping the ball on promotions represents a hidden rate increase, and many people will just pay the bill no matter what it says,” Albert said. “Then Frontier will try the backdoor rate increase with more surcharges and rental fees on other services.”

While Frontier executives have heralded the billing system conversion as a major accomplishment that opens the next chapter on Frontier Communications’ future, some customers are less celebratory.

Oregonian reader Max Gramm:

Frontier is perhaps the worst phone companion in history. Twice now they have changed my account number and never informed me, then refused to apply the money I had continued to pay to the old account number to the bill. I would get bill saying I owed $180 dollars even after proving to them I had made payments every single month. They shut off my service for over a week during one of these disputes. Though part of this could be due to Verizon (when they hear I am from Oregon, I get sent to a different department) Frontier has been absolutely awful to work with.

The newspaper recommends customers check their bills for sudden increases and contact Frontier with any questions. If Frontier has no satisfactory answers, file a complaint with the PUC (800-522-2404 or online).

Verizon Wireless will force customers off of their grandfathered unlimited data plans when they reach the end of their current two-year service contracts, according to the company’s chief financial officer.

It is all part of the cell phone company’s strategy to boost the average bills of customers with new, more expensive tiered family-shared data plans. With a significant number of current customers grandfathered on unlimited data plans that users likely will not forfeit voluntarily, Verizon will force the issue as customers come up for contract renewal.

The plan received considerable approval at today’s JPMorgan Chase TMT conference, a gathering for Wall Street investors and tech companies like Verizon.  Executive vice-president and chief financial officer Fran Shammo laid out the plan to switch customers to forthcoming family “data share” plans that are priced based on anticipated usage:

As you come through an upgrade cycle and you upgrade in the future, you will have to go onto the data share plan. And moving away from, if you will, the unlimited world and moving everybody into a tiered structure data share-type plan.

So when you think about our 3G base, a lot of our 3G base is unlimited. As they start to migrate into 4G, they will have to come off of unlimited and go into the data share plan. And that is beneficial for us for many reasons, obviously. So as you pick what tier you want to be and we think that there will be some price up in those tiers.

“Price up” is code language for bill hiking. Customers adopting family share plans may be able to share data across a larger number of devices, but at consumption pricing, many customers will find their Verizon bills substantially higher than before.

Shammo

“And the important part of that is we want the connections to come in and the way we have designed our plan, this plan is built on tiers and as we look at the future growth of LTE consumption because of the speeds and video consumption and consumption of other M2M-type devices, it is going to be more important that people will start to upgrade in their tiers as they start to really realize the benefits of the LTE network,” Shammo said. “As [customers] add more devices, they are going to have to buy up into tiers. So again, you will see the revenue increase there.”

Those revenue predictions were not sufficient to satiate Phil Cusick, an analyst at JPMorgan Chase. He questioned Shammo about the prospects for Verizon further increasing revenue with across-the-board rate increases on service plans.

Shammo would not commit to that, but was pleased with the lack of customer protests over their recent introduction of a $30 equipment upgrade fee. He called the new fee “the right thing to do.” More fees and surcharges are likely, according to Shammo.

“I think implementing these additional fees is probably where we are at,” he said. “With the construct that we have dealt with around data share and where we see consumption of LTE going, when you put the combination of them together, we are fairly confident that we will see people start to uptake in the tiers, which is really where we will get the revenue accretion in the future.”

Shammo also said Verizon’s fiber to the home network FiOS has gotten such rave reviews, it almost sells itself. That means the company will pull back on promotional offers and plans a general rate increase for all customers in the coming months, if only to bolster company profits.

“We have to do a better job in discipline of price increases and I think that you’ll see us do some price increases here over the next two quarters to offset the content increase and that will also contribute more profitability to the bottom line,” Shammo said. “You are going to have to concentrate more on reducing the amount of promotions, reducing the amount of retention that you put on the table to retain a customer and then also you are seeing that the industry is pricing up.”

Verizon FiOS customers will find rate increases applying both to equipment rental and service pricing nationwide, according to Shammo.

“We were actually below-market compared to our competitors on the amount of fee that we charge on the rental of a set-top box or a digital converter box,” Shammo explained. “We are switching around our bundles and the customers that are coming out of the current bundles will be priced up to the newer bundles. So you are going to see really a shift over the next two to three quarters in price-ups coming out of FiOS.”

As far as FiOS expansion goes, the company does not expect any major expansion in the service for the next several years.

“If we can penetrate the market and really turn the wireline profitability, could we potentially build out to other areas? Yes, but that is a decision that will be made in years out, not right now,” Shammo said. “So from a capital perspective, we are being very disciplined with where we are going to put that capital.”

A Comcast discount mix-up leaves customers with substantial rate hikes. (Image: KVAL News)

Several Comcast customers in Springfield, Ore. are facing a whopping $100 rate increase on their Comcast service after the cable company discovered they were getting a company-applied discount Comcast later determined they were not entitled to receive.

