Thomas

Feisty T-Mobile is back on the attack, this time against Verizon’s new “Share Everything” plans which T-Mobile’s marketing gurus are calling a lousy deal for consumers.

Harry Thomas, director of segment marketing, dismissed Verizon’s new plans as costly, complicated, and punitive in a company blog post:

• They’re COSTLY – Verizon is charging more for what consumers want by raising rates on data, but promoting the “value” by pointing to unlimited talk and text even though today many consumers use less of these services. This is especially true for add-a-lines – now with Verizon’s Share Everything plans, adding a line starts at $30/month for a basic phone (non-smartphone) and, for accounts with at least one smartphone, requires unlimited minutes whether customers want unlimited or not.

• They’re COMPLICATED – Verizon is forcing customers to share data when many customers don’t know how much data they’re using, which makes it hard to stay within their limit when trying to balance multiple users (not to mention the family data hog).

• They’re PUNITIVE – At the same time that Verizon is making it harder for customers to manage overages, they are also increasing overage rates from $10/GB to $15/GB for accounts with at least one smartphone.

Thomas predicted Verizon’s new plans would deliver more benefits to Verizon’s bottom line than to consumers, and as they took effect late last week, he’s now convinced he was correct.

T-Mobile released this graphic showing its plans offer considerable savings over Verizon Wireless’ new “Share Everything” plans. Verizon is probably wishing AT&T managed to get that T-Mobile merger through, if only to stop this kind of competition.

AT&T wireless customers grandfathered on unlimited wireless data plans might want to think twice about calling to protest billing errors, because the company is using the occasion to strip off unlimited data plans from customer accounts.

Stop the Cap! reader Jess DeSanto is one of thousands of Florida customers who discovered AT&T has a tendency to add “extras” on wireless lines without the customer’s consent. DeSanto had been paying $2.99 a month for “Roadside Assistance,” part of her phone bill since the day she signed up for AT&T, and she never asked for it. She only noticed when a lawsuit required the company to notify customers the service was optional and offered refunds to those paying for the plan without realizing it.

“We always thought it was just one of those fees AT&T puts on our monthly bill, because we have been paying for it ever since we switched to AT&T from T-Mobile,” DeSanto shares. “When we finally learned we should have never had to pay for a service we did not order, we contacted AT&T to have the service removed.”

DeSanto said AT&T promptly took the service off her account, and even refunded more than a year of charges because she never used the service. But the company also quietly stripped the DeSanto family of its grandfathered, unlimited use data plans in the process.

“When I was reviewing the bill, I saw the credits, but I also saw we were suddenly placed on 3GB usage-limited data plans — the unlimited data we had was gone,” DeSanto writes. “Boy was I mad at AT&T.”

DeSanto had to endure a lecture from a customer service representative about how the unlimited use plan and the 3GB plan were essentially identical. (AT&T throttles the speed customers receive on the unlimited plan after 3GB of usage per month. AT&T will charge customers overlimit fees on the 3GB plan if they exceed their allowance.)

“I told them I don’t want to deal with a sneaky phone company switching my services without my permission in such an underhanded way,” DeSanto said. “It’s like buying a car off the lot and after you sign the papers, they drive up in a different car.”

A manager finally agreed to switch DeSanto back to the plans she originally signed up for, but she is still seething over the affair.

“If you are an AT&T customer, you better scrutinize that bill real careful every month, because you have no idea what they will pull next.”

DeSanto is not alone. A blogger named “Michael” reports his unlimited data plan was also eliminated when he called about another AT&T “billing error”:

I’ve had one of AT&T’s unlimited data plans since I first got an iPhone 3GS not quite three years ago. You can thus imagine my surprise when I checked my bill last month and discovered that I had been switched to 3GB/month limited data plan.

[…] When I finally got a rep on the line, I learned that they had made the change on March 22nd when I had called in about another billing error. As it turns out, when I upgraded my phone, they not only renewed my contract, but they also added roadside assistance ($2.99/month), phone insurance ($6.99/month), and something called the “enhanced mobile protection plan” ($3.00/month). (Note that none of these charges were reflected on my signed contract.)

