Knology, which bought out Sunflower Broadband last year, has elected to carry forward the old owner’s Internet Overcharging schemes, charging broadband customers penalty rates for exceeding their usage allowances.

The company’s explanation for their overpriced bandwidth comes with a tall tale about their competitors they simply made up out of thin air:

Data transfer allotments allow Knology to offer higher speed service with lower prices. Unlimited, open usage plans offered by other providers typically employ network controls to slow down the high usage customers.

That’s news to us, and to their nearest competitor AT&T.  They deny speed throttling any of their U-verse or DSL customers.

While the company’s download speeds are impressive — up to 50Mbps — their upload speeds are not, topping out at a paltry 1Mbps.

Knology claims they expand usage allowances based not on network capacity, but by the percentage of customers they gouge with overlimit fees:

Data transfer allotments: Each level of internet above includes the amount of data transfer indicated measured in Gigabytes (GB). The data transfer allotments are increased regularly, based on usage patterns, to ensure the number of customers who go over their allotments remains under 10%. Additional GB of data transferred beyond the allotment is billed at $1.00 per GB if not purchased at a discount before the end of the billing period. The percentage of Knology customers charged for extra data transfer beyond their allotment was 6.1% in April 2009.

Bemusingly, customers with time machines who can travel into the future and determine they will exceed their allowance for the month can pre-purchase an increase in their usage allowance at a discount.

No time machine?  Then you either pay the standard overlimit rate, watch your usage like a hawk, or potentially over-buy excess usage that expires at the end of the month.

Customers tell Stop the Cap! the company’s single, unlimited use package is “the same piece of garbage it always was,” writes Larry who lives in Lawrence.  He had high hopes Knology would do the right thing and abandon Sunflower’s overcharging schemes.

“Apparently not, and after a month with their unlimited service, I have scheduled my U-verse installation with AT&T,” Larry writes. “Even on Knology’s limited packages, they don’t provide the speeds they promise.”

Larry also says the higher speed tiers Knology offers deliver diminishing returns.

“If their uplink is congested, or the web sites you visit are busy, it won’t matter if you have 10Mbps or 50Mbps — the speed is effectively the same,” he says. “Besides, upload speed is more important these days and 1Mbps is just plain lousy in 2011.”

“Bye, bye SunKnology.”

Stop the Cap! reader Mike in Elk Grove, California reports his departure from Frontier Communications carried a goodbye kiss he’ll not soon forget: a $680 final bill made up primarily of early termination fees:

“I just got my Frontier bill after canceling (they canceled me because I ported my number to another provider),” Mike writes.  “The bill cycle was through 2/14/2011 (my contract ends on March 6, 2011).”

The bill was for $679.72.

More than 22 months into his 24 month contract, Frontier charged him early termination fees at the same rate he would pay if he departed 14 days into his term:

• High Speed Internet Loyalty Fee: $200
• Netbook Term Fee: $300
• California Unlimited Term: $200

The only reason his final bill was not higher is that he received some service credits for the partial month he was not their customer.

Needless to say, Mike is livid.  He is one of several Sacramento-area customers who received letters from Frontier threatening to terminate his Internet service if he did not reduce his usage.  When Mike ultimately decided to reduce his usage to zero and switch providers, Frontier dumped every termination fee it could find on Mike’s final bill.

But before Mike opens his checkbook, he (and any other customer gouged with early termination fees) should remember this:

Frontier cannot bill you early termination fees and expect to be paid when they unilaterally changed the terms of the contract.

From Frontier’s Terms and Conditions for High Speed Internet:

Our Right To Make Changes

UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW, WE MAY CHANGE PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS AT ANY TIME BY GIVING YOU 30 DAYS NOTICE BY BILL MESSAGE, E-MAIL OR OTHER NOTICE, INCLUDING POSTING NOTICE OF SUCH CHANGES ON THIS WEB SITE, UNLESS THE PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE GUARANTEED BY CONTRACT. YOU ACCEPT THE CHANGES IF YOU USE THE SERVICES AFTER NOTICE IS PROVIDED.

When Mike (among others) signed up for Frontier service, their broadband service did not carry any usage limits.  Frontier’s “price protection agreement” claims it will “lock in” your current price.  But Frontier violated their own contract when they sent letters to customers threatening to terminate their broadband service for using Internet service that had no specified usage limit and demanding they pay a higher price of up to $250 a month to continue service.  So much for “price protection.”

