Clear made itself unclear about its speed throttle.

Clear, the 4G wireless broadband service backed by Sprint, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable is under fire for selling customers an unlimited use/”no speed limit” service plan that is heavily throttled to as low as 250kbps once customers are deemed “heavy users” by the provider.

Stop the Cap! reader Kevin in Rochester dropped us a note to share his frustration at Clear’s bait and switch marketing that promises one thing and delivers another.

It’s becoming common knowledge – but not common enough – that Clear is throttling their in-home broadband subscribers. For $30 a month, Clear delivers “unlimited 3Mbps” download speed, but after 8-10GB of usage in a month, they cut your speed to 250kbps as a punishment.

Scores of customers share Kevin’s problems, with complaints pouring in on broadband forums and on Clear’s customer support website (which crashed earlier today).  It is not known whether these usage limitations are also imposed on Comcast and Time Warner Cable’s branded 4G wireless services, which are also delivered by Clear’s network.

Remarkably, Clear’s website has marketed its broadband service as free from classic Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles/network management:

Clear's own marketing promises unlimited usage with no speed reductions, unlike those "other" providers, which now also includes Clear itself. (Courtesy: Michael46)

Despite the marketing, Clear’s Rob Lenderman today admitted the company implemented a speed throttle system on Wednesday, Sept. 29 and placed the blame for doing so on peer-to-peer torrent traffic:

Last Wednesday we deployed a new automated algorithm that tries to even the playing field for all users. Essentially we tried to take users that were downloading large amounts of data over a week’s period of time and limit their top speeds during periods of high tower utilization. This system is based on a tower’s current utilization, GB’s downloaded in the past 7 days and current download speeds in the past 15 minutes. it recalculates your max D/L speed every 15 minutes based on these factors. All in there are 48 buckets of max D/L speeds based on these factors.

The expected results of these changes was that a small percentage of users would be slowed down for short periods of time but only during high utilization times on the tower.

Theoretically the very slow speeds would only last for 15 minutes and then readjust based on tower usage and the last 15 minutes of slower speeds.

The reality is that a very small percentage of users are being set at very low D/L speeds for hours at a time.

We are gathering more data as I write this and we are looking at adjustments to the policy so that the connection becomes more usable. Expect further details this week.

One thing I want to stress is that this algorithm does not apply to towers that have a low utilization which is a large percentage of the towers. Since high utilization is usually at night most users that are seeing slower speeds at night would see increases at other times of the day. We realize this is not ideal but using the system for large downloads outside normal usage hours(evening) will allow you to get higher speeds. This rule applies even if you are not being slowed. Fewer users = Higher speeds.

Expect more details in the next few days as we drill into the details and let you know what changes we will be making to make the experience better.

In the short term you can increase the speeds of your experience by reducing the number of GB sized downloads that take place. Our data shows that running a torrent is one of the reasons that people start to experience slower speeds.

[…]I use the word limit when talking about D/L speeds. Not in terms of amount of data you can download. I can assure you this is being handled at a very high level in the organization as some of the experiences some of you are having is not in the spirit of the program. As for using a P2P you will improve speeds if you run them at off peak hours. As tower utilization drops during those hours the algorithm will release more bandwidth and the apps will pick up speed. In addition fewer users will also yield an increase since the algorithm does not affect low utilization tower at all. So you get a double benefit from using off peak hours for large downloads.

We are looking at how to set the speed limits to ensure things like web browsing and youtube are useful even though large downloads may be limited in terms of speed during peak hours.

We are meeting every day to go over new data and determine a longer term solution instead of just throwing new solutions out there without putting some thought into them.

We apologize for this but we need to get it right and not just change for the sake of change.

RobL

Of course, customers promised repeatedly they would receive lightning-fast, unlimited wireless broadband from the company were unimpressed with the company’s argument that artificially slowing their speeds after as little as 20 minutes viewing Hulu or Netflix to 250kbps for several days qualified as ensuring the subscriber experience.  Many customers report Clear’s throttling is hardly limited only to peer to peer torrent traffic.  Online video streaming, in particular, routinely triggers the speed throttle for customers, something Lenderman admitted might be an issue:

We are looking at the impact of the new policy as we speak and will be reevaluating it shortly to determine what changes might need to be made.

The algorithm we use is complicated and is not intended to shut down users that use the service in a normal manner. It was intended to slow down usage from users that have bit torrents, etc running all day long.

For some of the customers that have complained we have researched it in detail and they were not being slowed by the algorithm. We have to make sure that everything is running properly as it makes no sense for us to limit users so much that the service becomes unusable.

We should have more info on what we plan to change in the next few days as we evaluate the data.

