Mr. Greedy has just landed in Nashville and wants another $10 from Comcast customers who blow through their allowance.

Comcast’s temporary withdrawal of its 250GB usage cap did not last long. Although the company rescinded its usage limit in May to consider new options on how to handle “heavy users,” it hinted caps might be back, sometimes accompanied by automatic overlimit fees for customers who exceed their allowance.

Broadband Reports has learned Comcast plans to introduce a new 300GB usage cap on its customers in Nashville with an overlimit fee of $10 for each 50GB a customer runs over their limit.

Comcast customers in Nashville were told in an e-mail message from the company the new usage cap and overlimit fee represented “an evolution” for Comcast’s broadband service.

From Comcast’s website in Nashville:

When you exceed 300 GB of data usage, you will receive an email, an in-browser notice and an additional 50 GB will be automatically allocated. In order for customers to get accustomed to the new data usage management plan, we will be implementing a courtesy period. That means you will not be billed for the first three times you exceed the monthly 300 GB allowance during a 12-month period. Should you exceed the monthly allowance after the courtesy period expires, you will automatically be charged $10 each time we need to provide you with an additional 50 GB of data for usage beyond your plan.

How generous of them.

Customers traveling southeast from the city down Interstate 24 can be in Chattanooga in several hours and experience EPB Fiber — a community broadband provider that provides speeds up to 1,000Mbps and does not have usage caps, nor a “need” to charge customers another $10 whether they exceed their usage cap by 1 or 49 gigabytes.

Comcast’s newest Internet Overcharging scheme takes effect Aug. 1, and currently applies only to Nashville customers. Those who want to give Comcast a piece of their mind about the subject of usage caps can share their feelings by calling Comcast Customer Security Assurance at 1-877-807-6581 to speak with a service representative. Let them know you want no part of Comcast’s unnecessary usage caps and overlimit fees. If EPB and Google Fiber can offer unlimited broadband without any problems, so can Comcast. Let them know how you feel.

Randolph (Chesterfield Township Police booking photo)

Even with proper identification, the cable guy who comes to install or repair your cable service may not be trustworthy.

Maureen Sharp of Chesterfield Township, Mich. discovered that for herself when she called Comcast to help fix a problem with a phone line.

The cable company sent Lequentin Ahmad Randolph, 22, who told the family to leave their own bedroom while he “checked for a problem.”

Instead, he allegedly checked out Laureen’s armoire and emptied it of its contents — $10,000 worth of sentimental jewelry including her wedding ring.

Randolph, a Detroit resident, was found nearby by local authorities and was pulled over still in his cable truck. Chesterfield Township police found two pieces of gold jewelry on the driver’s seat, the rest in a bag hidden behind a panel in the truck.

Comcast immediately declared they were not responsible and had no comment regarding the alleged actions of the cable repairman because he was an employee working for LE Com Communications, a contractor hired by Comcast to handle routine installation and repair work.

Randolph was booked for felony larceny and was scheduled for a preliminary hearing today.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WXYZ Detroit Cable Guy Allegedly Steals Jewel From Womans Home 7-24-12.mp4[/flv]

WXYZ in Detroit says one Chesterfield Township family’s trust has been shaken after welcoming a cable repairman into their home that allegedly robbed them of $10,000 in sentimental jewelry.  (2 minutes)

Verizon has a moratorium on further expansion of its fiber to the home service except in areas where it has existing agreements to deliver service.

A new study predicts an agreement between Verizon and the nation’s top cable companies to cross-sell each other’s products could cost up to 72,000 jobs in the northeastern U.S. and potentially threaten Verizon’s state-of-the-art fiber optics network FiOS.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Justice are continuing to review a proposed deal that would allow Verizon Wireless and companies including Time Warner and Comcast to cross-market each other’s products, which critics allege will eliminate competition and job-creating investment.

In the crosshairs of the deal: Verizon’s fiber to the home network FiOS, which has been stalled since 2009 when Verizon signaled it was “winding down” FiOS spending. According to the new report, produced by the Communications Workers of America (CWA), FiOS is at risk of being undercut by Verizon in favor of reselling cable-TV packages from Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and other cable companies. At worst, some critics of the deal contend Verizon will eventually abandon FiOS altogether.

