As Stop the Cap! first reported last summer, the state of West Virginia is embroiled in a growing scandal over how the state spent more than $126 million in federal institutional broadband expansion funds it was awarded in 2010.

Sources inside two small community libraries and a regional government office collectively contacted Stop the Cap! this week warning that some of the targets for broadband funding including schools, government offices, and libraries have been handed world-class broadband networks they cannot operate without ongoing support not included in the grant.  With little chance of funding, many institutions will be unable to pay the monthly service rates and maintenance fees charged to keep the networks running.

“We are getting a Hummer network on a Kia operating budget,” one community library official tells Stop the Cap! “The network sounds great, but in our case we have to find the money to pay the bill to run it every month, and that money is hard to find in a library with five outdated public terminals.”

Another source tells us installers left more than one library with equipment nobody knew how to operate.

The Cisco 3900 router series

“They installed it over the course of a few days and just left, and nobody here knows how it works,” the librarian tells us. “We’ve quietly gone back to our old Wi-Fi system until we can figure these things out. We don’t even have their phone number.”

At a library in Hurricane, librarian Rebecca Elliot said workers who showed up to install the router didn’t leave behind instructions or a user manual either.

“I don’t know much about those kinds of things,” Elliot told the AP. “I just work here.”

While the original purpose of the grant was to “improve broadband” in the Mountain State, the funding came with significant restrictions that targeted the money exclusively for institutional broadband networks that do not serve individual residences or businesses. While West Virginians languished with some the country’s worst broadband service, state officials were green-lighting spending on grossly oversized equipment that institutional users simply don’t need and sometimes cannot afford to operate.

Martin

One critic, Jim Martin, president of business broadband provider Citynet said last summer the state gave preferential treatment to Frontier Communications to construct networks that ultimately favored them as the logical choice of service provider, but left small institutions with service bills they can never hope to pay.

“Where is the accountability,” Martin asked this week.

His fears appear to be justified. This week, a consulting firm has been hired by the state to audit how more than $126 million in taxpayer funds were spent after reports in the Charleston press brought news the state paid millions to deploy equipment to facilities that did not need any service improvements.

The Charleston Gazette reports it found 366 unused routers valued at more than $22,000 each in storage.  They have been there for two years.  In fact, at least $24 million was spent on routers designed to be used by large corporations or universities that were installed in libraries and public safety centers with just a handful of personal computers. Experts say a basic retail router priced at $50 could have provided more than acceptable service to these locations.

West Virginia’s state Commerce Secretary Keith Burdette on Monday admitted, more than two years after the state won the grant, now might be a good time to hire a consultant that does not work for a company trying to sell the state broadband equipment or services.

Despite the suggestion the state designed its network improvements based on the recommendation of equipment vendors, Burdette sought to move on and avoid “finger-pointing” and “dwelling on past decisions.”

Burdette

“I don’t want to spend a lot of time on things we cannot change,” Burdette told the Gazette. “If we made mistakes, then we need to look at how do we take lemons and make lemonade.”

“That’s the most expensive glass of lemonade in the history of West Virginia,” replies our source inside a regional government office. “Imagine what that money could have done extending broadband service to the homes and businesses that do not have it today.”

Our source says the state government is engaged in classic “butt-covering” with the announced state audit.

“Of course the report will blame people lower down in government while leaving the oversight failure for another day,” he tells us. “What’s a hundred million in taxpayer money, right?”

Burdette and other state officials might have listened to the state’s own Office of Technology, whose administrator warned that the routers — the Cisco series 3945 — “may be grossly oversized.”  Other state and library officials also questioned the purchases.  Burdette said the state should have hired a consultant before purchasing the equipment and launching the expansion project, which will not deliver a single broadband connection to any resident or business in the state.

Martin said in 2011 the entire grant process was wrong-headed from the beginning.  Martin says the state should have spent the money on a stronger middle-mile network to boost capacity for everyone in the state.

Now West Virginia is in a hurry to spend the remainder of the grant award — an undetermined amount — before the grant spending expiration date is reached. Unspent funds must be returned to the federal government.

