A snake in the grass?

Cogeco customers trying to avoid usage-based overlimit fees are finding that difficult when the cable company’s online usage measurement tool is offline or misreads their usage.  But the real trouble comes when customers find themselves arguing over wild usage measurements with Cogeco’s customer service representatives, who believe their meter is sacrosanct.

Two Ontario customers report Cogeco’s meter is registering some wild usage numbers this week — measurements those customers say count against their monthly usage allowance, drive them into overlimit fees, or force them to try and convince Cogeco employees they didn’t use as much as the company claims they did.

Take “Jubenvi,” a Cogeco customer in Sarnia.  His efforts to check on his usage through Cogeco’s online measurement tool was an exercise in futility until Monday, when Cogeco claimed he used 36GB of usage the day before.

“Not a chance,” he argues on Broadband Reports‘ Cogeco customer forum.  “No warnings either and [the tool] says I’m at 153 percent [of my allowance].”

That means one thing: overlimit penalty fees of $1/GB + HST.

“Ya, I won’t be paying that,” he declares.

Petawawa customer RJBrake also found last Sunday a “heavy traffic day” for him as well, at least according to Cogeco’s usage meter.

“This is completely stupid,” he shared. “There’s no way I downloaded 14GB in a day.”

Jubenvi called Cogeco to complain and to demand the overlimit charges be waived for usage he never actually used.

That opened the door to a customer service investigation which could send shivers up some customers’ spines.  Cogeco tracks customer usage over several months, and claimed Jubenvi‘s past usage regularly exceeded their arbitrary usage allowance, so it’s a safe bet he downloaded 36GB in a single day.

Unwilling to concede their meter might be inaccurate, a representative issued a one-time “loyal customer courtesy credit.”

Surprise! Nearly 15GB of usage last Sunday, whether you used it or not.

Jubenvi was unimpressed with small favors.

“She [said] that a few times a month, someone in [my] family rents a few movies from iTunes store, [but] never 36GB a day,” Jubenvi explains.  “I [wondered aloud] what if this happens again and [asked] why I didn’t receive any 85% and 100% [usage allowance] warnings.”

Cogeco didn’t have answers for either question, content on placing the blame entirely at the feet of the customer.

“She just goes into how I should upgrade my computer — it could have a virus, [and] make sure I’m not using Netflix,” he says.

Unfortunately, Canadian ISP usage meters are largely unregulated.  A Hamilton customer notes:

The CRTC along with Weights and Measures Canada won’t do anything to help you. I along with others here have already tried to file complaints about Cogeco’s usage meter and they both say that this doesn’t follow under there pervue of duties.

At the moment we are on our own and I don’t see anyone that’s going to help us until an MP or a Court get involved in this situation. I personally think that some time after Oct. 1 when there is no [longer a maximum cap on overlimit fees] for the Ultimate 30 and 50Mbps customers, someone is going to get hacked and get a huge bill and then lawyers and the news media will then find this topic interesting.

Anyone that’s on an Ultimate 30 or 50Mbps account could easily download anywhere from 60GB to over 100GB’s a day. It’s simple. I can grab 1GB worth of data in under 10 minutes on my Ultimate 30 connection so multiply that by 24 hours and you get 72GB.

Gone for new customers

AT&T has stopped allowing new customers to sign up for its “A-List” feature, which allowed AT&T Wireless customers on individual service plans to make unlimited calls to up to five mobile or landline numbers; Family Plan members were able to pre-select up to 10 numbers.  It’s particularly bad news for users of Google Voice, who added their Google-assigned phone number to their calling list to make unlimited Google Voice calls over their AT&T phones.

For now, existing A-List customers can keep the feature as long as they stick with the same rate plan, but AT&T warns it reserves the right to discontinue it at any time.

Engadget received a leaked memo regarding the change, which AT&T sprung on customers with no warning earlier today.