Elizabeth Thornton, a pensioner living on modest military and social security benefits is among them. When her latest cable bill arrived, instead of the usual $95.28, Comcast raised the price by almost $100 to $193.23.

That’s a lot more than expected, and it left Thornton upset trying to figure out how to cover the bill.

It turns out an undetermined number of Comcast customers in Springfield were given discounts for fire stations, which enjoy 50% off regular Comcast prices. Thornton agreed to a one-year contract at the lower price Comcast employees offered, even though the company later determined she was unqualified to receive that price.

Comcast has been discovering the error when customers call regarding their accounts.

Now affected customers want to know why it is okay for Comcast to lock people into price-guaranteed service contracts they later renege on.

Comcast spokesperson Theressa Davis told KVAL News the fire station discount was the company’s mistake, and the cable company will now reach out to affected customers to offer “an appropriate discount.”

KVAL News visited with the daughter of Elizabeth Thornton, who is upset because Comcast raised her monthly rate by almost $100, leaving her unsure how she’ll pay the bill.  (2 minutes)

At a time when cable operators are more reluctant than ever to overbuild into another operator’s territory, something very strange is going on in central North Carolina.

Time Warner Cable is moving into the neighborhood — one already receiving service from a community-owned cable operator.  That would be like Time Warner moving into one of Comcast’s service areas.  For some reason, those large cable companies completely avoid competing head-to-head, but where community-owned provider MI-Connection has managed to sign up around 15,000 customers for service, Time Warner Cable has also arrived.

As a result, customers north of Charlotte, in communities around Davidson and Mooresville, are getting some amazing prices for cable television, phone, and broadband.  Time Warner will even deliver an offer right to your front door.

Susan Wagner in Mooresville got her deal when she threatened to cancel Time Warner Cable and return to MI-Connection.

“(Time Warner) gave everyone a really good offer when they first came in and then drove up the price after a while,” Wagner told the Charlotte Observer.

When Wagner called to cancel, Time Warner sent an employee to her door offering to slash her cable bill by $50 a month, enough to keep her business.

Other residents in nearby Cornelius are also getting prices substantially lower than residents in cities like Charlotte, where many residents have one choice for cable: Time Warner.  Sam, a Stop the Cap! reader in the Morrison Plantation neighborhood, noted they skipped the last few rate increases from the cable company.

“You just call and tell them the rate is too high and as soon as they find out you have MI-Connection as an alternative, they lower the price,” he said. “My niece in Charlotte can’t get the same deal even when we gave her the details — it’s only good in areas where MI-Connection operates.”

That leaves Charlotte residents paying $35-50 more a month than savvy customers further north can have for the asking.

“It sounds like predatory pricing to me when the company offers a special low price that people like my niece are probably subsidizing on their higher bill,” Sam suspects.

The Observer reports Time Warner is also laying cable in other neighborhoods, such as Heritage Green, where the cable company is soliciting business from MI-Connection subscribers door-to-door.

MI-Connection’s CEO, David Auger, formerly from Time Warner Cable himself, claims he’s unconcerned about Time Warner’s aggressive overbuild of his service area.

But the state’s largest commercial cable company has been signing up some of MI-Connection’s current customer base and successfully holding its existing customers in place with significant discounts on service.  Since last July, MI-Connection signed up 667 new customers, but also lost 577 others, most likely to Time Warner Cable.

MI-Connection was launched from the ashes of a bankrupt Adelphia Cable system acquired by the communities of Mooresville and Davidson.  After investing in a needed system upgrade, the community owned provider relaunched service nearly identical technically to other cable systems.  Unlike Wilson and Salisbury, where new fiber-to-the-home systems were built, MI-Connection offers a more traditional cable package.

That makes competition with Time Warner Cable more difficult, but the community provider is trying.  Time Warner Cable’s regular pricing in the area runs $68.49 a month for 85 basic channels.  MI-Connection sells 86 channels for $61.99.  But when customers call Time Warner to complain about their higher prices, the cable operator dramatically lowers them to keep the customer’s business.

“The regular price only matters until you call and complain about it,” says Sam.

There have been complaints, but many of them are less about the cable bill and more about politics.  MI-Connection has not come cheap either town, which had to cover some of the costs of a needed system upgrade and service installation, estimated to run about $1,000 for every new customer signed.

Last fall, mayoral challenger Vince Winegardner made local government involvement in broadband a political issue, saying the purchase of the cable system was a mistake.  He lost his bid, but the system’s money needs remain a frequent topic of discussion in all of the communities involved in MI-Connection, and earlier this year the company company asked for $1.1 million from Davidson and Mooresville to ride out the rest of the fiscal year.

Time Warner’s recent interest in invading a fellow cable operator’s service area and slashing prices for those customers has raised the question whether their overbuild is about competition or predatory pricing to drive MI-Connection out of business.