When I called back in March, I had no trouble getting them to remove the unwanted services and credit me for the charges, but… they apparently took this opportunity to also switch me from my beloved unlimited data plan to a 3GB/month limited data plan. Without my permission.

Michael had no trouble getting his unlimited plan back when he complained. In fact, he was suspicious because it seemed “too easy.”

“[It was sort of]  like they’ve been making this “mistake” on purpose and are ready if/when people notice and call in to complain,” Michael writes.

Detroit U-verse technicians are at high risk of being confronted by crooks looking for valuable electronics.

AT&T U-verse technicians carry iPads, cell phones, and other expensive electronic equipment in trucks destined for service calls, and the crooks know it.

At least 10 technicians have been robbed in northwest Detroit in the last week alone, some at gunpoint.

“They’re scared. Afraid to go in certain areas,” said CWA Union President Greg Streeby. “A tech was approached by an individual with a gun who said, ‘Give me your iPad.’

So far, union leaders have been unimpressed with the reaction of AT&T, leading one worker to suggest the company does not care if technicians live or die.

Thieves learned AT&T’s U-verse branded trucks come stocked with expensive electronics, including cell phones and iPads, and they have become magnets for smash and grab robberies while technicians are inside customer homes. Since the robberies began, some technicians have started bringing valuable equipment inside with them.

Thieves learned to adapt, and are now willing to confront technicians as they return to their trucks, sometimes at gunpoint, and order them to hand over the electronics. Technicians have lost phones, laptops, tablets, and whatever else the thieves can steal and resell.

Jim Simons has never seen anything like it, and he has been working for AT&T as a field technician for more than 20 years.

“We are defenseless. We don’t carry any weapons,” Simons told WDIV News. “Not allowed to.”

AT&T workers were told by administrators there is nothing the company can do about the robberies, at which point a group of workers left and began a union-backed protest outside of several AT&T facilities across Detroit.

AT&T promptly locked out those workers and deactivated their ID badges, and their vehicles remain locked and inaccessible inside AT&T gated parking lots.

The company claims it is working on a solution, but union officials want an extra service technician temporarily sent on service calls in dangerous areas to keep an eye on the company’s property while another worker attends to the customer. AT&T has rejected that proposal.

[flv width=”625″ height=”372″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDIV Detroit ATT service workers robbed in northwest Detroit neighborhood 6-29-12.flv[/flv]

WDIV first told its Detroit audience about the AT&T holdups last Friday in this exclusive report. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”625″ height=”372″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDIV Detroit ATT techs protesting over on-the-job security concerns 7-2-12.flv[/flv]

Since WDIV’s first report, safety conditions have further deteriorated for AT&T workers, some of whom have now begun public protests outside of AT&T facilities demanding more safety while on service calls. (2 minutes)

Phillip “They Want to Save You Money By Charging You More” Dampier

The pro-Internet Overcharging forces’ meme of “pay for what you use” sounds good in theory, but no broadband provider in the country would dare switch to a true consumption-based billing system for broadband, because it would destroy predictable profits for a service large cable and phone companies hope you cannot live without.

Twenty years ago, the cable industry could raise rates on television packages with almost no fear consumers would cancel service. When I produced a weekly radio show about the cable and satellite television industry, cable companies candidly told me they expected vocal backlashes from customers every time a rate increase notice was mailed out, but only a handful would actually follow through on threats to cut the cord. Now that competition for your video dollar is at an all-time-high, providers are shocked (and some remain in denial) that customers are actually following through on their threats to cut the cord. Goodbye Comcast, Hello Netflix!

Some Wall Street analysts have begun warning their investor clients that the days of guaranteed revenue growth from video subscribers are over, risking profits as customers start to depart when the bill gets too high. Cable companies have always increased rates faster than the rate of inflation, and investors have grown to expect those reliable profits, so the pressure to make up the difference elsewhere has never been higher.

With broadband, cable and phone companies may have found a new way to bring back the Money Party, and ride the wave of broadband usage to the stratosphere, earning money at rates never thought possible from cable-TV. The ticket to OPEC-like rivers of black gold? Usage-based billing.

Since the early days of broadband, most Americans have enjoyed flat rate access through a cable or phone company at prices that remained remarkably stable for a decade — usually around $40 a month for standard speed service.

