Clearwire’s often-unclear “network management” policies are the subject of a lawsuit filed yesterday in Seattle seeking class action status.

Angelo Dennings vs. Clearwire Corporation was filed in the Western District of Washington federal court, and seeks refunds for consumers who were mislead by the company’s failure to disclose its network speed throttling and usage limitations, and charged early termination fees when subsequently canceling service.

Clearwire promises that its high-speed Internet service provides a “fast” and “always on, always secure” Internet connection allowing users to “[d]ownload pictures, music and videos.” But Clearwire does not provide an “always on,” “high-speed” connection as it promises. Clearwire purposefully slows the connection of its users because it cannot accommodate the high volume of traffic. Clearwire engages in a practice known as “throttling,” which is the intentional delay and/or blocking of Internet communications. This practice deprives Clearwire customers of the ability to “[d]ownload music and videos,” and leads to slow connection speeds.  Clearwire engages in throttling at times when demand for Internet use is highest, beginning at approximately 7:30 p.m. and ending at about 1:00-to-2:00 a.m.

If users attempt to cancel their service, Clearwire claims that, pursuant to its “contract” with them, it is entitled to collect an early termination or a re-stocking fee. The “contract” referred to by Clearwire is not a contract between it and its customers. The contract between Clearwire and its customers is simply that the customers will pay for, and Clearwire will provide, “unlimited” Internet usage at certain speeds, depending on the speed and payment plan selected in Clearwire’s stores, kiosks, or online.

The remaining “terms” invoked by Clearwire at its convenience are embedded in a document that consumers never see prior to subscribing to Clearwire’s service. Clearwire sells its services in its stores, kiosks at shopping centers, and online. Clearwire’s stores and kiosks do not have copies of this “contract” on hand for potential subscribers to read before they “agree” to its terms. Users who subscribe through Clearwire’s website never see the contract either because the link to it is at the bottom of a page, in substantially smaller font and lighter shade than all of the other text on the page. The text states: “Want to read the fine print (and who doesn’t read the fine print?) It’s all there in the CLEAR Legal Index.” No one wants to read fine print legalese and almost no one does. The statement is obviously and sharply ironic, and mocks anyone who may have been fussy enough to have considered continuing.

Despite not showing its terms to consumers, Clearwire refuses to allow users to cancel their service without paying the unconscionable fees it claims it is owed under this “contract.” These fees include an early termination fee (“ETF”), which penalizes consumers that want out before the end of the two-year term. Although Clearwire breached its contract with its customers, Clearwire insists on the payment of this ETF when customers realize they are not getting what they bargained for.

The suit argues that Clearwire has oversold its wireless broadband network, and allegedly quotes a company representative at one point telling Dennings, “Clearwire had signed up more customers than its cell towers could accommodate, and that therefore it was ‘managing’ users’ accounts.”

Attorney Clifford Cantor argues in the filing that Clearwire reduces customer speeds to 300kbps or lower when their network is congested, making the service unsuitable for most broadband applications.  Dennings, who lives near Ft. Worth, Tex., was outraged to learn Clear sold him a home and mobile broadband account that was advertised as a replacement for wired cable or DSL broadband, but was left with service he considered largely useless when throttled.  Even more upsetting, the suit alleges, Denning was asked to pay a $219 early contract termination and restocking fee when he tried to cancel service over the matter.

Cantor is asking for a court ruling declaring Clear’s policies to be unconscionable, attorneys’ fees of at least $5,000, and refunds for all impacted subscribers.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Michael in Chicago for sending along a copy of the lawsuit.  He runs the “Clear/Clearwire internet not as advertised” Facebook group.

Time Warner Cable is one of many cable companies that try to convince their customers Verizon FiOS and other true fiber-to-the-home providers offer nothing special.  After all, they proclaim: “we’ve got fiber, too!”

Time Warner Cable put this "special notice" on its website for cable subscribers.

More innovation from the late 70s.

In California’s Southland, stretching from the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valley across the Inland Empire to deep within Orange County, the cable operator just finished installing 361,149 miles of fiber, telling the LA Times it has enough fiber to wrap around the equator nearly 15 times.

Unfortunately for residential subscribers, the cable company can’t manage to stretch some strands your way.

Most of the $120-million expansion program is designed to benefit area businesses — some 125,000 across the Southland that could potentially tell the phone company to take a hike.  The Business Class expansion delivers service to business parks and campuses across the sprawling region that the cable operator has not wired before.