The CWA has already seen the impact of Verizon’s declining interest in expanding FiOS as the company has left several major American cities in its service footprint, including Baltimore, Buffalo, Syracuse and Boston without fiber optic upgrades.

The CWA is calling on regulators to impose conditions on any deal between Verizon and cable operators:

• Prohibit Verizon Wireless and the cable companies from cross-marketing in Verizon’s landline service areas;
• Require Verizon to build the FiOS network to 95% of Verizon households in its landline footprint, including in rural and low-income areas;
• Ensure that Verizon Wireless and other cable companies are not able to lock out competitors.

If Verizon were to maintain the expansion of FiOS to non-FiOS areas, about 72,000 new jobs would be created, the CWA report found. Job growth would be concentrated in eight Eastern states and Washington D.C.

“If done right, the proposed deal would add tens of thousands of new jobs and allow underserved communities access to high quality broadband service,” said Debbie Goldman, telecommunications policy director for the CWA. “The FCC has the obligation carefully to assess this deal in terms of likely job loss.  We expect regulators to reject this deal unless the parties accept conditions that would create jobs, increase network investment, and promote consumer choice.”

Those living in Verizon service areas without FiOS are already upset that they have been effectively bypassed by the phone company.

“It’s an arrogant stand,” Buffalo Councilman Darius Pridgen said in a phone interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer. Verizon has upgraded other areas in upstate New York with FiOS, but not financially distressed Buffalo. “It’s advertised in the city, but it’s not available in the city.”

In Philadelphia, Verizon obtained a 15-year video franchise agreement with city officials and the company agreed to extend FiOS throughout the city by 2016. But residents are complaining that Verizon’s definition of “extending service” has meant wiring cables down major thoroughfares, not wiring up every home that wants the service.

City Councilman James Kenney called for a public hearing in April amid complaints that Verizon was reneging on its commitment to city officials and residents.

Cole

Baltimore councilman William Cole thinks his city was skipped by Verizon for a reason, while more affluent areas are set to get fiber upgrades. Cole told the newspaper his constituents have called Verizon after seeing local ads for FiOS service, but are told they cannot get the service.

Verizon spokesman Edward McFadden said the decision to build the FiOS network was never popular on Wall Street. “We got hammered,” he told the Inquirer, “and our shareholders were punished for this.”

Now that the network is up and running, McFadden says Verizon retains a strong incentive to maintain its FiOS business because of the huge investment and the increased earnings it brings the phone company.

But the CWA’s Goldman remains convinced Verizon has broken its word with regulators and politicians who believed promises from Verizon and other telecom companies that passage of the deregulation-packed 1996 Telecommunications Act would inspire the dawn of a new competitive era in American telecommunications. Now instead, Verizon and the cable companies want to simply sell each other’s services.

“They wanted deregulation, and they said they would compete,” Goldman said. “This marks the beginning of the surrender, this truce.”

Despite concerns from consumer groups that a deal to exchange wireless spectrum in return for collaborative marketing between two competitors will lead to higher prices for consumers, the Federal Communications Commission seems prepared to approve it, according to a report from the Reuters news agency.

Two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters the FCC has taken the lead on the “spectrum transfer” issue, which involves turning over prime wireless spectrum currently owned by large cable operators Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Bright House Networks to Verizon Wireless. The combined licenses the cable industry holds are in the majority of major American cities, which critics charge Verizon will acquire to eliminate any potential competitive threat from a new nationwide wireless carrier.

Verizon’s recent moves to sell off its own “excess” spectrum to its current competitors has garnered favor inside the FCC, according to sources. Verizon Wireless recently agreed to transfer some of that spectrum to T-Mobile USA, which coincidentally was a fierce opponent of the deal between Verizon and cable operators. T-Mobile’s opposition has since muted.