Wagner doesn’t seem to mind either way, telling the Observer it is a “win-win” for her, scoring a lower cable bill with Time Warner.

But Sam isn’t so sure the savings will last.

“It seems pretty clear to me that Time Warner isn’t hurrying to compete with Comcast or Charter — just MI-Connection and that makes me suspicious,” Sam says. “After spending all that money to ban community broadband in the state, they now seem to be trying to drive out of business the handful of companies that were exempted.”

“My niece is probably paying for this right now on her cable bill too, and once MI-Connection is out of the way, those prices will shoot right back up,” Sam concludes.

If you thought paying an average of $86 a month for basic pay television and premium movie channels in 2011 was out of line, just wait.  A new report predicts you could pay $123 by the year 2015 and $200 by 2020 — and that only includes the TV portion of your bill.

That is in keeping with typical annual rate increases, typically blamed on “increased programming costs,” which currently run an average of six percent a year.

The NPD Group, who published the findings, predicts consumers may not sit still for that kind of monthly cable television bill, especially as household incomes for the middle class continue to remain stagnant, even as high fuel and health care prices continue to march higher.

The pay television industry isn’t entirely responsible for the annual rate hikes that nearly always outpace the rate of inflation.  The real money is in programming production and distribution, which is why giant companies like Comcast, Bell, Rogers, and Viacom are buying up programming studios, distributors, and networks at a rapid pace.

With new players like Netflix, Amazon, and Redbox joining traditional pay television and broadcast network bidders, auctions for exclusive licensing agreements bring higher and higher bids.  Ultimately, consumers pay the price in the form of higher bills.  Even cable networks, sensing an increase in the value of their programming, are extracting higher monthly fees at contract renewal time.

The last to arrive at the programming money party?  Local over-the-air broadcasters that used to beg cable companies to carry their channels on the local lineup.  Now some are demanding as much as $5 or more per month per subscriber to allow the cable operator to keep carrying the stations.

“As pay-TV costs rise and consumers’ spending power stays flat, the traditional affiliate-fee business model for pay-TV companies appears to be unsustainable in the long term,” said Keith Nissen, research director for The NPD Group. “Much needed structural changes to the pay-TV industry will not happen quickly or easily; however, the emerging competition between video on demand and premium-TV suppliers might be the spark that ignites the necessary business-model transformation of the pay-TV industry.”

In other words, the more consumers cut cable’s cord and go find other ways to watch their favorite shows, the more unsustainable the traditional pay television business model will become.  Some industry watchers believe cord-cutting is not a major issue.  Others believe continued rate increases will drive customers to cancel service, particularly when alternatives are available. But NPD believes economic factors are the biggest reason for cable cord-cutting.  Those ex-customers are switching back to free “over the air” television, which now delivers better picture quality and often includes additional channels that increase the number of viewing options.

NPD Group research shows most consumers don’t want to exert too much effort to hunt down online programming. Most will put up with their current provider as long as they deliver the shows they want at a price they can afford.  What could change that?  Easy-to-access to a-la-carte programming, perhaps available from services that may soon come built-in with the newest television sets.

“Pay-TV providers offer a convenient, one-stop shop for subscribers, and the majority of customers like it that way,” said Russ Crupnick, senior vice president of industry analysis for The NPD Group. “There is an open window for the industry to meet consumer needs and become to television what iTunes is to music; however, there is also a definite risk if pay-TV providers don’t capitalize on the opportunity — and soon.”

Stop the Cap! has written extensively about the American Legislative Exchange Council’s pervasive influence on state telecommunications policies long before Trayvon Martin and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law put a spotlight on the shadowy corporate-backed group in the national media.

ALEC’s mission is clear.  It acts as a go-between between corporate interests who customize business-friendly state legislation in their favor and the legislators willing to introduce those bills as their own. ALEC provides the cover some legislators need to protect their image in the public eye.

A handful of legislators in safe districts are bold enough to openly admit introducing legislation written by a company like AT&T.  Take Kentucky Republican Sen. Paul Hornback.  He introduced a deregulation measure in Kentucky’s state Senate that would do away with universal landline service and almost entirely deregulate AT&T’s operations in Kentucky.  When the media found out Hornback introduced legislation AT&T actually wrote, he didn’t seem to mind one bit and doubled down on the apparent conflict of interest.

Sen. Paul Hornback (R-AT&T)

“You work with the authorities in any industry to figure out what they need to move that industry forward,” Hornback said, defending his bill that would do exactly that, at the expense of Kentucky consumers facing rate hikes AT&T has pushed in other states where similar measures were passed.

Hornback is the exception to the rule.  For more timid legislators concerned about their next election campaign, ALEC is only too happy to provide cover.

When ALEC’s connection to Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law was exposed, it swept the secretive group into the Martin media tornado.  When reports surfaced connecting the dots between ALEC and some of America’s largest corporations, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Intuit, and Pepsi fled ALEC’s membership roster.  No soft drink company wants to be connected to a controversial Florida gun law.