You are not obligated to accept Frontier’s unilateral action and can notify the company they have made a “materially adverse” change to your contract by specifying that you exceeded a never-defined usage limit (100GB), and that the company sought a price increase ranging from $99-250 to continue service with them.  If you exceeded 100GB a year ago, you would not have received this letter.  Today you will — and that is a change you need not accept.

Frontier defaulted on their obligations to you as a customer, and your recourse is to cancel the contract, penalty-free.

Frontier Communications’ outrageous term contract fees were precisely what got the company in hot water with the New York State Attorney General in 2009, and the company settled charges with refunds and waivers for those unjustly billed cancellation fees Frontier was not entitled to receive.  Apparently they have not learned their lesson.

Your response:

1. Send a registered, return receipt requested letter to Frontier notifying them under the terms of their own contract, you do not accept the changes outlined in their letter limiting your broadband service.  Your original contract with Frontier did not include a specified usage limit and now using more than 100GB results in a request to pay more or reduce usage.  That represents a “materially adverse change” in your agreement.
2. Under these conditions, you are exercising your right to depart, penalty-free, from your term contract with Frontier Communications.
3. Warn Frontier that any attempt to collect early termination fees or other cancellation fees will result in civil action appropriate to protect your credit rating and will trigger a complaint with the California Attorney General’s office.
4. Keep copies of all correspondence and record dates, times, and names of any representatives you speak with, as they will be helpful in any official investigations that follow.
5. Also be sure to proceed with the terms found on the back your Frontier bill to protest erroneous charges, preferably in writing.  You want a paper trail and you want to protect your credit rating from any adverse collection activity.

Mike has already contacted local media about his case, which is a smart idea.  Warning other consumers about the potential costs of doing business with Frontier is likely to only further deteriorate their reputation in the Elk Grove area.  Alienating and overcharging your customers is a great way to get them to share their story with as many people they can find, and that only makes a bad company look worse.

[flv width=”360″ height=”240″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WROC Rochester Frontier Flagged for Not Telling Customers About Fees 10-5-09.flv[/flv]

WROC-TV Rochester reported back in October, 2009 that Frontier was on the hook for hundreds of dollars in refunds to some customers. (2 minutes)

A wireless ISP (WISP) serving parts of Michigan and eastern Iowa has informed customers that due to their enthusiastic use of the Internet, the company was slapping a 5GB monthly usage limit on customers effective Feb. 1.

SpeedConnect, based in Saginaw, Mich., informed customers in a letter that those who exceed the company’s new usage limit face a penalty overlimit rate of $2.00 per gigabyte.  An alternative 200GB “Platinum” monthly usage plan, including phone service, was also announced for $69.99 per month.

That’s a steep rate increase for customers accustomed to receiving around 3Mbps download x 384Kbps upload speeds for $39.95 per month.

Too much for our reader Greg, who says he has been a SpeedConnect customer for the last decade.

“Ouch,” Greg writes.  “I’m changing ISPs over this.”

Company officials blame the usage limits on usage growth.  The company’s letter states, “[growth] is forcing us to make substantial upgrades to our networks and to rethink the way we provide service to our customers.”

Now customers will rethink using SpeedConnect for their Internet access.

SpeedConnect’s attempt to collect upgrade funds from their customers, which the company admits are increasingly turning to broadband for home entertainment and information, comes at the same time the company had no trouble dipping into the kitty to buyout CommSpeed of Arizona’s 2.5GHz spectrum holdings and customers based in Eastern Iowa.

The same CEO that signed the letter telling customers to use less of their service or pay dramatically more was thrilled about “the exciting new chapter” its merger/acquisition would open.

“The completion of this acquisition is a significant event for our customers, communities, investors, and employees,” said John A. Ogren, President and Chief Executive Officer.

Saginaw residents are not well-served by AT&T, which has left major gaps in the economically-stressed region’s broadband coverage options.  We had a hard time finding landlines in Saginaw and nearby townships pre-qualified for AT&T DSL to offer a price comparison.  After much searching, we discovered AT&T heavily markets DSL Pro ($35/$19.95 new customer promo price for one year) which delivers 3Mbps/512kbps service, or Elite ($40/$24.95 new customer promo price for one year) which offers 6Mbps/768kbps service to those who -can- get the service.

AT&T’s Pro plan delivers comparable speeds at lower prices than SpeedConnect charges, all with no usage limits.  Users seeking higher speeds can use them without fear of overlimit penalties or a $70 broadband bill using AT&T’s Elite DSL plan.