In the last five years, as cord-cutting has grown beyond a phenomena limited to Luddites and satellite dish owners, the cable industry has responded. As they learned customers’ love of broadband has now made the service indispensable in most American homes, providers have been jacking up the price.

Time Warner Cable, for example, has increased prices for broadband annually for the last three years, especially for customers who do not subscribe to any other services.

Customers dissatisfaction with rate hikes has not led to broadband cord cutting, and in fact might prove useful on quarterly financial reports -and- for advocating changes in the way broadband service is priced:

1. Enhance revenue and profits, replacing lost ground from departing video customers and the slowing growth of new customers signing up for video and phone services (and keeping average revenue per user ((ARPU)) on the increase);
2. Using higher prices to provoke an argument about changing the way broadband service is sold.

Pouring over quarterly financial reports from most major providers shows remarkable consistency:

• The costs to provide broadband service are declining, even with broadband usage growth;
• Revenue and profits enjoy a healthy growth curve, especially as increased prices on existing customers make up for fewer new customer additions;
• Earnings from broadband are now so important, a cable company like Time Warner Cable now refers to itself as a broadband company. It is not alone.

Still, it is not enough. As usage continues to grow in the current monopoly/duopoly market, providers are drooling with anticipation over the possibility of scrapping the concept of “flat rate” broadband, which limits the endless ARPU growth Wall Street demands. If a company charges a fixed rate for a service, it cannot grow revenue from that service unless it increases the price, sells more expensive tiers of service, or innovates new products and services to sell.

Providers have enjoyed moderate success selling customers more expensive, faster service, also on a flat rate basis. But that still leaves money on the table, according to Wall Street-based “usage billing” advocates like Craig Moffett, who see major ARPU growth charging customers more and more money for service as their usage grows.

Moffett has a few accidental allies in the blogger world who seem to share his belief in “usage-based” billing. Lou Mazzucchelli, reading the recent New York Times piece on Time Warner’s gradual move towards usage pricing, frames his support for consumption billing around the issue of affordability. In his view, usage pricing is better for consumers and the industry:

It costs real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand, and those costs are ultimately borne by the subscriber. So in the US, we have carriers trying to raise their rates to offset increases in capital and operating expenses to the point where consumers are beginning to push back, and the shoving has come to the attention of the Federal Communications Commission, which has raised the possibility of treating Internet network providers as common communications carriers subject to regulation.

I believe that flat-rate pricing is a major source of problems for network carriers and consumers. In the carrier world, the economics are known but ignored because marketers believe that flat rates are the only plans consumers will accept. But in the consumer world, flat rates are rising to incomprehensible levels for indecipherable reasons, with little recourse except disconnection. Consumer dissatisfaction is rising, in part because consumers feel they have no control over the price they have to pay. This is driven by their sense of pricing inequity that is hard to visualize but comes from implicit subsidies in the current environment. The irony is that pay-per-use pricing solves the problem for carriers and consumers.

Mazzucchelli reposted his blog piece originally written in 2010 for the benefit of Times readers. Two years ago, he measured his usage at 11GB a month. His provider Verizon Communications was charging him $64.99 a month for 25Mbps service, which identifies him as a FiOS fiber to the home customer.  Mazzucchelli argues the effective price he was paying for Internet access was $5.85 for each of the 11GB he consumed, which seemed steep at the time. (Not anymore, if you look at wireless company penalty rates which range from $10-15/GB or more.)

Mazzucchelli theorized that if he paid on a per-packet basis, instead of flat rate service based on Internet speed, he could pay something like $0.0000025 per packet, which would result in a bill of $31.91 for his 11GB instead of $65. For him, that’s money saved with usage billing.

On its face, it might seem to make sense, especially for light users who could pay less under a true usage-based pricing scenario like the one he proposes.

Verizon Communications is earning more average revenue per customer than ever with its fiber to the home network. That’s about the only bright spot Wall Street recognizes from Verizon’s fiber network, which some analysts deride as “too expensive.”