First Coca-Cola and Kraft Foods, Now AT&T

Today, Color of Change, a group dedicated to amplifying the voice of African-Americans to make government more responsive to minorities set its sights on AT&T, one of ALEC’s most prominent members.

They have a major fight on their hands.  Few corporations have used ALEC as effectively as the descendant of Ma Bell.  AT&T’s enormous lobbying machine has frequently used ALEC to help introduce deregulation measures in states across the country.

“Even after we wrote AT&T to let them know that more than 85,000 ColorOfChange members have asked that they disassociate themselves from ALEC, the company has remained silent,” says Color of Change. “It’s clear that they think we will just go away.”

Throwing away their membership in ALEC would be a major blow to AT&T’s lobbyists who are well-connected inside the group. AT&T has several leadership roles within ALEC’s various state chapters:

ALEC State Chairs Affiliated With AT&T

• Arkansas:
  — Ted Mullenix, AT&T
• California:
  — Pete Anderson, AT&T
• Connecticut:
  — John Emra, AT&T
• Louisiana:
  — Daniel Wilson, AT&T
• Mississippi:
  — Randal Russell, AT&T
• Texas:
  — Holly Reed, AT&T

How do these ALEC-involved lobbyists influence elected officials?  They wine and dine lawmakers and their families, encouraging them to introduce legislation favorable to AT&T.

Everyone Knows Randy Russell – AT&T’s Go-To-Guy in Mississippi

Beckett

AT&T lobbyist Randy Russell has been representing the interests of Big Telecom in Mississippi for more than a decade.  Originally registered as a lobbyist for AT&T predecessor BellSouth, Russell today also serves as ALEC’s state chairman in the Magnolia State.

When he isn’t spending his time in the state capital — Jackson — he’s wining and dining lawmakers who might be future supporters of AT&T’s business agenda in the legislature.

Lucky for AT&T Russell found Rep. Jim Beckett (R-Bruce).  And what a find.  Beckett is in the catbird seat, serving as chairman of the House Public Utilities Committee — the oversight committee responsible for ensuring that when someone in Mississippi picks up a phone, there is actually a dial tone.

Unfortunately for Mississippi consumers Beckett has AT&T’s Russell on his speed dial.

The Cottonmouth Blog discovered both men have spent a lot of time together:

It seems that Russell and AT&T picked up the food tab for Rep. Jim Beckett and his wife at the ALEC meeting in at the Westin Kierland Resort in Scottsdale, Ariz. from November 30 to December 2, 2011.  AT&T also paid for a few rounds of golf for Rep. Beckett while there.  All said and done, AT&T paid $565.39 to cover expenses for Rep. Beckett and his wife on their three day trip to Scottsdale.

But that’s not all.  AT&T also picked up the tab for $151.70 worth of food and tickets while Rep. Beckett and his wife were at the Spring ALEC meeting in Cincinnati, OH in late April of 2011. AT&T also paid $22.62 for food for Rep. Beckett and his wife while he attended the 2011 Summer ALEC meeting in New Orleans.

The total amount AT&T gave to Rep. Jim Beckett and his wife in 2011 through Randy Russell?  $876.85.  The names of the Becketts appear a total of 36 times in AT&T’s 2011 lobbying report, most of it while the Becketts are at ALEC retreats.

AT&T also helped more directly with $2,500 in campaign contributions to Beckett’s campaign fund.  What did all of AT&T’s money and travel vouchers buy them?

Dialing for Deregulation

House Bill 825 — ‘The AT&T Total Deregulation Act’: A bill introduced by none other than Rep. Beckett that would effectively strip what remaining oversight exists over AT&T’s operations in Mississippi.  It’s a bill very familiar to Stop the Cap!, because it includes all of the usual “bullet points” found in ALEC’s own legislative database — all of enormous interest and importance to AT&T.

Northern District Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley, who deals with consumer complaints about AT&T’s service in the state, effectively called HB 825 an unmitigated disaster for ratepayers from Corinth in the north to Biloxi in the south:

[...] House Bill 825 would totally strip the PSC of any authority to hold AT&T accountable for rate increases and lousy landline and cell phone coverage. Presley said the bill was requested by AT&T as retaliation against the PSC for denying a rate increase and for complaining of poor cellular and residential phone service. The PSC won a case in the Mississippi Supreme Court to limit charges to customers after AT&T appealed the PSC’s ruling.

[...] Presley said the Legislature passed the first phase of deregulation in 2006 and since then complaints to the Commission about billing errors, poor service and the like have risen from 1,735 in 2006 to 4,361 in 2011 an increase of over 150%. “This is evidence enough of why this bill is bad for consumers.”