Greg also notes he has another wireless option, as do many residents and business across central Michigan’s Tri City area, from SkyWeb, which delivers wireless access at speeds ranging from 3-10Mbps.  The company does not limit usage and offers new customers a month of free service.  A comparable package of services from SkyWeb at 3Mbps is priced $10 less than what SpeedConnect charges.

Wireless ISPs have unique problems trying to keep up with usage demands:

1. Many are individually owned and operated and lack sufficient capital to invest in required upgrades to meet today’s Internet multimedia reality;
2. Many WISPs serve rural areas where growth opportunities are often limited;
3. A few very heavy users could create significant strains on a wireless network that is not infinitely expandable;
4. The arrival of competition from telephone, cable, or even cell-phone wireless data plans can present a major threat to the business plans of some providers.

[flv width=”384″ height=”236″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNEM Saginaw Air Advantage Broadband Grant 9-2010.flv[/flv]

WNEM-TV covered Air Advantage, another regional WISP that won a broadband stimulus grant last fall to expand wireless access in mid-Michigan.  (2 minutes)

When is a rate increase not just a rate increase?  When it’s also “an attractive offer.”

Frontier Communications is getting heat from consumers in Fort Wayne, Ind., with news their Frontier FiOS TV bill will skyrocket $12-30 higher in the coming month.

To distract from the disaster-in-the-making, Frontier representatives are waving shiny keys to customers preparing to depart, trying to “upgrade” Indiana residents back to satellite TV.

Don Banowetz, president of Frontier’s Midwest division, told Fort Wayne customers he was personally excited by the satellite offer, because customers can get free programming services for the remainder of 2011, a $700 value according to Banowetz.

“It’s not just a price increase, it’s an offer — a quite attractive offer,” Banowetz told INC Now.

Frontier is also pitching a free 32-inch “web-capable” digital television for customers signing an extended length contract.

Frontier says these televisions are going to revolutionize the way Americans watch TV over the next five years, and they believe their offer will be well-received by customers.

Not so much.

“I’ll bet their letter will leave out the part about how Frontier rations the Internet to their customers,” writes Fort Wayne resident Irv, who has been closely following Frontier’s Internet Overcharging antics in the Sacramento area.  “Will the coin slot be on the top or side of their television, because after you start watching, you’ll have to start paying.”

Frontier has sent letters to customers in Minnesota and California demanding up to $250 a month for residential broadband access because they used the company’s DSL service “too much.”

“Who wants to sign a two or three contract with Frontier, raise your hands,” Irv asks.  “They have just destroyed their FiOS TV service in Indiana — my fingers couldn’t dial the cable company fast enough as I take my business somewhere else.”

Another Fort Wayne resident — Nick Behm, has been following Stop the Cap! ever since Verizon announced it was selling Ft. Wayne’s phone lines to Frontier.

“You guys had this company nailed — Indiana’s regulators should hire you folks and some other actual consumers to review these deals before they get rubber-stamped, because Frontier is going to put themselves out of business and risk landline service throughout our area,” Behm writes.  “How can you ruin a fiber service that sells itself?  Let Frontier run it.”

Neither Behm or Irv will be taking up Frontier’s offer, although Behm still has a term contract of his own — with Verizon.

“I am protected from Frontier’s cash grab for several more months, so at least I have time to prepare for the forthcoming cancellation — bye, bye Frontier.”

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/INC Now Ft Wayne New Charges for Frontier Customers 1-18-11.mp4[/flv]

INC Now delivers the bad (and according to Frontier – good) news to Fort Wayne, Ind., FiOS TV customers — your rates are going up as much as $30 a month.  (1 minute)

The wedding of Comcast and NBC-Universal was given the blessings of two federal agencies today that all but seals the multi-billion dollar deal.

In a 4-1 decision, the Federal Communications Commission approved the merger.  It’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, claimed it would ultimately be good for consumers as the company promised to add at least 1,000 hours of news and information programming and a new ultra-budget “lifeline” broadband tier priced at $9.95 per month for low-income families.

The lone dissenter, Democratic commissioner Michael Copps, rejected notions that a combined company the size of Comcast, which controls more than a quarter of all cable subscribers, and NBC-Universal, a major media company, would deliver anything to consumers.

“It’s too big. It’s too powerful. It’s too lacking in benefits for American consumers,” Copps said after the FCC vote to approve the merger. “And it continues us down a road of consolidation we’ve been on for a couple of decades now.  And the most threatening part about it is that this is not just traditional media, but it’s new media, too. It touches just about every aspect of our media environment.”

