Frontier Communications is adding a new $1.50 monthly surcharge for broadband customers not currently enrolled in a “price protection agreement.”  Labeled the HSI Surcharge, the new fee started showing up on customer bills this month, with only a vague explanation buried inside the bill:

Courtesy: Manmaniac

Frontier's Fast One.

Customers attempting to get an explanation of what this charge was all about got a myriad of answers from Frontier customer service representatives:

• It’s a broadband tax;
• It’s a surcharge to help pay for network improvements;
• It’s a charge for customers who refuse to take a price protection plan;
• It’s a rate increase.

Stop the Cap! called Frontier this afternoon and was told it was designed to collect additional revenue to fund network expansion and was, effectively a rate increase.  Even customers on 1-3 year price protection agreements will eventually pay the “surcharge” as their agreements expire.  It is not a government-mandated charge or tax.

Effectively, this rate increase allows the company to advertise their Internet service at a deceptively low price, until customers discover Frontier’s modem rental fees and surcharges.  In 2009, during Stop the Cap!‘s flirtation with Frontier DSL, we found the “out the door” price for their 3.1Mbps service was actually higher than that charged by Time Warner Cable’s 10Mbps Road Runner service.

Their prices are sky high.

Back in May 2010, Stop the Cap! launched a debate with a few Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) that provide largely rural America with wireless access to the Internet over long range Wi-Fi networks.  The debate got started when Matthew Larsen, who runs the Wireless Cowboys blog, announced the arrival of an Internet Overcharging scheme at his WISP — Vistabeam, which serves residents in rural Wyoming and Nebraska.

WISPs are being increasingly challenged by the changing tastes of Internet customers, who are gravitating towards broadband multimedia content, saturating limited capacity networks and forcing regular infrastructure upgrades to keep up with increasing usage demands.  Unlike larger providers, many WISPs are independent, family-run businesses that lack easy access to capital and resources to rapidly respond to demand, especially when most have a rural customer base that numbers in the hundreds or thousands.

That’s one of the reasons why Stop the Cap! has not been as harsh on these providers when they implement usage limit schemes on their customers.  Because WISPs provide service where cable and phone companies usually don’t bother to serve, these wireless providers are the only option beyond satellite Internet, which we regularly label “fraudband” for claims of broadband speeds that are rarely delivered.  Still, we were not impressed last year with some of Larsen’s language about what his usage caps were intended to do (underlining ours):

I feel that these caps are more than generous, and should have a minimal effect on the majority of our customers.   With our backbone consumption per customer increasing, implementing caps of some kind became a necessity.    I am not looking at the caps as a new “profit center” – they are a deterrent as much as anything.    It will provide an incentive for customers to upgrade to a faster plan with a higher cap, or take their download habits to a competitor and chew up someone else’s bandwidth.

Ouch.

It’s been over a year, and Larsen is back with an editorial patting himself on the back for an Internet Overcharging success story well-implemented:

We have never raised prices on our services.    We still have a customer note on the wall that reads “Your bill was the only one I got this month that DIDN’T go up.   Thank you!”     I would have a hard time raising prices on this person because of their neighbors that are downloading 20x as much.   Usage Based Billing is a much fairer way to go, especially when the provider faces so much reinvestment cost to accommodate the heavier users.   After the first year of implementation, I am very glad that we took the time to implement it and intend to use the revenue to build a better network for all of our customers.

Larsen is also upset with those who believe in the concept of unlimited Internet:

Operating a broadband network is not free, and it is not a low-maintenance business.   I have a group of dedicated employees and subcontractors that have spent a lot of late nights and early mornings away from their families to build and maintain our network.   Anyone who thinks that unlimited broadband is a God given right should be forced to spend a few days in my lead tech’s shoes, getting a good look at what a broadband provider has to do to build a network and keep it running.

Larsen, like other WISPs are confronting the reality that Internet usage is on the upswing, and while we sympathize with the challenges faced by Vistabeam and other WISPs, his statements do not apply to every broadband network around.  And frankly, an increasing number of customers simply aren’t interested in Larsen’s challenges, especially if another provider can deliver service more cheaply and efficiently.  Vistabeam better hope nobody does, because their prices are simply not competitive if just about any other provider manages to work their way into his territory.