AT&T says A-List is a feature whose time has come and gone.  In its place, the company is allowing free mobile-to-mobile calling, according to an official company statement:

With automatic addition at no-cost of AT&T’s Mobile to Any Mobile offer for our wireless customers with an unlimited messaging plan, AT&T A-List is being discontinued for new users. Existing A-List users are not affected. We have seen a very enthusiastic response to the value of Mobile to Any Mobile which lets users with an unlimited messaging plan call any mobile number in America, regardless of the wireless provider.

While AT&T’s mobile calling feature is unique because it works with any mobile customer using any provider, the loss of A-List means numerous calls to landline numbers (including Google Voice numbers) could burn through your plan minutes much faster.  AT&T probably pays a higher connection fee to complete calls to landline numbers, especially in rural areas where connection charges are higher.

Ironically, competition from T-Mobile’s myFaves feature helped inspire AT&T to match the competition with the launch of A-List.  It is this kind of innovative, disruptive marketing that benefits every mobile customer, as competing carriers are forced to match features offered by other carriers.

In the last month, AT&T has been paring back customer-friendly value options such as its discounted, light user text plan.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Scott, who notes: “Again, the merger isn’t even through or likely and AT&T is still slashing consumer friendly and money saving features put in place to fend off the competition.”

Charter Cable told a Howell, Mich. family that lost everything in a major house fire they owed the cable company $1,600 for cable equipment, remote controls — even the batteries — that were consumed in the blaze.

Kerry Cacchione, her three children and her husband Jeff lost every single possession they owned in the fire seven weeks ago.  The Cacchione family, like many home renters, neglected to purchase all-important renter’s insurance, and without it, all of their furniture, clothing, and other valuables were gone for good.

When the family returned home to see the property, undergoing repairs paid for by their landlord, they were confronted with an enormous bill from Charter Communications, their cable company.

“$1,600, and they [charged us] for every remote, every battery, every modem, every cable box, and every DVR box,” said Cacchione.

The Cacchione family took the bill to Charter Cable and begged for forgiveness, telling employees there was no way they could afford to pay that cable bill.

Kerry reports Charter was unsympathetic and refused to waive the charges, leading her to ask WXYZ’s “Call for Action” to intervene.

With the threat of more bad publicity on the 6 o’clock news, Charter Communications decided to wipe out their bill.

Charter is among the most intransigent cable companies when it comes to demanding compensation for cable equipment destroyed or damaged in fires.  The company always relents when confronted with the prospect of bad publicity, such as when a customer service representative told one tornado victim in Alabama she would wait on the phone while she searched through debris in the neighborhood for lost cable equipment.

Every renter should always have renter’s insurance, which typically will cover damaged cable equipment. It’s very affordable and protects renters from losses. Many consumers believe landlords carry insurance which will protect them in the event of a natural disaster or fire, but those insurance policies protect the landlord’s property, not renters’ possessions. The peace of mind afforded by renter’s insurance can make all the difference in a major loss like the one experienced by the Cacchione family.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WXYZ Detroit Losing It All 8-31-11.mp4[/flv]

WXYZ in Detroit comes to the rescue of yet another family falling victim to an enormous cable bill from equipment lost or damaged in a house fire.  (3 minutes)

Cablevision: Don't Call Us

By the time Hurricane Irene reached upstate New York and New England, it was a tropical storm some say was over-hyped from the outset, but don’t tell that to utility companies facing weeks of service restorations that will leave some of their customers offline until October.

The worst damage to infrastructure was done in this region, with utility poles swept away in flood waters right along with the homes they used to serve.  Telephone and cable companies in several parts of the region cannot even begin to restore service until higher-priority electric service is brought back.  Besides, you can’t use a broadband connection if your power has been out for a week plus.

Those addicted to their online connection are making due in parking lots and other Wi-Fi hotspots where service prevailed over Irene.  Wireless connectivity from cell phone companies is also getting a workout, assuming customers are aware of usage caps and limitations which could make September’s bill much higher than expected.

Stop the Cap! has learned some DSL service restoration appointments in upstate New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire are now extending into October, although companies suggest outside work may resolve problems.  Customers with the worst luck face a lengthy wait for the replacement of utility poles, new utility lines to be strung across them, and replacement of individual lines connected from the pole to individual homes.

Some FairPoint Communications customers are finding Irene did a real number on their DSL service even if power outages were limited.