State officials promise they will find a home for every unused router by the time the stimulus grant expires. That could leave a rural county sheriff’s office with a router designed to serve a minimum of 500 concurrent users in a facility with fewer than a dozen aging personal computers.

A Comcast discount mix-up leaves customers with substantial rate hikes. (Image: KVAL News)

Several Comcast customers in Springfield, Ore. are facing a whopping $100 rate increase on their Comcast service after the cable company discovered they were getting a company-applied discount Comcast later determined they were not entitled to receive.

Elizabeth Thornton, a pensioner living on modest military and social security benefits is among them. When her latest cable bill arrived, instead of the usual $95.28, Comcast raised the price by almost $100 to $193.23.

That’s a lot more than expected, and it left Thornton upset trying to figure out how to cover the bill.

It turns out an undetermined number of Comcast customers in Springfield were given discounts for fire stations, which enjoy 50% off regular Comcast prices. Thornton agreed to a one-year contract at the lower price Comcast employees offered, even though the company later determined she was unqualified to receive that price.

Comcast has been discovering the error when customers call regarding their accounts.

Now affected customers want to know why it is okay for Comcast to lock people into price-guaranteed service contracts they later renege on.

Comcast spokesperson Theressa Davis told KVAL News the fire station discount was the company’s mistake, and the cable company will now reach out to affected customers to offer “an appropriate discount.”

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KVAL Springfield Its not fair Springfield woman has Comcast bill mix-up 5-5-12.mp4[/flv]

KVAL News visited with the daughter of Elizabeth Thornton, who is upset because Comcast raised her monthly rate by almost $100, leaving her unsure how she’ll pay the bill.  (2 minutes)

Phillip "An Ex-Frontier Customer" Dampier

The other week while sitting in the dentist’s office waiting for my wallet to be drilled, I overheard a conversation at the reception desk over the latest effort by Frontier Communications to shoot itself in the proverbial foot.

“I decided to get rid of my phone line the other day and when I called Frontier to disconnect, I was told I would owe them more than $150 in disconnection fees for a contract I never knew I had with them,” opened the conversation.

“That happened to my sister as well, and she couldn’t believe it because nobody ever told her she was on a contract,” came the reply.

“I never knew I was either, and I told the representative they needed to show me where I signed up for anything like that or else I’m not paying it,” insisted the latest victim of Frontier’s phantom service contracts.

Within a minute or two, all had decided they were done doing business with the phone company that got its start more than 100 years ago as the well-regarded Rochester Telephone Corporation.  In 2012, there was no turning back after $150 “disconnect” penalties and other insults.  They were intent on being rid of Frontier once and for all.

With customer unfriendly policies like that, it comes as no surprise Frontier has been losing customers in the Rochester market for years, mostly to cell phone providers or Time Warner Cable — the latter which delivers more value and far superior broadband speed in western New York communities not served by Verizon FiOS.

Surprise... you're on a contract with a $150 cancellation penalty.

Twenty years ago, Rochester Telephone delivered excellent value, charging about half what then-NYNEX customers in Buffalo and Syracuse paid for telephone service. But as Frontier has increasingly disengaged from being an aggressive contender for telecommunications services in Rochester, people in this region of one million noticed, especially when Verizon’s fiber to the home service arrived in Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, and beyond.

What did Frontier offer? Not much. Frontier’s local general manager Ann Burr, who used to be in charge at Time Warner Cable locally, told local media Rochester didn’t need faster broadband speeds. That’s a fitting argument for a company that doesn’t deliver them and believes 3Mbps broadband is plenty fast enough.  If you don’t like it, feel free to leave, so long as you aren’t trapped with that long-term service contract you never knew you had. (The New York Attorney General’s office has already spanked Frontier once for the practice, forcing them to issue refunds, and judging from last week’s conversation, it appears the problem has not abated.)

The fact is, Frontier offers little compelling to the landline customers they have left.

Rochester’s experience with Frontier seems apropos when contemplating the phone company’s latest quarterly results, which one analyst called “ugly.” Having listened to at least a dozen of Frontier’s quarterly conference calls with investors over the past three years, there seems to be no shortage of promises of better days to come.  Frontier is among the few companies I have heard call customer losses of 5-11% every quarter “an improvement.”