Licenses owned by the cable industry would have been expansive enough to launch a new national wireless competitor. (Image: Phonescoop)

The deal between Verizon and the nation’s top cable companies is worth about $3.9 billion, but the Justice Department continues to signal concerns it would ultimately cost consumers more than that. According to Reuters, Verizon remains in “tougher talks” with lawyers inside the Justice Department who are concerned cooperative marketing between the phone and cable companies would result in decreased competition and higher prices.

One source told Reuters regulators were hoping Verizon’s now-stalled fiber to the home network FiOS would bring major competition to the cable industry, which until then had only faced moderate competition from satellite dish providers. In return, Comcast and other cable operators were expected to invade the wireless phone marketplace, adding needed competition.

Instead, both sides have retreated to their respective positions — Verizon focusing on its wireless service and Comcast and other cable companies abandoning interest in wireless phones and sticking to cable-based products.

The idea that both would begin to cross-market each other’s products is “a problem” according to the Justice source not authorized to speak publicly.

Additionally, concerns are being raised over a proposed “joint operating entity” between Verizon and cable operators that would focus on developing new technologies that could lock out those not in the consortium.

No decision is expected from the Justice Department until August, but Justice officials have signaled they have several options they can pursue:

1. Sue to stop the spectrum transfer;
2. Force the companies to modify their proposal to reduce potential collusion;
3. Approve the deal but monitor how cross-marketing agreements impact on consumer markets for wireless and cable products.

Bill padding you to infinity with Comcast’s new “Regulatory Recovery Fee.”

“Effective July 1, 2012, a Regulatory Recovery Fee will be instituted to recover additional costs associated with governmental programs.  This fee is not government-mandated, and may vary based upon your monthly usage pattern.”

That notice was included in the fine print of Comcast’s June billing statements for customers with Xfinity phone service, and has led to many questions from subscribers confused about the new charges, how they are calculated, and why they are being charged in the first place.

Welcome to Comcast’s bill-padding adventure. The telecommunications company has discovered it can deliver a back-door rate increase and blame it on “governmental programs,” even though Comcast has been paying some of these fees as a cost of doing business for decades.

The Federal Communications Commission allows companies to recover these costs from subscribers, which Comcast has effectively been doing by including them in the price of monthly service. But now Comcast is taking a lesson from wireless phone companies who have discovered they can keep your monthly rate the same -and- bill you the new “regulatory recovery fee” and pocket the proceeds themselves.

For now, the Regulatory Recovery Fee applies to Comcast’s phone service only (underlining ours):

The Regulatory Recovery Fee is part of the cost of providing Comcast voice service and supports federal, municipal and state programs including, without limitation, universal service. This aggregated fee is not government mandated, but Comcast is permitted by law to recover these costs from its subscribers. The aggregated fee may vary based on service usage patterns and program surcharge rates.

The exact amount of the charge and how it is calculated can be found on Comcast’s telephone “tariff” website, which breaks out the charges for telephone service state-by-state, and in some cases city by city.

Surprisingly, Comcast’s small New York State operations appear to have no regulatory recovery charges at all. In parts of Virginia, customers only face a “Federal Cost Recovery Fee” of 1.433%. Pennsylvania residents will pay a “State TRS” of $ 0.08/mo, a State Gross Receipts Tax of 5.0%, and the aforementioned Federal Cost Recovery Fee.

Many Californians will find this monthly fee comprised of everything but the kitchen sink:

• State Universal Service Fund (USF) 1.15%
• State Telecom Relay Service 0.079%
• City Utility User’s Tax, up to a maximum of 11.00%
• County Utility User’s Tax, up to a maximum of 5.50%
• State PUC recovery fee 0.18%
• State Hearing Impaired Fund 0.20%
• High Cost Fund – A 0.40%
• High Cost Fund – B 0.30%
• CA Advanced Services Fund 0.14%
• Federal Cost Recovery Fee 1.433%

Regardless of the amounts involved, Comcast is under no obligation to separately bill you these charges. More importantly, because there is no corresponding decrease in the monthly price of their telephone service as these new fees are added, Quick Fingers Comcast has just managed a bit of “rate increase-sleight-of-hand.”

Betcha missed it.  We didn’t.