[...] Along with removing all of the Public Service Commission’s authority to investigate abuses, extortion and customer complaints, House Bill 825 also removes the Commission’s authority to designate conditions for AT&T’s receiving of millions in federal funds to promote rural cell phone service. Presley said the Commission’s authority to place conditions on those dollars has been the main tool to increase cell phone coverage in rural counties. “Rural Mississippi’s interests are gutted in this bill.” Presley said.

Cottonmouth reminds readers who may not be familiar with Mississippi that Beckett’s home district — Bruce — puts his AT&T ghost-written legislation at odds with his own constituents:

“Bruce [isn't] exactly urban,” the blogger writes. “Matter of fact, anyone who has driven on Highway 7 right outside of Bruce and tried to make an AT&T cell phone call could tell you just how much this bill will hurt Rep. Beckett’s constituents.”

Even Beckett’s fellow Republicans serving the state PSC couldn’t stomach the legislation that guaranteed even more customer complaints.  Southern District Public Service Commissioner Leonard Bentz issued his own press release attacking the bill:

“This is a very bad bill for consumers in Mississippi,” Commissioner Bentz stated. “Even though AT&T will tell you that the oversight that we [PSC] have is limited, the little we do have is piece of mind for the consumers.”

“You don’t have to think very long to understand why this bill is bad. Think back to last time you called  in a problem to AT&T and the lack of customer service you received. This bill would make it worse. It is important to understand AT&T will lead you to believe this bill will affect only a small number of customers, but that is not so. As it stands right now, all customers with AT&T have the ability to file complaints with the Public Service Commission, and have the PSC on their side to help them navigate the system. The bill clearly states customer appeals will be removed from the PSC jurisdiction.

The third commissioner on the PSC, Republican Central District Public Service Commissioner Lynn Posey, hoped HB 825 would simply go away, seeking to bury it in a “study committee.”

Despite the universal opposition to the measure among those tasked with overseeing the state’s phone companies, Beckett decided AT&T knew better and quickly pushed HB 825 through his committee.  What makes Beckett an expert in telecommunications policy?  Not too much: He calls himself a lawyer on his biography page, but he’s also the owner of Beckett Oil & Gas.

Despite efforts by consumer advocates, a slightly-amended measure passed both the Republican-controlled state House and Senate and this week will be sent to the desk Gov. Phil Bryant for his signature.

“The small telephone companies in this state, many of them are opposed to this,” said Rep. Cecil Brown (D-Jackson). “If it hurts their business, it’s going to hurt your local communities. That’s all there is to it.”

The price the phone company paid to get Rep. Beckett on Team AT&T?: $2,500 + ALEC-sponsored free meals and travel.

KTTP in Rochester, Minn. explores the influence of state lobbyists working with ALEC who push lawmakers to introduce legislation corporations wrote themselves.  (4 minutes)

In late February, LIN Television, owner of Norfolk’s NBC affiliate WAVY and Hampton Roads’ Fox station WVBT was engaged in a high profile battle with Cox Cable over retransmission consent fees — the price the cable company pays to put over the air broadcast stations on the cable dial.  While neither side would say exactly how much money was involved, Cox Cable customers will foot the bill starting April 2nd, when the Virginia cable operator raises rates up to 18.3% for basic cable — the fourth rate hike since 2009 and the second in 10 months.

A breakdown:

• TV Starter (broadcast basic + a handful of basic cable networks) up 18.3% — was $18, now $21.30
• TV Essential (local stations + 40 popular basic cable networks) up 5.5% — was $59.99, now $63.29
• Digital set top box rental up $1 to $6.99
• Cox Internet Essential (3Mbps) up 16% — was $24.99, now $28.99

LIN Media owns local stations around the country.

Cox officials blamed the rate increases on the cost of programming, notably for local stations.

“Programming costs are rising much faster than the rate of inflation,” Felicia Blow, a Cox spokeswoman, wrote in an email to the Virginian Pilot. “While we absorb much of the increase incurred [...] we must pass on a portion of the increases to our customers.”

Local broadcasters across the country are aggressively pursuing retransmission consent fees as the traditional advertising model for free, over the air television, has been challenged by the soft economy and poor ad sales.  Parent companies that own clusters of local stations also see the fees as a lucrative new revenue stream for themselves and their investors.

Over the past decade, Cox generally has raised its prices about once a year, notes the Virginian Pilot. The company began speeding up the timetable in 2010. With the latest change coming in April, Cox will have boosted rates for at least some parts of its service – particularly the cost of its most popular package – four times since November 2009.  Approximately 90 percent of 416,000 Hampton Roads-area Cox customers will be paying more for cable service this spring as a result.

WAVY in February reported on its parent company’s battle with Cox Cable in this self-serving story aired on its evening newscast.  (3 minutes)

The Republican takeover of the North Carolina legislature in 2010 was great news for some of the state’s largest telecommunications companies, who successfully received almost universal support from those legislators to outlaw community broadband service in North Carolina — the 19th state to throw up impediments to a comfortable corporate broadband duopoly.