National Public Radio’s ‘All Things Considered’ gave measured coverage to today’s Comcast-NBC merger developments, and how it will impact consumers. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Indeed the combined Comcast-NBC will own or control one of every seven television channels and networks seen by Americans.  Copps worries that kind of media concentration is sure to reduce diversity in programming and on-air voices.

Even worse, some analysts predict the merger could trigger a new wave of media consolidation as other players try to maintain their positions in the media marketplace.  Second-place Time Warner Cable could begin looking for merger opportunities with smaller cable companies, such as Cox, for example.

Just about an hour after the FCC gave approval, the Justice Department and five states’ Attorney General announced a tentative settlement that could resolve concerns that the transaction was anti-competitive.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNYW New York Comcast FCC Approval 1-18-11.flv[/flv]

WNYW-TV in New York reported on today’s merger decision and explained how Comcast customers, and online video fans, could be impacted.  (3 minutes)

The Terms & Conditions

Two different federal agencies insisted on Comcast’s agreement to several terms and conditions before agreeing to the deal.  Many of them presented no problem for Comcast, who had voluntarily agreed to several of them early on in negotiations.  But the Justice Department delivered one of the strongest conditions, and a first for online video protection — it insisted the new combined entity of Comcast-NBC bow out of its voting rights in Hulu, the online video service.

√ No Playing Favorites: Comcast has to agree that if it carries its own news and business channels, it has to include competitors on the same tier.

Since Comcast-NBC has ownership interests in so many news, sports, and weather channels, making space for the competition was considered crucial by federal regulators.  The cable company can’t bury its competitors in Channel Siberia, or stick them on “digital tiers” that are priced higher than standard cable service.  Who wins?  Bloomberg News, rarely found even by cable viewers who go looking, and the very low-rated Fox Business Channel, which can’t attract 30,000 viewers on a good day.  Both will find prominent positions on Comcast Cable going forward, even if nobody watches.

√ Cheap Internet Access for Qualified Families: Comcast has agreed to provide a “lifeline” broadband service, but only for families pre-qualified by federal eligibility for free school lunches.

No word on what speeds these customers will receive, and Comcast estimates the program will barely make a dent in its bottom line.  It is expected to reach only around 400,000 homes nationwide, and only as long as those subscribers remain eligible under federal guidelines.  No free lunch for broadband.

√ Standalone Internet Service Must Be Provided: Comcast must sell at least a 6Mbps broadband plan without cable or telephone service for $49.99 a month for three years.

Since Comcast already routinely sells standalone broadband service to customers at around this price, this was hardly a concession.  Comcast can still pile on extra fees, such as their overpriced cable modem rental, and any other charges that could be mandated by federal, state, or local government in the future.  They can also keep their usage caps.

√ Comcast must agree to the FCC’s Homeopathic Net Neutrality Rules:  Comcast has to agree to the FCC’s heavily-watered down definition of Net Neutrality… the ones Comcast itself suggested.

Since the FCC largely caved-in to Big Telecom’s lobbying against Net Neutrality, Comcast’s agreement to adhere to what the FCC calls Net Neutrality won’t present any problems, because those terms were similar to what Comcast had asked for all along.  Their “digital phone” service is exempted, which means Comcast can “manage” competing Voice Over IP services at its pleasure.

√ Evidence That PBS Has A Lobbyist, Too — Special Favors for Public Broadcasting: Public television stations win carriage protection from Comcast “for several years.”

In an effort to free spectrum, PBS stations could be pressured to give back some channels or reduce their transmitter power to free up UHF frequencies for more wireless broadband.  Should this happen, Comcast has agreed to keep those stations on their cable systems as if nothing changed at all.  It assures stations that even if their broadcast coverage areas are reduced, their cable carriage will stay the same.

√ Binding Arbitration Comes to Buyers of Comcast-owned Networks:  If a cable system or other provider runs into trouble getting an agreement with Comcast, the FCC offers help.

To protect other cable systems, telco-TV, and satellite companies from uncompetitive pricing or access blockades to Comcast-controlled networks, the cable company agrees to come to the table and submit to binding arbitration over carriage disputes.  Unfortunately for Comcast subscribers, the cable giant can’t force broadcasters or other cable networks to the same table to settle their own carriage wars.

√ Online Access to Programming Comes to Existing Players, Unless Something Big Changes: Everyone loves the status-quo, and this agreement assures it.