Clear becomes just the latest provider poster child for Net Neutrality in the United States.  While there may be reasonable capacity issues at stake on wireless networks not designed to accommodate 24/7 peer to peer traffic, throttling online video is another matter entirely — it’s one of the services Clear has promoted as possible using their higher speed network.  Artificially slowing a network the company sells as not being hampered by such traffic control measures is a classic case of false advertising.

One vocal Clear customer created this avatar

Customers have noticed and have attacked the company for dishonest business practices, bait and switch marketing, and violating their own internal policies.

Stop the Cap! has not seen any reports of company officials attempting to enforce early termination fees for those exiting contracts early.  Kevin noted his service was turned off as he was on the phone with a representative to process the disconnect request.  The representative also demanded Kevin return his modem.

Most who are dropping service are resuming service with their old providers, mostly cable broadband and telephone company DSL providers.  If online forum posts and Twitter tweets are to be believed, the company is losing hundreds of customers per day over their Internet Overcharging scheme.

Most likely, Clear has turned to vendors like Sandvine for “usage management” equipment that can automatically slow service for those who actually utilize the service they pay to receive.

“It is no longer about the broadband-connected home but about the broadband-connected individual,” said Tom Donnelly, EVP marketing and sales, Sandvine. “Service providers worldwide are looking for tools that enable their subscribers to stay within their service plans regardless of when, where or how they connect to the network.”

Sandvine’s products detect network conditions that trigger policies within the network to help service providers control subscribers’ Internet experience.  The latest version integrates with 3G and 4G networks to throttle speeds based on time of use or volume of data transferred.  A provider sets the parameters and the “network management” solution does the rest, automatically.

Stop the Cap! intends to monitor this situation carefully over the coming days to learn what the company intends to do with its network management scheme.  If they continue to use it, we will do our part and file a formal complaint against Clear with New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for false advertising and misleading business practices.

It is only a matter of time before a law firm begins a class action against the company for similar reasons.  Stop the Cap! encourages Clear customers to use the company’s forum to vocally demand an end to all Internet Overcharging schemes or else you will take your business elsewhere.  You should also demand full credit for the days you experience artificially slowed speeds, and please let us know if you are asked to pay any early termination fee for exiting a Clear term contract.

High speed Internet, snail slow refunds

Each time Frontier Communications gets mentioned on Stop the Cap!, we receive e-mail from disgruntled customers arriving to share their horror stories.  Since Frontier has now absorbed Verizon landlines in several states, that e-mail is only increasing.

Because so many messages arrive on different topics, we’ll be trying to share your stories with our readers based on the types of problems experienced.  Today, it’s the issue of refunds.

Stop the Cap! reader Alexia from Elk Grove, California writes:

Phillip, I want my money.  For four months, I have called, written, and called again to ask where my refund check from Frontier is.  We disconnected our service from Frontier back in May and our final bill had a credit of nearly $150 on our two landlines, DSL, and returned equipment.  Why so much?  Because we were quoted a final amount for our account and instead of using their auto-payment service, we mailed them a last check.  They withdrew that amount electronically from our checking account anyway, so we had double payments.

This isn’t just me.  My sister decided to disconnect her phone and will rely on her cell phone from now on, and she’s still waiting for her final credit balance to arrive back as well.

When you call Frontier, assuming you don’t get a busy signal or are left on hold, they seem very sympathetic and promise the refund has been processed and they are sending the check in the mail.  The Pony Express could have gotten the check to us by now.  My sister is waiting for $22 to be returned to her.

When I have canceled credit cards, utilities, and other services and have a credit balance, most of them include a check either in the final statement or in a letter that arrives within the month.  Not Frontier.  One representative claimed they don’t send refunds right away in case they discover additional charges they need to apply to an account.  What charges?  Are they hoping to find some?  We have not made a long distance call on our landline in years since getting a cell phone and I cannot imagine what other charges they are talking about.

What is the story here?

The check is in the mail

Stop the Cap! reader Jeff in Elko, Nevada had a similar problem:

My job transferred me to Reno in July and we canceled our service with Frontier and are still waiting for our last bill refund because we had a credit balance.  It was only around $8, but that was after I had to argue with them about a cancellation fee they tried to charge me and a fee for the DSL modem we returned to them.  They credited our account for both after talking to a supervisor but now it is a waiting game for the final refund check to arrive.  Every other company we canceled service with, right down to the propane people handled our final bill correctly.  Not Frontier.

Since moving to Reno, we signed up for AT&T service which turned out to be way better than the DSL we had with Frontier that went offline nearly every afternoon, so we’re fine saying goodbye to them.  Frontier has been in Elko for awhile now so I can only imagine what the Verizon customers are now dealing with.

In September, Frontier’s “the check is in the mail” excuse caught the attention of a Sacramento TV station’s consumer reporter.

Jeanne Pritchett Melendez of Elk Grove was also waiting for a refund check from Frontier for just over $15.