In southwestern New Hampshire, Robert Mitchell was presented with a unique error page on his computer after the lights came back on:

“…we are improving the security of your broadband connection. As such, you have been redirected to the FairPoint Communications broadband service page to install a security update.”

That was a fine idea, except its implementation left customers like Mitchell with the most secure broadband connection around, resistant to all malware and viruses — namely, by not having any connection at all.

My annoyance only increased when I realized that FairPoint may have provided a link to download the security update software, but they were not going to make the process of accessing that software easy.

“Your Web browser (Firefox) and Operating System (Mac) are not compatible with the DSL Security improvement process…please re-open this page on a Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7 PC using Internet Explorer,” the message continued.

Bully for me, I have two Macs in the office. Time to call technical support? Nope, sorry. Both of my phone lines use Vonage, a VoIP service that relies on a working DSL modem for dial tone. Cell service at the house was sketchy at best — if I could even get through to technical support during a hurricane.

With the help of an old Windows XP machine, Mitchell managed to finally get back online.  Later, he learned the power spikes and brownouts that preceded the blackout in his neighborhood had caused his DSL modem to resort to its original default settings.  When FairPoint customers first connect a DSL modem, the company prompts them to perform the aforementioned “security update.”  Only FairPoint stopped offering that update more than eight months earlier.  Now, according to Mitchell, it’s just the default start page for newly activated DSL modems.

Customers further east in downstate New York, Massachusetts, Maine, Long Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey are finding getting service restoration highly dependent on which provider they use.

Time Warner Cable customers numbering about 350,000 found their service out Wednesday after leftover flooding and debris tore up fiber cables serving Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.  Service was restored that evening.

Cablevision customers in Connecticut are still experiencing new outages caused by flooding, and with power company workers contending with more damage in that state than further south in New York, cable crews can’t restore service until the lights are back on.

Cablevision customers on Long Island are still being told not to bother calling the cable company to report outages.  Those that do are often given a date of Sept. 15 for full service restoration, although it could be sooner if damage in individual neighborhoods is less severe.  A Cablevision spokesman said, “Cablevision is experiencing widespread service interruptions, primarily related to the loss of power.  Cablevision crews are in the field and we will be working around the clock to make necessary repairs, in close coordination with local utilities.  Generally, as electricity is returned to an area, customers will be able to access Cablevision service.”

Verizon customers in downstate New York and New Jersey faced lengthy hold times to report service outages, and are given a range of dates from later this week until mid-September for full service restoration.  Some pockets of very badly damaged infrastructure may take even longer to access and repair.  Verizon’s largest union workforce, under the auspices of Communications Workers of America District 1 are accusing Verizon management of slowing repairs with denials of overtime work requests, in part to punish workers for their recent strike action.  John Bonomo, a Verizon spokesperson, denies that accusation, but added the company is not treating the thousands of customers still without service as an emergency, noting landline service “is not as vital as it had been in past years.”

Comcast customers, mostly in Pennsylvania, Vermont and Massachusetts, are turning to smartphones to cope through extended service outages, according to the Boston Globe:

Comcast Corp. customer Soraya Stevens turned to her iPhone when her cable blew out, logging on to Twitter from her Bedford home for the latest power outage updates. “I would not have any communication or insight without my smartphone,’’ said Stevens, a software engineer.

Some customers who lost cable service lost their TV, Internet, and landline phone, which are often bundled and sold together. Many turned to their smartphones, operating on batteries and the signal from cellphone towers, or friends and family who still had cable service.

AT&T, which serves landline customers in Connecticut, experienced more outages a day or two after Irene departed as battery backup equipment installed at landline central offices finally failed.  Those equipped with diesel generators are still up and running, but many AT&T customers sold a package of broadband and phone service may actually be receiving telephone service over a less-robust Voice Over IP network, supported with battery backup equipment that shuts down after 24 hours, when the batteries are exhausted.  This has left customers with standard copper wire phone service still up and running, but customers on Voice Over IP completely disconnected.