Vistabeam prices start at $29.95 a month for 384kbps/128kbps service with a monthly usage limit of 10GB.  Exceed that and you will pay an additional $1 per gigabyte.  Customers who need more speed pay dearly for it.  A tier providing 4/2Mbps service will run you $99.95 a month with a 60GB monthly usage allowance.

As of late, Larsen has been railing against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over recent broadband stimulus awards designed to improve coverage of broadband Internet in the same rural regions of the country Vistabeam serves.  He’s upset the USDA has awarded a $10.2 million infrastructure loan to the Hemingford Cooperative Telephone Company, which provides service in western Nebraska under the name Mobius Communications.

Larsen speaks highly of the fact Vistabeam delivers service in the absence of government funding or stimulus. But average consumers are not likely to care when they compare prices and consider the fact Mobius doesn’t appear to limit customers’ usage.

Mobius DSL Prices:

• 500kbps – $35.00
• 1.5Mbps – $40.00
• 3Mbps – $50.00
• 5Mbps – $60.00 (Currently available in Alliance and Chadron.)

Mobius charges effectively half the price Vistabeam charges, and offers faster tiers of service in some areas, without fear of overlimit fees.  It’s also important to recognize the “award” was actually a “loan,” which must be repaid.  Larsen seems less upset with the fact there are broadband stimulus programs than with the reality industry lobbying has effectively cut out many Wireless ISPs from standing any chance of winning one.

I get especially frustrated by loan awards like this one because I have operated two ISPs that have had to compete directly with Mobius and did not have access to any federal grant or loan programs.   The USDA Broadband and Loan programs are essentially only available to [regional phone companies].   When I made inquiries into the programs several years ago, I found that they would only loan to a single recipient in a region so that they were not funding competing projects.

Phillip Dampier

For Stop the Cap!, our constituents are consumers interested in obtaining the best possible broadband service at the best price.  Larsen’s views, understandable from the perspective of a business owner, would leave a number of consumers paying effectively double the price for usage-limited broadband. That would, however, satisfy a business argument that self-funded private providers should not face competition from other providers that can extend faster, unlimited DSL, cable, or fiber service with low interest loans.

Wouldn’t a better solution be to form a coalition to force open the same beneficial loan programs to Wireless ISPs who can more readily and affordably build up their networks and ease the Internet Overcharging that too often comes along for the ride?  We’re not accusing Larsen of gouging his customers for fun and profit, but we would like to see WISPs like Vistabeam develop win-win strategies that deliver success for their innovative efforts and lower priced, faster service for their customers.

The alternative may be the eventual arrival of those rural phone companies, increasingly equipped to deliver faster and cheaper service to Vistabeam’s current customers, eventually spelling disaster to that company’s business plan.  It has happened before.  Anyone remember the “wireless cable” industry that delivered a few dozen cable channels over microwave signals?  That’s a service whose time came and went, largely replaced with satellite television and rural telephone cable TV, better equipped to provide the kind of service consumers actually wanted, but wireless cable was ill-equipped to provide.

AT&T “streamlined” its text messaging plans over the weekend for new customers, eliminating a less-expensive $10/1000 text budget plan in favor of unlimited texting plans that cost much more.

That means new AT&T customers who want to text will pay dearly for the privilege:

• $0.20 per text message sent/received,
• $20.00 Unlimited texting (individual line)
• $30.00 Unlimited texting (family plan)

So much for asking customers to ‘pay for what they use.’  AT&T is moving towards unlimited texting — at a very high price — while moving away from unlimited data.

AT&T released a statement about the changes:

“We regularly evaluate our offers and are making some adjustments to our messaging lineup. Starting August 21, we’re streamlining our text messaging plans for new customers and will offer an unlimited plan for individuals for $20 per month and an unlimited plan for families of up to five lines for $30 per month. The vast majority of our messaging customers prefer unlimited plans and with text messaging growth stronger than ever, that number continues to climb among new customers. Existing customers don’t have to change any messaging plan they have today, even when changing handsets.”

Gizmodo points out AT&T is charging customers who don’t have a text plan 100,000 percent more than what they charge for online data:

Here’s how it breaks down:

AT&T charges $25 for 2 gigabytes of mobile data, which states how much they think their bits and bytes are worth. That comes out to 80 megabytes per dollar. 80 megabytes will get you 500,000 text messages—assuming you’re writing the largest possible message, which you’re often not (i.e. “Hey” “Nothing” “lol”).