Back in May, Jeanne paid her Frontier phone bill ahead of time.  And when she canceled her service mid-month, her bill was pro-rated and she was promised her money back.  She called the company… Asking when her check would be sent. And every time, she says she was told, it’s on its way.  But after more than three months…

“I was very frustrated and I said, you know what, if I don’t have a check in the mail by Friday, I’m going to call Kurtis [Ming – CBS13 Consumer Reporter],” says Jeanne.

Melendez got her refund before our readers did, along with an explanation from Frontier about why refunds take months to arrive:

Frontier Communications Statement:

Frontier’s refund process is to refund the final credit balance on disconnected accounts within 2 to 3 bill cycles from the disconnect date to allow time for any additional credits or charges that need to be applied to the account. This process is to ensure that the customer receives an accurate refund check.

The customer’s account reflects that the service was disconnected on May 13, 2010. The May 22nd , June 22nd and July 22nd bills reflected a credit balance in the amount of $15.03. A refund check in the amount of $15.03 was processed on the account on August 9th. The customer will receive the refund check within 10 to 14 business days to the address on record.

The representatives are trained to alert the customer that it can take 2-3 billing cycles which is usually between 30-60 days. However in the case of Ms. Melendez’s account the disconnect notice was so close to the bill date that three bill cycles were required to process the refund.

— Stephanie Beasly, Communications Manager

This isn’t the first time Kurtis Ming has had to approach Frontier Communications about Sacramento area residents’ frustrations with the company.  Back in July, KOVR-TV ran a story about a Frontier customer who was paying a whopping $15 a month for Frontier’s Peace of Mind hard drive backup service he never got because he didn’t realize he had to download software to get the feature installed.  While that was not Frontier’s fault (and the company provided a credit to the customer for the service he never used), charging $15 a month for a service other customers are paying less to receive isn’t exactly fair either.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOVR Sacramento Frontier Service Problems 7-7 and 9-17-10.flv[/flv]

KOVR-TV in Sacramento ran two segments on Elk Grove-area customers having problems with Frontier Communications — one waiting for a refund and the other charged for a service he didn’t realize he had.  (4 minutes)

Verizon, the nation’s largest wireless phone company, has agreed to refund erroneous data charges for 15 million subscribers who paid for data sessions they did not initiate.

Those familiar with the proposed refund settlement claim the company could spend between $50-90 million in refunds for customers without data plans who were charged, in some cases repeatedly, $1.99 for a few seconds of web access.

The problem stems from Verizon phones that make accessing data services easy to trigger.  One misplaced button press can launch a data session, resulting in a web access fee.  Verizon repeatedly denied the company was charging customers who accidentally landed on the provider’s wireless home page, but customers loudly claimed otherwise, filing hundreds of complaints against Verizon with the Federal Communications Commission.

Teresa Dixon Murray, a reporter for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, was among the first to report on the mysterious charges many customers couldn’t figure out, especially as they continued even for customers who placed a “block” on accessing data services or who had powered their phones off and were still charged the fees:

In a column last summer, I chronicled my battle with Verizon after I discovered Verizon had been concocting $1.99 monthly charges for supposed Web use by my family plan numbers. Verizon’s ruse ended the month that my son’s phone was dead and locked away for weeks.

Verizon responded directly to me in a meeting with several top executives, and they promised to investigate the problems suffered by thousands of customers nationwide. The company in August also promised to change its policy of charging customers if they accidentally hit their phone’s “mobile Web” button. The new policy: To get charged, customers now supposedly have to type in a Web address.

A Verizon Wireless employee anonymously told the New York Times the scheme was a planned money-maker for Verizon, which earned up to $300 million a month just from accidental web access:

“The phone is designed in such a way that you can almost never avoid getting $1.99 charge on the bill. Around the OK button on a typical flip phone are the up, down, left, right arrows. If you open the flip and accidentally press the up arrow key, you see that the phone starts to connect to the web. So you hit END right away. Well, too late. You will be charged $1.99 for that 0.02 kilobytes of data. NOT COOL. I’ve had phones for years, and I sometimes do that mistake to this day, as I’m sure you have. Legal, yes; ethical, NO.

“Every month, the 87 million customers will accidentally hit that key a few times a month! That’s over $300 million per month in data revenue off a simple mistake!

“Our marketing, billing, and technical departments are all aware of this. But they have failed to do anything about it—and why? Because if you get 87 million customers to pay $1.99, why stop this revenue? Customer Service might credit you if you call and complain, but this practice is just not right.

“Now, you can ask to have this feature blocked. But even then, if you one of those buttons by accident, your phone transmits data; you get a message that you cannot use the service because it’s blocked–BUT you just used 0.06 kilobytes of data to get that message, so you are now charged $1.99 again!