Unfortunately for Mazzucchelli, and others who claim usage-based pricing will prove a money-saver, the broadband industry has some bad news for you. Usage pricing simply cannot be allowed to save you, and other current customers money. Why? Because Wall Street will never tolerate pricing that threatens the all-important ARPU. In the monopoly/duopoly home broadband marketplace most Americans endure, it would be the equivalent of unilaterally disarming in the war for revenue and profits.

That is why broadband providers will never adopt a true usage-based billing system for customers. It would cannibalize earnings for a service that already enjoys massive markups above true cost. In 2009, Comcast was spending under $10 a month to sell broadband service priced above $40.

Mazzucchelli

Instead, providers design “usage-based” billing around rates comparable to today’s flat rate pricing, only they slap arbitrary maximum usage allowances on each tier of service, above which consumers pay an overlimit fee penalty. That would leave Mazzucchelli choosing a lower speed, lower usage allowance plan to maximize his savings, if his use of the Internet didn’t grow much. On a typical light use plan suitable for his usage, he would subscribe to 1-3Mbps service with a 10GB allowance, and pay the overlimit fee for one extra gigabyte if he wanted to maximize his broadband dollar.

But his usage experience would be dramatically different, both because he would be encouraged to use less, fearing he might exceed his usage allowance, and he would be “enjoying” the Internet at vastly slower speeds. If Mazzucchelli went with higher speed service, he would still pay prices comparable for flat rate service, and receive a usage allowance he personally would find unnecessarily large. The result for him would be little to no savings and a usage allowance he did not need.

Mazzucchelli’s usage pattern is probably different today than it was in 2010. Is he still using 11GB a month? If he uses double the amount he did two years ago, under his own pricing formula, the savings he sought would now be virtually wiped out, with a broadband bill for 22GB of consumption running $63.82. By the following year, usage-based pricing would cost even more than Verizon’s unlimited pricing, as average use of the Internet continues to grow.

That helps the broadband industry plenty but does nothing for consumers. Mazzucchelli might be surprised to learn that the “real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand,” is actually more than covered under today’s profit margins for flat-rate broadband. In fact, if he examines financial reports over the last five years and the statements company executives make to shareholders, virtually all of them speak in terms of reducing capital investments and the declining costs to deliver broadband, even as usage grows.

Verizon’s fiber network, while expensive to construct, is already earning the company enormous boosts in ARPU over traditional copper wire phone service. While Wall Street howled about short term capital costs to construct the network, then-CEO Ivan Seidenberg said fiber optics was the vehicle that will drive Verizon earnings for decades selling new products and services that its old network could never deliver.

Still, is Mazzucchelli paying too much for his broadband at both 2010 and 2012 prices? Yes he is. But that is not a function of the cost to deliver broadband service. It is the result of a barely competitive marketplace that has an absence of price-moderating competitors. Usage-based pricing in today’s broadband market assures lower costs for providers by retarding usage. It also brings even higher profits from bigger broadband bills as Internet usage grows, with no real relationship to the actual costs to provide the service. It also protects companies from video package cord-cutting, as customers will find online viewing prohibitively expensive.

One need only look at pricing abroad to see how much Americans are gouged for Internet service. Unlimited high speed Internet is available in a growing number of countries for $20-40 a month.

Usage-based billing is a dead end that might deliver temporary savings now, but considerably higher broadband bills soon after. It is not too late to turn the car around and join us in the fight to keep unlimited broadband, enhance competition, and win the lower prices users like Mazzucchelli crave.

Big cable and phone companies can thank 2011’s Hurricane Irene for keeping them from scoring #1 on the American Customer Satisfaction Index’s top most disliked companies in America. Those choice spots were reserved for utility companies on Long Island and in Connecticut.

But even the rain-soaker that left millions without power for weeks couldn’t keep America’s perennial hatred of cable and phone companies from the top 15 list:

#3 Charter Communications – The “Don’t Care-Bears” of Cable

America’s worst cable company delivers downright shoddy customer service and dodgy billing practices a loan shark would not dare try. The company has been flopping around like a beached whale since exiting its “stiff our creditors good with a quick trip to bankruptcy court,” and is now back to stiffing their customers instead:

“The sales rep originally promised us a $42.95 a month for services, with an introductory price of $24.95 for the first 3 months (a savings of $18 a month). After the introductory period ended, the company started charging me $56.95, when I finally caught on that they were charging me $14 more per month than what is said on the Work Order (could provide at anytime for proof), he never once mentioned that there will be a $10 more per month, and now the company says if you have no other cable service with us (Charter Communications), you are to be charged $10 more per month!!”