Now divide that dollar by the 500,000 potential texts. That comes out to $0.000002 per text—two ten thousandths of a cent. A very, very, very small amount of money.

Now, let’s say you send 5,000 texts a month. That’s a large, though wholly realistic number. Multiply that by the above worthless cost per text, and you’ve got—hold onto your wallet!—$0.01. A penny for five thousand texts, according to how much AT&T says its data is worth in a data plan.

But outside of the data plan? Oh boy! Things get very different very fast. And by very different, I mean inordinately overpriced. Those same 5,000 texts, at a rate of $0.20 per message, will cost you $1,000. Not a penny—a grand. Two very different prices for literally the exact same thing.

For customers who only send and receive occasional text messages, losing the $10 option means most will either pay the heavily marked-up $0.20 a-la-carte price, or pay double and not worry about how many messages they send.

Ultimately, AT&T’s new prices may drive an increasing number of users to alternative ways of communicating with friends and family, especially as prices keep rising.  Some AT&T customers remain grandfathered on text plans that offer 200 messages for $5 a month.  But for customers like Ben Chinn of San Francisco, even $5 is asking a lot.

“With everything with the mobile carriers, I feel I’m getting nickeled and dimed,” Chinn told the Los Angeles Times. “I resent paying so much for text messaging, and I feel that it’s not a reasonable price to pay for something that costs the carriers next to nothing.”

Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner says AT&T’s new prices foreshadow the kinds of higher prices all Americans will pay if the wireless industry continues its march towards consolidation.

“This move is simply another example of AT&T passing off a price increase for consumers as a benefit,” Turner said. “If this were a truly competitive market, AT&T would offer its customers more choice and value, and no carrier would get away with a 10-million-percent markup on its services. This should serve as a warning to the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission — if AT&T is already able to unilaterally increase prices, allowing the company to eliminate low-cost competitor T-Mobile will only make things worse.”

The Times notes Juniper Research has predicted that global revenue for text messaging will peak this year and begin to drift down. And in a recent report, UBS Investment Research warned that “customers could elect not to pay for texting as smartphones and third-party applications become pervasive.”

Facebook has introduced Messenger, a free smartphone app that allows members to exchange text messages with friends, as well as anyone else who happens to have a cell phone.  Google Voice includes unlimited free texting, if those sending messages remember your Google Voice number.  Apple’s forthcoming iMessage will be pre-installed on most Apple devices, offering a ready-made opportunity to bypass high-priced text plans.  There are dozens of other apps that offload text traffic to your smartphone data plan, where the added traffic is so insignificant, it has largely no impact on even the lowest usage plans.

The preferred outcome of using any of these third-party apps is to cancel expensive texting plans from your phone carrier.  But there are obstacles:

1. Many friends may continue to text your primary cell phone number directly, incurring a-la-carte text messaging fees if you cancel your text plan;
2. Many require all of your contacts to run specific apps to exchange messages, which can quickly become a burden;
3. Apple’s iMessage assumes all of your friends are using Apple phones or devices.  Everyone else will have to hope for, find, and install another app to support the service.

The trade-off works for some, but not for others.

Hieu Do of St. Louis tells the Times he’s had to pay for individual text messages after dropping his text plan, but Google Voice has still helped him save money:

“At the beginning of every month I would lose a dollar here and there from people texting my old number, but it’s worth it more than paying $5 or $10 a month for a texting plan,” he said.

But Jim Jeffords, one of our readers, tried Google Voice for awhile and decided it was just too cumbersome for texting.

“I ended up getting text messages from a lot of business contacts that didn’t know about my Google Voice number, but had my cell phone number,” Jeffords says. “I was not about to throw a Google Voice number into the mix and come across as cheap and make them remember what number to text.”

Jeffords went back to a basic text plan with a few hundred messages a month included.

“It wasn’t worth the hassle to deal with,” he said.

Gone

After more than a decade of “beep, beep,” Time Warner Cable is retiring Geococcyx californianus, the ground foraging cuckoo better known as the Greater Roadrunner.

It’s all part of a “brand refresh,” Time Warner’s Jeannette Castaneda tells Fortune.  The idea is to “create excitement around the eye-ear symbol.”  For now, the “Road Runner” name will remain — just the mascot disappears.