Bill Henderson, president of Communications Workers of America Local 1298, told the Hartford Courant those landlines aren’t considered landlines by the Department of Utility Control, and aren’t regulated for reliability, as the old system is.

“Technology has risen. Some of the things we’ve given up in that system is reliability,” he said. “This is what I’ve been screaming about to the DPUC. It’s a telephone! We need to regulate this service.”

Customers are also complaining loudly about AT&T’s poor wireless performance during Irene, with many tower outages and service disruptions that are still ongoing.

Remember, when services are restored, be sure and contact your provider and request a full service credit.  You will not receive one unless you ask.

Phillip Dampier

Now that the initial shock of an aggressive — some say “audacious” — move by the Justice Department to block a merger AT&T confidently called “a done deal” is past, analysts of all kinds are attempting to discern the inside reasons for the merger’s rejection, where the deal can go from here, and what signals this will send the rest of America’s telecom industry.

In short — was this one merger proposal too far over the line?

The Justice Department reviewed reams of data, document-dumped by AT&T, on the company’s rationale for wanting to absorb T-Mobile and its implications for employees, consumers, and the dwindling number of wireless competitors.

They quickly discovered they did not like what they were seeing:  an all-new AT&T with a combined 132 million wireless customers, completely dwarfing all of their competitors and signaling a full-scale retreat from the company’s historic landline network.  An unregulated, increasingly concentrated wireless marketplace, represents the Wild West of fat profits, ripe for the picking by those large enough to control the market.  Increasingly, that means two former Baby Bells — AT&T and Verizon.

The Wall Street Journal charted more than two decades of mergers and acquisitions, which reduced nearly two dozen players down to five supersized telecom companies.

The Politics

Decisions at Justice are hardly made in a vacuum.  Politics always plays a role, and it’s a safe bet Obama Administration officials well-above rank-and-file lawyers in the Antitrust Division sent clear signals to the Department about how it wanted the review handled.  After all, this same team of lawyers had almost no trouble approving a mega-merger between NBC-Universal and Comcast Corporation, not finding anything ‘antitrust’ about that deal.  But Justice officials hurried out their own lawsuit with a wide-ranging, harsh condemnation of the deal at yesterday’s press conference.  As most Americans already know, competition in the cable industry is hardly robust, but market concentrating mergers and acquisitions are approved regularly in that industry.  So why did the Justice Department have such a problem with AT&T?

America's Wireless Market: Beyond well-behind, third-place Sprint, no other carrier comes close to AT&T or Verizon Wireless.

Many analysts seem to blame the company’s “arrogance” in telling reporters the merger was a breeze to be approved, others point to spectrum issues, as well as complaints about AT&T’s poor service potentially ensnaring T-Mobile customers.  But above all, Justice lawyers believe that America’s wireless marketplace needs at least four national wireless carriers, particularly scrappy T-Mobile, which has a long history of being a disruptive player in the market, loathe to offer the kind of “identical twin”-pricing common at AT&T and Verizon Wireless.  Losing T-Mobile’s aggressive performance in the market would mean declaring open season for price increases and abusive business practices.  After all, where would wireless consumers go?

That “four national carrier”-test could be a big problem for T-Mobile, as it could mean Justice lawyers would also reject an presumed alternative — combining Sprint and T-Mobile,  rumored before AT&T moved in and stole the show.  A new entrant willing to buy-out Deutsche Telekom’s U.S. wireless interests may be the only palatable solution acceptable to Justice lawyers because it would keep T-Mobile intact and running, independent of other wireless carriers.

Justice also completely discounted the relevance of regional carriers like MetroPCS, Cricket, U.S. Cellular, and other smaller providers.  The reason is simple: roaming.  All of these smaller providers are completely dependent on the four large national carriers to deliver essential roaming services for their customers who travel outside of the regions where these smaller companies deliver service themselves.  All national carriers would have to do to control an overly-competitive “problem” carrier is withdraw roaming agreements or raise prices for them.

Sprint, among others, is obviously the most relieved by yesterday’s events.  Their long term viability as a national carrier dwarfed by AT&T and Verizon Wireless would have raised numerous questions about whether that company could survive in the long term.  Sprint would have also felt pressure to beef up its own operations, likely through acquisitions of several regional carriers, particularly MetroPCS and Cricket, which share its CDMA network standard.