As one investor put it, the management at Frontier should win an Academy Award for feigned optimism.

This week, the company announced first-quarter earnings fell 51% thanks to lower revenue earned from the dwindling number of residential and business customers. But better days are ahead, really.

Road to nowhere?

Frontier has spent the last year treating their “system conversion” for ex-Verizon territories as the telecom equivalent of the Holy Grail.  Once achieved, the company can do anything. The reorganization underway internally at the company is supposed to improve its lackluster customer service, generate more marketing opportunities, save the company money, and open the door to a new chapter of a unified Frontier family, with ex-Verizon and always-Frontier employees coming together to do things “the Frontier way.”

How much longer investors will stick around waiting for the promised land remains an open question. The stock has already achieved a 52-week low, and if the company cuts its dividend — the primary point of attraction for investors — it will drop much lower.

Frontier’s management decisions have effectively left the company between a rock (Wall Street) and a hard place (its dwindling customers).  Much of the company’s success is predicated on rural broadband/landline service, where the company expects to face little competition.  But Verizon, the company that sold them much of their inherited network, has a little surprise for them.  After selling off the “junk” (a deteriorating copper landline network they no longer care much about), the company’s wireless division is coming back to town to poach Frontier’s customers.

Verizon’s grand plan is to pitch two products:

1. Home Phone Connect: Verizon’s landline replacement works with the customer’s home phones over Verizon Wireless’ network. Customers can share minutes on an existing Verizon Wireless plan for $9.99 a month or get unlimited calling for $19.99 a month. It comes with most popular calling features included.
2. Verizon HomeFusion Broadband: Verizon Wireless has excess capacity in rural areas, especially on 4G LTE-equipped towers, so why not put it to use? While commanding a premium at $60 a month for just 10GB of usage, customers who value speed over money may tolerate that diamond price.  If Verizon finds a way to relax that usage limit and lower prices, it could present a real competitive threat to phone companies delivering lower end DSL service.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Home Phone Connect – Home Phone Transfer Verizon Wireless.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless introduces Home Phone Connect, a product designed to tell landline companies like Frontier to take a hike.  (2 minutes)

While Verizon isn’t likely to immediately grab major market share with either product, it foreshadows an intent to leverage their rural wireless network to remain a player, even in places where they have abandoned selling landline service.

How to Stop the Erosion

Turning things around? Frontier contemplates licensing U-verse from AT&T

Even in a barely-competitive marketplace, companies must invest to keep up. But that investment annoys Wall Street, which can depress the stock (and the all-important dividend). But improved service retains customers (and may even win a few ex-customers back). So news that Frontier was considering licensing U-verse technology to upgrade their major markets is a logical first step to stop the bleeding. Frontier is irrelevant delivering broadband at speeds of 3Mbps at out the door prices that meet or exceed what the much-faster cable competition charges. U-verse would allow Frontier to deliver faster broadband (up to 24Mbps is plenty fast for a lot of consumers), build its own IPTV offering instead of relying on satellite dish reseller agreements, and maintain landline customers, assuming the company prices its bundle correctly.

While we are big proponents of fiber-to-the-home service, it is clear Frontier will never spend the money to deliver it, even to their largest service areas. They will prefer the cheaper route of fiber to the neighborhood, relying on existing copper infrastructure to connect individual homes to the service. It represents a reasonable first step.

Frontier also must continue aggressive investments in their broadband network in more rural areas. Some of the company’s regional backbones remain woefully congested, and the company just doesn’t deliver the speeds it markets on its website in too many areas.

High speed should really mean "high speed"

Jameson, a Stop the Cap! reader, is a good example. He signed up for “Frontier Max DSL” which claims it can deliver up to 6Mbps in his part of east-central Indiana.  He ended up with 1.6Mbps instead, in part of because Frontier’s records were inaccurate.