The Department of Justice provisions protecting access to online video programming were carefully crafted by lawyers with one eye on Washington and the other on Wall Street.  It effectively provides “stability” in the marketplace and avoids the kinds of competitive surprises Wall Street hates.  Effectively, the agreement grants access to Comcast-owned programming to ventures that existed prior to the agreement reached today.  Existing players have the government’s assurance carriage contracts are secure.  Those with a pre-existing relationship to Comcast can also purchase the entire bouquet of Comcast-controlled programming (no a-la-carte) at prices similar to those charged to other cable and satellite customers.

But brand new players that threaten to turn existing business models on their heads?  Forget it.  The agreement says nothing that would require access to Comcast programming for upstart services like ivi, or even Google TV for that matter.  The only potential, real-world competitive scenario comes if an existing player (say Time Warner Cable, Verizon FiOS, or AT&T U-verse) decided to start a national virtual online cable company open to any American, anywhere.  What are the chances of that happening?  How many of you can choose Time Warner -or- Comcast? Verizon FiOS -or- AT&T U-verse?  Would AT&T risk its U-verse revenue selling Time Warner Cable customers the same channel lineup, knowing it can’t also easily bundle broadband and phone packages with it?

√ No Voting Rights for Hulu: Comcast agrees to limit its role in one of the biggest potential reasons some consumers are prepared to cut cable’s cord.

The Justice Department’s requirement that Comcast effectively butt-out of the day to day decisions affecting Hulu may protect consumers, but Hulu’s partners don’t want to devalue their programming by giving it away for free forever, either.  Nothing prohibits the birds-of-a-feather-partners in Hulu to put the service under a full ad load or behind a pay wall, reducing its value and interest to consumers.  Or, the whole project could be terminated at the behest of News Corp. and Disney.

Whatever consumer protections the FCC and Justice have included, they won’t last forever.  Virtually all expire within three to seven years, at which point Comcast might be humbled by the culmination of a bad business decision the likes of AOL-Time Warner, or become Comzilla, ready to trample its competition (and consumers) into the dirt.

Was This a Commission Cave-In or a Foregone Conclusion?

Although Commissioner Copps calls today’s decision a “dangerous” deal, some ex-regulators suggest the package presented to federal regulators was effectively a foregone conclusion.

Bruce Gottlieb was formerly Chief Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, and offered his take on today’s developments for The Atlantic:

How mergers at the FCC will play out is notoriously hard to predict, but the ultimate result is not. The historical truth is that, in virtually every instance, the commission will approve any major proposed transaction. The only time in recent memory that the commission declined to do so was the proposed merger of the two leading satellite-TV providers (Echostar and DirecTV) — and that marriage was running into problems with other agencies long before the FCC put the final nail in the coffin.

(Yes, then-Chairman Reed Hundt also famously ended rumors of an AT&T and Southwestern Bell merger in 1997 by preemptively declaring it “unthinkable.” But those companies simply had to wait until 2005, when a different FCC chairman let it go through.)

The real action at the FCC involves what “conditions” the agency will put on a merger. These are supposed to be narrowly tailored to address specific harms raised by the merger at issue. But, regardless of who is in charge at the agency, it’s all relative.

Often, the conditions applied to a particular merger have more to do with what the chairman and commissioners at the time want to achieve on an industrywide basis. It’s just easier to get these things done when you have the extraordinary leverage of controlling the timing of a multibillion-dollar transaction that the parties are desperate to consummate.

[…]  The FCC’s rules, as described in the press release announcing the merger, appear to be aimed at ensuring that “over the top” providers have fair access to programming (which the NBCU part of Comcast-NBCU will provide), as well as to consumers (which the Comcast part of Comcast-NBCU will provide).

This is, by far, the strongest statement yet from the commission about the importance of over the top video competition. But the business and regulatory stakes in this fight are only going to increase over time. Indeed, the two Republican commissioners (Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker) issued separate statements saying they have concerns over whether the FCC should be writing rules to encourage over the top video. So this is likely to be the first skirmish in what will surely be a long and bloody war.

In the weeks ahead, the lawyers will be able to parse the specific provisions to see where the loopholes are and how it will all play out in practice. The details surely matter. But years from now, the specifics of what was decided in this merger may mean a lot less than the fact that the FCC is now deeply involved in the multifront war to decide who will win online video.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Newshour Comcast Merger Announced 12-3-09.mp4[/flv]

More than a year ago, PBS’ ‘The Newshour’ explored the reasons why Comcast and NBC-Universal would want to join forces.  Now, after millions of dollars of Comcast subscribers’ money has been spent lobbying for approval, will consumers ultimately pay an even higher price later on?  (12/3/2009 — 11 minutes)