#4 Comcast – Hey, It Could Be Worse — At Least We’re Not Charter!

Comcast had a bad year with faulty e-mail, failing equipment, and more excuses than CVS has pills. Unprofessional contract installers also have problems keeping their hands to themselves. The largest cable operator in the country has also been known to empty checking accounts when they want their money, and there are horror stories about installers leaving wires, clips, and nails scattered on front lawns, quickly becoming projectiles when the mower runs over them.

Their cable service shampoos in mediocrity scoring 61 out of 100 and the “digital phone” service they run is the conditioning rinse, doing slightly better with a score of 67.

#6 Time Warner Cable – Always Listening to Customers, and Then Ignoring Them

Rated 63/100, Time Warner Cable managed a four point improvement over last year, which will be promptly erased if they keep experimenting with Internet Overcharging schemes.

Derided for “third world” customer service worthy of a despotic backwater dictatorship, slow Internet speeds, endless outages, and gouging rates, the ACSI has few nice things to report about America’s second largest cable conglomerate.

One customer vented, “TWC has destroyed my business and doesn’t give a damn: I first complained five weeks ago about outages and miserable upload speeds. I need to send large files to clients. I’ve had two technicians visit, who both found it was in the neighborhood. Today, I found the situation has not changed and am told there’s no further work order.”

Customers also complain about being stuck with Time Warner because there are no competing services in the area.

That being said, we’d rather have Time Warner Cable than AT&T or Comcast, and our personal customer service experience in western New York has been excellent for us, so it depends on where you live (and what competition they have in your area.)

#7 Cox Communications – Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Now we know where Time Warner’s four extra points came from — at the expense of Cox Cable, which is down by that same amount turning in a truly pathetic score of 63 out of 100.

Time Warner Cable occasionally threatens to buy out Cox, at least if industry rumors prove true, which might actually be an improvement.

Cox’s problem is time-honored for the cable industry — it gouges customers with outrageous rate increases the oil and gas industry don’t have the stomach to attempt.

Customers complain Cox is the High Priestess of Bait & Switch, signing customers up on one promotion and then shifting them to another, pretending the original offer was a figment of someone’s imagination. One customer:

 “I setup 2yr service w/Cox —1st yr @ $29.99, 2nd @ $49.99. Now after 6mon they changed it to 1st 6mon @ $29.99, 2nd 6mon @ $49.99, and 1 year @ 79.99.”

#11 CenturyLink – (Last)CenturyLink — America’s Worst Phone Company (Hey Frontier, You Get a Pass This Time)

CenturyLink, you must be so proud of your 66/100 score. In fact, add one more “6” and you’ll convince customers who already suspect you are the devil’s phone company.

“They lie about everything and do nothing,” one customer told ACSI. “I have been having issues with my Internet for a year and they have yet to help.” Another customer wrote that they’ve “had issues with CenturyLink employees flat out lying to [me] about the bill.”

Billing issues are most likely to be cited by complaining customers along with customer service representatives having less knowledge about the company’s products than customers do.

That being said, at least they don’t have the Frontier employee who insisted on telling us about the company’s wireless “wee-fee” network.  She admitted she had no idea it was “Wi-Fi.”

#14 DirectTV – Hey, We’re Looking Pretty Good Compared to the Other Guys

The satellite company managed 68/100, and the biggest problem they still have is misleading contracts and promotions that leave customers out of pocket for hundreds of dollars for deals that go un-honored and rebates that never arrive.

Discounts seem “luck of the draw” among customer service representatives:

“DirectTV raised the price for 30% after one year and said that they told me about this verbally, which is not true. My agreed price with Saha on the phone, a DirecTV employee, was $56.99 including two receivers and one HD/DVR receiver. DirecTV overcharged me on my first bill. When I complained, they said they forgot to give me my 30% discount. So over the next six months, they kept revising my bill but never got it right.”