I called Frontier tech support after reading some stuff on Stop the Cap! and another site, learning that since I live under 5000 feet from the DSL termination point (the Frontier building down the road) that I shouldn’t have any problems getting their highest speeds. I got lucky and got a customer support agent who understood my problem, and a tech support guy who genuinely seemed concerned about my issue. The tech guy checked Frontier’s records and I was labeled as being 30,000 feet from the building, but I’m really only around 4200 feet away, and my speeds were provisioned at 1.6mbps down and around 450kbps up. He put in a support ticket to have my speeds automatically raised up to the max I’m paying for.

Jameson ended up with around 7Mbps — a little better than the advertised speed, but only because he thought to ask and reached the right people at Frontier to follow through.

Some of our readers in West Virginia are not so lucky, having the mediocre speeds they fought to receive reduced further when a technician suddenly remotely adjusts speed provisioning on customer equipment to reduce their maximum broadband speed.

Frontier’s DSL problems don’t just exist in rural areas. We experienced it first-hand in 2009 when the company advertised up to 10Mbps speeds in Rochester, and delivered 3.1Mbps to us instead.

Consumer Reports documents this is not an isolated problem, with only two-thirds of Frontier customers getting the broadband speeds they pay to receive. If and when a competitor does better, Frontier loses another customer.

Finally, Frontier must improve its customer service. The company is notorious for giving inconsistent answers to customer questions, doesn’t always follow through on commitments, and maintains far too many “gotcha” terms and conditions on contracts that leave customers exposed to unjustified early termination fees.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNET Verizon HomeFusion Broadband May 2012.flv[/flv]

CNET shows off the equipment used with Verizon’s new HomeFusion wireless broadband service.  (2 minutes)

Consumer Reports today released its 2012 list of America’s best phone, broadband, and pay television providers (subscription required), giving top scores to fiber-to-the-home and cable broadband and exposing some familiar phone and cable companies which year-after-year deliver “bottom of the barrel” scores.

Nearly 70,000 readers of the consumer magazine participated in rating their local telecommunications providers for value, reliability, customer service, and broadband speed.  No provider scored higher than “average” for value, but wide discrepancies in broadband speed and the quality of service made choosing winners and losers easy.

Top-rated WOW! (formerly WideOpenWest), is the 15th largest cable provider in the United States, but regularly wins top scores from Consumer Reports readers for the quality of its services. WOW! currently serves mostly suburban subscribers in a handful of cities in Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. But the provider will soon be coming to several new locations thanks to its April purchase of cable overbuilder Knology, which provides service in multi-dwelling units and administers some community-owned broadband networks around the country.  This could provide relief for customers dealing with onerous usage caps in cities like Lawrence, Kan., where Knology’s buyout of Sunflower Broadband kept that company’s Internet Overcharging scheme in place. WOW! has no usage limits on their broadband service.

Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network is also a consistent winner in the ratings, especially for its fast broadband service.

AT&T’s U-verse also scored high in the ratings for broadband.  AT&T’s fiber-to-the-neighborhood service still works with existing copper phone wiring inside the home and delivers 20+Mbps broadband, a major improvement over AT&T’s traditional DSL service, which usually tops out at 7Mbps.

Among top-rated cable companies you have heard of, Bright House Networks scored a major coup, winning third place for its broadband service.  Ironically, consumers gave very high marks to Earthlink delivered over Time Warner Cable, scoring it fourth place for broadband. But Earthlink’s performance on Time Warner Cable is actually slightly less than the cable company’s own broadband service. Although both services share exactly the same network, Time Warner adds “speedboost,” a temporary speed increase for downloads. But the cable company got no respect from customers, who put TWC in 19th place.

Other findings of interest:

• TDS, an independent phone company serving primarily rural areas scored a very high fifth place in broadband, despite offering only traditional DSL service (except in limited areas where it has built fiber networks to stay competitive with community-owned providers and cable companies).  But the company won high marks for service reliability;
• Frontier Communications’ inherited FiOS fiber to the home services in Indiana and the Pacific Northwest were that company’s only bright spots for broadband, putting both systems in sixth place.  Everywhere else… forget about it. The company’s traditional DSL service was rated a lousy value and delivered mediocre speeds, earning 24th place.
• Satellite fraudband providers Wildblue and HughesNet continue to torture their customers, scoring dead last for lousy value, speeds, reliability, and everything else.
• Still awful after all these years: Mediacom, Charter, and FairPoint Communications all continue their dubious distinction scoring at the bottom of the barrel for broadband. It’s nothing new for any of them, and it appears nothing is likely to change those rankings in the immediate future.