Wall Street is livid, of course.

The great gnashing of teeth has begun on Wall Street, evident as stock analysts begin raising questions about President Obama’s “anti-business” policies.  While executives at both AT&T and T-Mobile are at risk of losing substantial bonuses for pulling the deal off (and providing special retention packages to keep key talent from leaving), there is also a lot of money to be lost in New York and Washington should the deal collapse.  Take the “little people” that will be out tens of millions in deal fees and proceeds from extending credit, implementing the merger itself, and structuring the legal mechanics.  They include:

Arnold & Porter: The now infamous law firm that accidentally posted an un-redacted document on the Federal Communications Commission website that exposed, in AT&T’s own words, what consumer groups already strongly suspected: AT&T preferred the long term benefits of knocking pesky T-Mobile out of the marketplace, even though the $39 billion dollar price tag dwarfed the $4 billion estimated cost of building AT&T’s own 4G LTE network.  That’s the 4G network executives deemed “too expensive” earlier this year.  With a deal collapse, the firm can say goodbye to lucrative legal fees and perhaps more importantly, their reputation of properly managing their clients’ business affairs.

Greenhill & Co.: Greenhill is one of several all-star, platinum-priced advisory firms hired by companies acquiring other companies to structure and implement their mergers.  With Greenhill hoping for a substantial piece of at least $150 million set aside by AT&T to cover these specific costs, a merger-interrupted could cost key people some nice year-end bonuses.

JPMorgan (Chase): The House of J.P. Morgan handed over a check for AT&T worth up to $20 billion to help finance the deal.  JPMorgan doesn’t do that for free.  In addition to any interest proceeds, JPMorgan also charges a range of underwriting and administrative fees that could easily total $85 million dollars.  AT&T might have to send the check back.

Cable Business News & Business Media: One of the most ironic developments watching the Justice Dept. decision unfold was the unintentional amount of AT&T advertising promoting the merger that preceded video reports and appeared adjacent to AT&T-related stories.  Those ads may soon end, costing cable news and the business press substantial ad revenue.

Cable business news networks offered up scathing analyses. Among anchors and analysts upset with the news of the merger’s potential derailment, it didn’t take long for “couched questions” to begin, pondering whether President Obama was against big companies, jobs, or the concept of the private sector in general.  Completely missing: coverage of the benefits for consumers who potentially don’t have to endure a further concentration in the wireless marketplace.

Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein, who usually celebrates all-things-cable, today told the Wall Street Journal the actions at Justice will harm business at every U.S. wireless carrier.

“Put simply, the industry will be structurally less attractive than it would otherwise have been,” he said. “Pricing is likely to be less stable, and profound technological risks, including free texting and bandwidth arbitrage, that would be manageable in the context of a significantly consolidated industry now become much more threatening.”

Judge Ellen

In other words, a hegemony of AT&T and Verizon Wireless could play rough with third party developers trying to undercut text message pricing and deliver data plan workarounds. With more competitors, consumers could simply abandon abusive providers.  Without those competitors, consumers have to pay AT&T’s asking price or go without service.

The Law

AT&T may be hoping it scored one potential success in its anticipated legal challenge against the Justice Department’s antitrust case.

The judge assigned to hear arguments is Ellen Segal Huvelle, who has a track record of slapping down government overreach.  Huvelle previously rejected Justice Department objections to the merger of SunGard and Comdisco — two disaster-recovery businesses.  The government argued the merger would leave just two major players in that business.  Judge Huvelle dismissed that, claiming the government too-narrowly defined what a disaster-recovery business entailed.  If she finds AT&T’s arguments of robust competition from regional carriers, landlines, and Voice Over IP credible, Justice lawyers may have a problem.  So could consumers.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Audacious Move to Block Merger 8-31-11.flv[/flv]

PBS Newshour explores where the AT&T/T-Mobile merger goes next, now that the Justice Dept. sued to stop it on antitrust grounds.  (7 minutes)