When Road Runner was first introduced in 1995 in Elmira, N.Y., it was designed to be a localized high-speed online portal, originally called the “Southern Tier On-Line Community.” Portals were all the rage in the 1990s, designed to serve as a unified home page to help users find content more easily.  When the cable modem broadband service finally spread to other markets, it was branded ‘LineRunner.’

But Time Warner’s marketing people decided the company’s best strategy to convince users that paying at least double the price they were paying for dial-up was worth the investment when you considered how fast cable broadband service was, and how it would outperform any dial-up connection.  The cable company spent months negotiating with Warner Bros. to license the use of the roadrunner in the old Wile E. Coyote cartoons.  The company even changed the name of their broadband product to Road Runner to drive home the speed message.

The "eye-ear" branding that replaces it.

Over the years, Time Warner has blanketed customers in postcard mailers, advertising, and billboards showcasing their broadband mascot, but no more.  While Time Warner Cable would not provide exact reasons for the brand change, we suspect there are several factors involved:

1. The cost to license the roadrunner character from Warner Bros.  In 1998, regional Time Warner representatives shared that the licensing agreement with Warner Bros. was costly and complicated.  Warner Bros. maintains strict control over their licensed characters and how they are used.
2. In the past, emphasizing speed was essential in convincing consumers to drop their old provider for the cable company’s alternative.  But broadband penetration in most of Time Warner’s markets has already reached a high level and most of those still refusing to take the service are not going to be convinced by speed arguments.  For these holdouts, lack of interest and the cost of the service are the most important factors, and the roadrunner character does not speak to these concerns.
3. 

   Canis usagecapus

   The telecom industry, notably cable, has spent years trying to retire the phrases “Internet access” and “Internet Service Provider.”  They don’t even like the word “broadband.”  For them – it’s High Speed Internet (HSI) or “High Speed Online.”  They have put the words “high speed” in the very term they use to describe Internet access.

4. Time Warner Cable believes in their unified bundling of services.  They aggressively pitch all of them together at a discounted price and have de-emphasized the branding that used to be associated with individual package components.  For example, Time Warner didn’t retire the name “LineRunner” when they rebranded their cable modem service Road Runner.  They simply re-used the name for their telephone service.  Time Warner tested LineRunner in the Rochester, N.Y. market before ditching the product for a Voice Over IP service they now like to call “digital phone.”  Today, most of Time Warner Cable’s most visible ancillary branding is done for their triple-play packages.  Remember “All the Best?”

Fortune thinks the retirement of the roadrunner may also have something to do with the company’s desire to implement an Internet Overcharging scheme:

TWC, like other big ISPs, is a leading proponent of imposing bandwidth caps on its Internet users. Imagine the possibilities for illustrating articles about this topic – Wile E Coyote (perhaps wearing a TWC ballcap) tripping up the Road Runner with piano wire, or finally getting his revenge and hurling the obnoxious bird off a cliff.

Earlier this year, Gov. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) signed legislation into law that allows AT&T to deregulate itself, and its rates, at will.  Kansas ratepayers are about to pay the price for that law as basic phone rates are expected to increase as much as $84 a year for residents that have few alternatives.

AT&T wants to eliminate price caps on landline service, which currently limit pre-tax prices to $15.70 in rural areas, $16.70 in larger Kansan cities with enhanced local calling areas.  After AT&T won similar deregulation in Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri and Arkansas, AT&T has been regularly raising basic phone rates, which are now $5 to $7 more a month for basic service than before deregulation.

AT&T intends to divert much of the additional revenue away from upkeep of its landline network, which in several states it has won the right to abandon in rural areas, and use the money to enhance its cell phone network instead.

AT&T spokesman Aaron Catlin told The Wichita Eagle AT&T intends to supply communities currently bypassed by AT&T DSL with heavily usage capped, and much more expensive, 3G wireless broadband instead.

AT&T currently sells that service for $60 a month with a 5GB usage limit and an overlimit fee of $50 per gigabyte.

Catlin told the Eagle AT&T was excited with the possibilities, although rural Kansans facing those prices might not be.

“A lot of bad things are going to happen long-term,” Steve Rarrick, an attorney for the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board told the newspaper. “Over time, they (customers) are going to see their phone bills go up. That’s been the experience of other states.”