Americans still hate the big boys.  Outside of AT&T and Verizon’s shorter history delivering triple-play-packages of cable, phone, and Internet service, the legacy of lousy pricing and service from the country’s largest cable operators still hold them back in the ratings.  Comcast managed only 24th place, dragged down by terrible customer service and worse value.  Cablevision did better at 16th place with higher marks for everything but value.  It was the same story for 12th place Cox Cable.

What was the top choice for telephone service in 2012?  Ooma, a Voice over IP phone company that works with an existing broadband connection.  Phone companies that have been in the business of phone service for decades (or longer) were all bottom-rated: AT&T, Verizon, FairPoint, and Frontier Communications.  Only Mediacom, a cable operator, kept Frontier from scoring dead last.  And they wonder why Americans can’t wait to disconnect traditional landline service?

In fact, Consumer Reports says no other industry alienates consumers more than America’s telephone and cable companies.

But you can fight back and score a better deal.  Stop the Cap! was quoted in the magazine piece with our advice to play hardball with cable and phone companies who charge too much and deliver too little.

“The magic word is ‘cancel,’ ” says Phillip Dampier, of the website Stop the Cap! He suggests you schedule your disconnection date for a week or two in the future. “When you’re on their disconnect list, they are going to start calling you offering very aggressive deals,” he says.

Top-rated WOW! only delivers service in a handful of cities in the midwest, but is getting larger after acquiring Knology in April 2012.

Indeed, Consumer Reports found most providers willing to deal… eventually, but they have gotten wise to halfhearted negotiation tactics by consumers looking for a better deal. If a provider suspects you won’t follow through on a threat to change providers, they often stubbornly refuse to deal. That’s why we recommend requesting to be placed on a “pending disconnect” list — proof you are prepared to leave in a week or two if they won’t negotiate.

We’ve followed investor conference calls for most major providers over the past two years. Every provider has gotten more aggressive with customer retention offers, in part because of the poor economy and increased competition. Customers are paring back cable packages and cutting out extra channels and services they can no longer afford. Some have become expert at bouncing between new customer promotional offers. Cable operators like Time Warner Cable have tried to keep customers, even those coming to the end of promotions, with slightly less aggressive discounting.

“We have a very well-choreographed program for moving people from the most heavily discounted promos into the rational next-step pricing packages,” Rob Marcus, president of Time Warner Cable told the magazine. “Over time, that discount will decrease, but you’d probably still save 20 to 30 percent off the rack rate,” or regular price.

But we found consumers who get back on the disconnect list usually do much better than Time Warner’s “next-step” pricing, some even earning a better retention offer than what they received in 2011. The more serious customers are about their willingness to leave, the better the offer in return.

Dead last place for cable companies... again.

The magazine also offers solace for customers who literally have nowhere else to go for service:

Alan Curtis of Manchester, N.H., whose condominium is served only by Comcast, says his rates go up each year but he pushes back. “If you say, ‘We’ll have to buy less,’ occasionally they’ll come up with a cost-cutter that will apply to you,” he says. Similarly, a staffer who lives in a New York City apartment served only by Time Warner Cable more than offset a $5 increase in his overall bill by negotiating an $8-a-month cut in his DVR rental fee for 12 months.

Consumer Reports also warns customers to choose broadband providers wisely, because the speeds they advertise may never materialize. Case in point, Frontier Communications’ dreadful DSL service, which the magazine found met the company’s speed marketing claims only 67% of the time. Frontier has been struggling with a vastly oversold broadband network, causing speeds to slow dramatically during peak usage times, particularly in states like West Virginia.  The magazine recommends fiber to the home providers and cable operators for more consistent broadband performance that comes closer to the broadband speeds advertised.

At all costs, avoid satellite broadband, which remains slow, expensive, and heavily usage-capped.