Dialing Up the Dollars — produced by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, found companies including AT&T, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, and the state cable lobby collectively spent more than $1.5 million over the past five years on campaign contributions.  Most of the money went to legislators willing to enact legislation that would largely prohibit publicly-owned competitive broadband networks from operating in the state.

North Carolina consumer groups have fought anti-community broadband initiatives for the past several years, with most handily defeated in the legislature.  But in 2010, Republicans assumed control of both the House and Senate for the first time since the late 1800s, and the change in party control made all the difference.  Of 97 Republican lawmakers who voted, 95 supported HB 129, the corporate-written broadband competition ban introduced by Rep. Marilyn Avila, a legislator who spent so much time working with the cable lobby, we’ve routinely referred to her as “(R-Time Warner Cable).”

Democrats were mostly opposed to the measure: 45 against, 25 for.  Stop the Cap! called out those lawmakers as well, many of whom received substantial industry money in the form of campaign donations.

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance pondered broadband speeds and value in North Carolina and found commercial providers lacking.  (3 minutes)

*AT&T’s total includes contributions from BellSouth in 2006 and 2008 and AT&T Mobility LLC. **CenturyLink’s total includes contributions from Embarq Corp.

According to Catharine Rice, president of the SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, HB 129 received the greatest lobbying support from Time Warner Cable, the state cable lobbying association — the North Carolina Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCCTA), and CenturyLink.

Following the bill’s passage, the NCCTA issued a press release stating, “We are grateful to the members of the General Assembly who stood up for good government by voting for this bill.”

CenturyLink sent e-mail to its employees suggesting they write thank you letters to supportive legislators:

 “Thanks to the passage of House Bill 129, CenturyLink has gained added confidence to invest in North Carolina and grow our business in the state.”

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CenturyLink Frustration.flv

A CenturyLink customer endures frustration from an infinite loop while calling customer service. Is this how the company will grow the business in North Carolina?  (1 minute)

Consumers Pay the Price

In North Carolina, both Time Warner Cable and AT&T increased prices in 2011.

After the bill became law without the signature of Gov. Bev Purdue, Time Warner Cable increased cable rates across North Carolina.  CenturyLink’s version of AT&T’s U-verse — Prism — has seen only incremental growth with around 70,000 customers nationwide.  The phone company also announced an Internet Overcharging scheme — usage caps — on their broadband customers late last fall.

Someone had to pay for the enormous largesse of campaign cash headed into lawmaker pockets.  For the state’s largest cable operator — Time Warner Cable — another rate increase handily covered the bill.

In all, lawmakers received thousands of dollars each from the state’s incumbent telecom companies:

• Lawmakers who voted in favor of HB 129 received, on average, $3,768, which is 76 percent more than the average $2,135 received by the those who voted against the bill;
• 78 Republican lawmakers received an average of $3,824, which is 36 percent more than the average $2,803 received by 53 Democrats;
• Those in key legislative leadership positions received, on average, $13,531, which is more than double the $2,753 average received by other lawmakers;
• The four primary sponsors of the bill received a total of $37,750, for an average of $9,438, which is more than double the $3,658 received on average by those who did not sponsor the bill.

Even worse for rural North Carolina, little progress has been made by commercial providers to expand broadband in less populated areas of the state.  AT&T earlier announced it was largely finished expanding its U-verse network and has stalled DSL deployment as it determines what to do with that part of its business.

In fact, the most aggressive broadband expansion has come from existing community providers North Carolina’s lawmakers voted to constrain. Salisbury’s Fibrant has opted for a slower growth strategy to meet the demand for its service and handle the expense associated with installing it.  Wilson’s Greenlight fiber to the home network supplies 100/100Mbps speeds to those who want it today.

In Upside-Down World at the state capitol in Raleigh, community-owned providers are the problem, not today’s duopoly of phone and cable companies that deliver overpriced, comparatively slow broadband while ignoring rural areas of the state.

Key Players

Some of the key players that were “motivated” to support the cable and phone company agenda, according to the report:

Tillis collected $37,000 from Big Telecom for his last election, in which he ran unopposed. Tillis was in a position to make sure the telecom industry's agenda was moved through the new Republican-controlled legislature.

Thom Tillis, who became speaker of the house in 2011, received $37,000 in 2010–2011 (despite running unopposed in 2010), which is more than any other lawmaker and significantly more than the $4,250 he received 2006–2008 combined. AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon each gave Tillis $1,000 in early-mid January, just before he was sworn in as speaker on January 26. Tillis voted for the bill, and was in a key position to ensure it moved along the legislative pipeline.

The others:

• Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger received $19,500, also a bump from the $13,500 he received in 2008 and the $15,250 in 2006. He voted for the bill.
• Senate Majority Leader Harry Brown received $9,000, significantly more than the $2,750 he received in 2006 and 2008 combined. Brown voted in favor of the bill.
• Democratic Leader Martin Nesbitt, who voted for the bill, received $8,250 from telecommunication donors; Nesbitt had received no contributions from telecommunication donors in earlier elections.