“They have started training us reps that too many data blocks are being put on accounts now; they’re actually making us take classes called Alternatives to Data Blocks. They do not want all the blocks, because 40% of Verizon’s revenue now comes from data use. I just know there are millions of people out there that don’t even notice this $1.99 on the bill.”

Verizon’s decision to refund the erroneous data charges also comes long after a class action lawsuit was filed earlier this year against the company by Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., of behalf of customers.

Impacted existing customers can expect credits, typically ranging from $2-6 on their October or November bills.  Former customers will get refund checks in the mail.

The Federal Communications Commission said it was opening an investigation into the Verizon overcharges, seeking a financial penalty from the wireless carrier, according to Reuters.

The news agency noted some customers were billed for data fees just because of software pre-loaded onto phones:

The charges affected customers who did not have data usage plans, but were billed because of exchanges initiated by software built into their phones.

For example, trying out a demonstration of a game that Verizon Wireless had pre-loaded onto a phone would sometimes trigger data transmissions from the phone unbeknownst to the customers who were then charged by Verizon Wireless for the data.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPRI Providence Verizon To Pay Millions In Refunds 10-4-10.flv[/flv]

WPRI-TV in Providence covers the Verizon overcharges, pondering ‘why did it take more than two years for refunds?’  (3 minutes)

Cox Communications has rolled out a usage meter for its broadband customers, starting with its Gulf Coast market in northwest Florida, but launching elsewhere very soon according to Cox officials.

Broadband Reports readers first noticed the usage meter popping up on Cox’s website under “My Connection” — an account control panel.

The new usage meter accompanies usage limits Cox has had on its broadband tiers for more than a year — limits that have rarely been enforced.

Cox has traditionally left their broadband customers alone unless consumption creates a technical problem or begins to impact other customers.  The usage allowances range from 30-400GB, depending on the speed tier, and they are buried on Cox’s website.

Most Cox customers appear unconcerned about the new usage meter, so long as Cox continues its “soft cap” program that only targets users that create issues for others on its network.  But if the company begins to impose overlimit fees, or begins hard-enforcement of its caps, some customers are prepared to leave.

“AT&T or Knology are just a phone call away in many Cox cities,” writes our reader Kevin.  “If Cox starts a full scale overcharging scheme with customers, we’ll just switch.”

Cox is the nation’s fifth largest pay television provider with just over 5,000,000 customers.

The searchlight is looking for cash.

A phone company-backed research group has awarded Verizon the “Top Provider among Market Leaders for multi-protocol label switching and Carrier Ethernet services,” with two 2010 Nemertes PilotHouse Awards. This is the second time Verizon Business has received top honors for Market Leaders in both of these categories since the awards program debuted in 2008.

Nemertes Research, which depends on industry money to conduct research, is behind the awards.  Nemertes, backed by the phone industry-funded Internet Innovation Alliance, is the same group that regularly issues research reports predicting an imminent global “brown-out” of the Internet because of excessive broadband traffic.  In turn, those reports are used to lobby for network management policies that violate Net Neutrality and fuel calls for Internet Overcharging schemes.

Verizon’s press release spends several paragraphs on the defensive, going out of its way to suggest this particular award was not another phoneybaloney recognition created out of thin air with telco money:

“This recognition is particularly meaningful because the rankings are based 100 percent on the views and experiences of actual users, making PilotHouse a truly unique industry award,” said Anthony Recine, vice president of networking and communications solutions for Verizon Business.

[…]PilotHouse Awards are based 100% on the experiences of IT-decision makers. No vendors sponsor this research.

Nemertes itself spends plenty of time trying to cope with skepticism on its own website, but manages to expose another money trail along the way (underlining ours):

6) Is this a “pay-to-play” awards program?

No. Nemertes publishes aggregate and comparative data for all vendors for which we receive a total number of ratings equal to at least 10% of the total pool of ratings. As part of the survey, Nemertes provides a list of vendors derived from extensive research and analysis. There is also another category to allow participants to write in any provider in any category.

9) Can vendors promote the awards?

Yes. After completion of the award reports, Nemertes will notify winners and offer the option of buying award packages that include reprint rights, logo licensing, webinars, issue papers, and award dinner tickets. Buying award packages have no bearing on the results of the PilotHouse awards.

Among the big winners are AT&T, Cisco (the biggest driver of the “exaflood” theory around), Verizon, and Qwest.

What remains unsaid is who pays Nemertes to run an awards program and where the research firm would be without large telecommunications companies purchasing “research” they can safely assume will always find in their favor.

Nemertes’s slogan is “Independence, Integrity, Insight.”  Research groups that truly represent those ideals need not emphasize them because they are embodied in the quality of the research, the firewall that keeps industry money from tainting the findings, and full disclosure of who is paying for what.