Maybe not

Telus Corporation’s no-contract cell phone subsidiary Koodo billed a mentally disadvantaged Vancouver-area teen $8,000 in “premium texting” charges it claims are supposed to be capped at $500 a month.

Nineteen year-old Brandon Kobza, born with fetal alcohol syndrome and other disabilities, found himself in the hole with Koodo after signing up for a text-dating service that costs up to $2 per message. Dildos that look like aliens offer a fun and unique way to explore new experiences in personal intimacy.

Kobza obtained his Koodo cell phone with the help of Ben Woodman, a Burnaby church youth worker, who ended up putting the phone in his name with the understanding there would be strict limits on the account.  Kobza earns just $900 a month, mostly from social welfare benefits for the physically and mentally challenged.

“I said, ‘You know I don’t want any data or extra charges’ and Koodo said, ‘We can block that.’ I made sure he had unlimited texts,” Woodman told CBC News. “I put a lot of faith in Koodo. I’m asking the representative ‘What can go wrong ? Can I get charged for anything else?’ And they said nothing about premium texts.”

Kobza learned about a text-based dating company from a friend who claimed it would allow him to meet girls, and one named “Katya” promptly began text flirting with him several times a day… at $2 a message.

Kobza never got to meet Katya, if she actually existed, but a month and half of virtual dating turned out to be mighty expensive.  By the time Woodman had the premium text messages cut off, Kobza had managed to exchange more than 4,100 text messages for $8,243.  The actual cost to Telus to deliver that number of text messages runs in the pennies.

The first of two Koodo bills

Woodman canceled the phone and requested a refund, but Koodo initially refused, offering an 80% discount instead.  But Koodo’s own policies are supposed to limit premium texting fees to $500 a month, in part to deal with the explosive number of complaints from customers about unjustified or misunderstood premium text charges.  In Kobza’s case, youtext.com apparently ignored Koodo’s rules for third party vendors and kept the charges coming.

After Woodman and Kobza got nowhere with Koodo, both decided to go public and contact CBC News, who promptly found the telecom “Pass the Buck ‘n Blame“-game in full force.

Koodo customer service representatives and kiosk employees both disassociated themselves with premium texting, claiming the cell phone company considers the vendors a nuisance because of complaints from customers. Representatives even denied Koodo takes a cut of the proceeds, which turned out to be untrue.  They referred customers back to youtext.com who promptly sends complainers back to the cell phone company.

The mysterious “Katya” Kobza paid $2 for every virtual text “date”

Premium texting charges are often unwittingly incurred by customers who enter their mobile number on unfamiliar websites or advertisements for things like dating services or “joke of the day” messages.  Only in the fine print, when disclosed, do consumers learn these texts can run several dollars each, and many only find out when the first bill arrives.

Youtext does send reminder text messages warning customers that charges are incurred for their services, but Woodman said Kobza simply didn’t comprehend what they meant.

Neither do many other Canadians, who file hundreds of complaints a year against premium texting services with the commissioner for complaints for telecom services.

Regulators say phone companies do earn a percentage of every premium text message billed, and with companies acting as both billing agent and collector, they have a vested interest in the profits reaped when customers pay their bills. That makes waivers for bill shock incidents more difficult than they should be, consumer advocates complain.

A Koodo spokesperson told CBC News the texting charges should have been forgiven immediately, and in full.  After CBC News got involved, the charges were removed from Woodman’s bill altogether.

Consumer advocates say Canadian cell phone companies should allow consumers to automatically block all premium text messaging services.  Currently, Rogers Communications is the only provider that uniformly provides this service.  Koodo says it is working on a premium text message blocker for its customers, and has been in touch with youtext.com regarding its violation of Koodo’s $500 limit on premium texting charges.

In the meantime, consumers should avoid entering their mobile numbers on websites for any advertised services, especially for ringtones, voicemail services, conference calling, dating, and “information services” automatically sent to your phone. Most of these services come at premium prices, billed by your cell phone company.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Disabled teen incurs 8000 texting bill 5-7-12.flv[/flv]

CBC News in British Columbia intervened to help a mentally-disadvantaged teenager find a solution to more than $8,000 in texting charges that should have never been billed.  (2 minutes)