The law is now firmly in place, leaving North Carolina wondering where things go from here.  AT&T earlier announced it had no solutions for the rural broadband challenge, and now it and other phone and cable companies have made certain communities across North Carolina don’t get to implement their solutions either.

What You Can Do

1. If you live in North Carolina, check to see how your elected officials voted on this measure, and how much they collected from the corporate interests who supported their campaigns.  Then contact them and let them know how disappointed you are they voted against competition, against lower rates, against better broadband, and with out of state cable and phone companies responsible for this bill and the status quo it delivers.  Don’t support lawmakers that don’t support your interests.
2. If you live outside of North Carolina and we alert you to a similar measure being introduced in your state, get involved. It is much easier to keep these corporate welfare bills from becoming law than it is to repeal them once enacted.  If you enjoy paying higher prices for reduced service and slow speeds, don’t get involved in the fight. If you want something better and don’t appreciate big corporations writing laws in this country, tell your lawmakers to vote against these measures or else you will take your vote elsewhere.
3. Support community broadband. If you are lucky enough to be served by a publicly-owned broadband provider that delivers good service, give them your business.  Yes, it may cost a few dollars more when incumbent companies are willing to slash rates to drive these locally owned providers out of business, but you will almost always receive a technically superior connection from fiber-based providers and the money earned stays right in your community. Plus, unlike companies like CenturyLink, they won’t slap usage caps on your broadband service.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner Cable -- Fiber Spot.flv

What do you do when your company doesn’t have a true, fiber to home network and faces competition from someone that does?  You obfuscate like Time Warner Cable did in this ad produced for their Southern California customers. (1 minute)

Time Warner Cable just won’t let you say goodbye, if they can help it.

A year ago, your editor fought for a better deal from the cable company that has served him since the 1980s.  With a tough economy and downsizing, paying a cable bill that was approaching $175 a month in early 2011 for ‘all their best’ was simply no longer an option.  Time Warner Cable’s customer retentions office responded with a promotion that slashed the bill to just $88.44 for Turbo Internet, cable-TV, and unlimited “digital phone” service with nationwide calling.  Incidental charges included leasing a whole house DVR ($7.04), a second cable box ($6.84), $1 for “digital programming” and $0.34 for the remote control.

When the cable operator introduced DOCSIS 3 broadband speed upgrades, an additional $20 a month brought 30/5Mbps speeds.  The total — $123.66 (before taxes and fees).  That’s a whole lot less for a great deal more service.

When the promotion ended in February, the rate shot back up to $160, but $7.95 of that was for a year of Showtime at a special promotional price.  Showtime was destined for the cancel corner anyway (we didn’t watch more than two hours of anything on Showtime in the last year), but even without it, the rate increase was on the steep side.

So we complained.

Unlike last year, which resulted in considerable confusion and arguing back and forth with different representatives to find the best deal, this year we let Time Warner’s social media representatives do the hard work for us.  Within 24 hours, our rate for all of the same services, plus a special promotion that includes HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, and The Movie Channel at no additional charge, brought the bill down even lower than we managed last year: $102.33 a month for a year.  That includes the 30/5Mbps Road Runner Extreme, Whole House DVR, and one extra cable box.  It doesn’t include taxes and fees, which typically add another $6.50 to the bill.

The whole process was painless, and you can follow in our footsteps if you have a Twitter account:

Step One: Tweet Time Warner:

The key phrase in whatever Tweet you send is to include: @twcablehelp, which brings you to their social media customer service representatives.  I also “followed” twcablehelp so I could see how active they were.  During business hours, you should expect to see a reply like this within the hour:

For those new to Twitter, “DM” refers to a “direct message” — a private Tweet seen only by the intended recipient.  I finally found the menu option that allows me to send a “direct message” on Twitter’s page for Time Warner Cable:

Note the red box around the option on the top right.  By clicking that you will see a drop down menu that includes an option to “Direct Message” TWCableHelp.  You will want to include your Time Warner Cable account number (as seen on your bill) and include your contact phone number.

Within 24-48 hours, a senior retentions specialist should call you to negotiate a better offer for your service.  Make sure you answer those unfamiliar caller ID calls!  But before they call, visit Time Warner Cable’s website and note any currently running new customer promotions.  Also check to see if the competition is offering anything even lower.  Those prices are typically the starting point for your negotiations, and the company should have little trouble meeting them.  However, customers with a poor payment record or past due account may discover the company less willing to negotiate.  Bring account balances current before negotiating for a lower rate.

Some Time Warner Cable territories offer “price protection agreements” or term contracts that lock customers into 1-2 years of service.  Negotiating around these contracts can be difficult to impossible.

An alternative contact method is to direct e-mail Time Warner at: twcable.help@timewarnercable.com (don’t forget the “.” in twcable.help).