While Time Warner likes to say they are running “an advanced fiber network,” for many customers it’s the same technology cable companies have been using since the 1990s.  Once it reaches your neighborhood, classic coaxial cable brings service the rest of the way, and some of that coax has been around since the late 1970s.

That makes at least part of Time Warner’s network as fresh and innovative as — the Sony Walkman.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner Cable Fiber Ad.flv[/flv]

A Time Warner Cable ad implying the cable company delivers a fiber optic experience to customers in southern California.  (1 minute)

Some 1100 communities will have to wait until next year to learn if they are among the one(s) chosen for Google’s new 1 gigabit fiber to the home network.

An announcement on Google’s official blog broke the news to anxious readers this morning:

We had planned to announce our selected community or communities by the end of this year, but the level of interest was incredible—nearly 1,100 communities across the country responded to our announcement—and exceeded our expectations. While we’re moving ahead full steam on this project, we’re not quite ready to make that announcement.

We’re sorry for this delay, but we want to make sure we get this right. To be clear, we’re not re-opening our selection process—we simply need more time to decide than we’d anticipated. Stay tuned for an announcement in early 2011.

Google has also been working on a “beta” network, serving 850 private homes and condominiums on the main campus of Stanford University, owned primarily by the faculty.

That a company the size of Google faces delays from the challenges involved in building a fiber-to-the-home network speaks to similar delays that often slow down municipal broadband deployments.  Community broadband critics often seize on such delays as evidence the networks are not viable and run by unqualified personnel.  But as Google illustrates, such delays are common whether they are run by private or public entities.

Credo Action delivers flowers to the FCC

Over the last two days, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, their allies and other broadband activists have delivered more than two million signatures from Americans demanding the Federal Communications Commission adopt real Net Neutrality reforms.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is pushing a set of weak regulations that give just about everything to giant phone and cable companies, and leave Internet users with almost nothing.

We still have time to fix this toothless rule before it goes to a vote Dec. 21. Hence, the petitions.

The petition marathon comes as the FCC closes the public comment period on proposed Net Neutrality reforms.  Public interest groups ranging from Free Press, Common Cause, Credo Action, ColorofChange.org, and Public Knowledge, among others were involved in the petition relay.

Credo Action even sent flowers, protesting Genachowski’s apparent retraction on strong Net Neutrality.  Two massive funeral arrangements, one labeled “R.I.P. Net Neutrality” were delivered to the agency on Monday.

“The public will accept nothing less than real Net Neutrality,” said Misty Perez Truedson of Free Press. “No almost Net Neutrality, no half Net Neutrality and no fake Net Neutrality. And we hope that while he is considering his proposed rules, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski remembers that millions of people are expecting him to keep his promise to protect the open Internet.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/2 Million.flv[/flv]

Watch this compilation of videos from those delivering the petitions to the FCC and learn more about why Net Neutrality is important.  (22 minutes)

Satellite company Dish Network suffers a competitive disadvantage its grounded competition doesn’t — the ability to offer a broadband and phone service package along with a lineup of video channels.

Not anymore.

On Monday, Dish announced its intention to acquire Denver-based Liberty-Bell Telecom, a small telephone company serving 6,000 residential and 4,000 business customers in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah.

The purchase, if approved by the Federal Communications Commission, would give Dish the chance to sell a “triple-play” bundle of telephone, broadband, and satellite-delivered TV channels to Liberty-Bell customers.

Martino

Liberty-Bell was started by a consumer reporter, Tom Martino, currently working for KDVR-TV in Denver and host of the national radio program, The Troubleshooter Show.  The acquisition would deliver a 90 percent stake to Dish.  The phone company has an established reputation for consumer-friendly service, even giving out the personal cell phone number of company owner Nigel Alexander in case customers run into trouble.

The phone company already had an extensive bundling arrangement with Dish, heavily promoting the satellite service as part of its phone and broadband service package.

The move to acquire Liberty-Bell may be Dish’s first foray into developing its own triple-play package to compete with cable and phone companies.  Liberty-Bell delivers service to customers under a wholesale agreement with incumbent provider Qwest and is licensed to provide service to residential and business customers in 10 states.  Theoretically, Liberty-Bell could develop a much larger reach with wholesale agreements with incumbent phone companies around the country, especially with the financial backing by Dish.

That could create opportunities for the satellite company to meet the needs of an increasing number of Americans seeking telecommunications services from a single company.

Dish currently has reseller agreements with other independent phone companies, including Frontier Communications.