The total time spent this year on finding a better deal that will save us $58 a month — $696 a year — about five minutes, far less than the time it took to write this article.  Give it a try and let us know in the comments what kind of deals you can negotiate.

Phillip "Keeping an Eye on Time Warner's Eye" Dampier

Today’s announcement by Time Warner Cable that it is reintroducing usage based billing, at least optionally for customers in southern Texas, is a concerning development that requires further examination and vigilance.  But before we delve into that, I’d like to thank the company for avoiding the kind of mandatory usage billing/cap system we’ve seen appearing at certain other providers.  We also welcome the company’s admission that they have earned enormous profits from unlimited consumption plans and consider that pricing part of the success story they’ve had selling Internet access.

Stop the Cap! has never opposed optional usage-based billing tiers for customers who feel their light usage justifies a service discount.  However, industry trends so far have made no provisions for truly unlimited usage plans that sit side by side tiered plans without quietly diluting the value of flat rate Internet with tricks and traps in the fine print.  We have serious concerns this “foot in the door” to Internet Overcharging could eventually become mandatory for all customers.  Perhaps Time Warner Cable will be different than all the rest.  We can only hope so.

Let’s break it down:

First, Time Warner Cable’s admission it blew it the first time it experimented with these pricing schemes is most welcome.  Being on the front lines of the battle against the company’s Internet Overcharging experiment in 2009 remains very-well-documented on this website.  We confronted arrogant local management that argued usage billing was “fair” and would barely affect any customer.  In fact, the original plan a later revision would have tripled flat rate Internet access to a ridiculous $150 a month.

The company’s 2009 “listening tour” was also a farce, with a number of e-mailed comments deleted unread (we know, because Time Warner’s comment system sent e-mail to customers telling them exactly that.)  Local media outlets, newspaper editorials, and customers made it quite clear: customers want their unlimited Internet access left alone.  They do not want to learn the mysteries of a gigabyte, they don’t want to watch a gauge to determine how much usage they have left, and they sure don’t want to pay any more for broadband service.

If Jeff Simmermon, Time Warner Cable’s director of digital communications, now represents the prevailing attitude about unlimited Internet access among Time Warner Cable’s executive management, that is a very welcome change indeed.  But we’re not completely convinced.  For nearly two years, Time Warner executives have talked favorably about usage-based billing as the “fairest way” to bill for Internet usage.  Besides Simmermon’s comments, we have seen nothing from CEO Glenn Britt or CFO Irene Esteves that indicates they have changed their original views on that.

Unfortunately, we’ve learned over the last three years today’s promises may not mean a lot a year from now.  We’ve watched too many companies introduce these pricing schemes and then gradually tighten the noose around their customers.  Once broadband usage is monetized, Wall Street looks to the practice of charging for usage as a revenue source, and they pressure companies to keep that money flowing.  What begins as an optional tiered plan can eventually become the only plan when flat rate broadband is “phased out.”

Canadians understand this is not unprecedented.  They’ve been down this broadband road before, and it is loaded with expensive potholes and broken promises to repair them.  Usage allowances have actually dropped at some Canadian providers.  The fixed maximum on overlimit fees has gradually been relaxed or removed altogether, exposing Canadian consumers to broadband bill shock.

Time Warner Cable customers are now paying upwards of $50 a month for broadband after consecutive annual rate increases.  That’s plenty, and usage should remain unlimited for that kind of money.

Still, Stop the Cap! has never been opposed to truly optional usage-based billing plans.  We’re just unconvinced companies will keep the wildly popular flat rate pricing if boatloads of additional revenue can be made dragging customers to tiered usage plans, particularly in the absence of aggressive competition.  Just ask AT&T.

Second, as we’ve seen on the wireless side, “unlimited Internet access” means one thing to consumers and all-too-often something very different to providers.  For example, companies have discovered they can claim to provide unlimited access but then de-prioritize flat rate traffic, or even worse, throttle speeds and give preferential treatment to usage-based billing traffic.  Time Warner Cable needs to commit that unlimited access means exactly that — no traffic prioritization, no speed throttles, and no sneaky fine print.

Third, we don’t expect Time Warner will get too many takers for their Broadband Essentials Internet program.  The discount, just $5 a month, is quite low for broadband service limited to 5GB per month.  Exceeding that limit is quite easy, and after just 5GB of “excess usage,” the discount is eaten away and the penalty rate of $1/GB kicks in.  That could ultimately risk up to $25 a month in extra charges.  I’m uncertain how many customers would want to risk exposing themselves to that for a modest discount.

While we are not issuing a Call to Action over these developments, we will be watching them very closely.  Time Warner Cable should make no mistake: if their usage billing plans begin to eat away at fairly priced unlimited access plans, we will once again picket the company and do whatever is necessary to bring political and consumer pressure to force them to rescind these kinds of pricing schemes yet again.