Unless you own Sprint’s premiere smartphones — the Evo 4G and the Epic, get out your wallet — Sprint is increasing the price on its unlimited data plan by $10, effective later this month.

Evo and Epic owners already pay the $10 “premium data” fee that will be extended to all smartphone customers Jan. 30 (customers on existing contracts will not be affected).

The reason for the price increase?  Heavy usage on its wireless network, which partly includes Virgin Mobile (ending its unlimited service Feb. 14) and Clearwire, which heavily throttles speeds of customers deemed to be “using too much.”

Chief executive Dan Hesse says Sprint will retain its unlimited service plans, which the company calls the best value in the wireless industry.  But the pricing change will present minor challenges as Sprint markets themselves as the least costly.

Sprint's marketing focuses on its unlimited use offers, some of which are about to get more expensive.

Sprint’s “Everything Data” plan, which also includes unlimited cell-to-cell calls will now cost $79.99 per month.  Comparable plans from T-Mobile are priced at $99.99 for that company’s 4G network and $119.98 on Verizon Wireless’ slower, but more ubiquitous 3G network.

“Sprint has been the price leader in the market,” said Jennifer Fritzsche, a Wells Fargo & Co. analyst in Chicago who has an “outperform” rating on the stock. “Sprint may be more confident in the pricing power it has with customers.”

The Wall Street Journal also shares positive views of the price increase from Wall Street:

Wall Street applauded the move, with many seeing it as a sign of pricing power returning to the wireless industry. “It is more likely that Sprint believes that consumers value unlimited and that they can get away with higher pricing,” said Jonathan Chaplin, an analyst at Credit Suisse.

The price hike also suggests that Sprint has seen stronger smartphone growth over the past three months, he added, noting that the carrier likely wouldn’t have made the change if it were still concerned about stabilizing its base on contract customers.

But some other analysts are less impressed with Sprint, especially because of challenges the company faces with its Clearwire partnership.

Patrick Comack from Zachary Investment Research has downgraded Sprint stock, particularly because of technology issues Clearwire faces.

Comack told CNBC Clearwire is stuck with defective spectrum for much of its wireless broadband service.

“It can’t penetrate walls,” Comack said, noting most Clearwire customers are trying to use wireless broadband in the 2GHz range, which presents plenty of problems from obstacles between the tower and the customer.

Comack also believes Sprint’s network simply cannot compete with Verizon Wireless, which he suspects could pick up a number of Sprint customers once it fully activates its 4G network nationwide.

Verizon Wireless network delivers significantly better coverage than Sprint, which focuses on urban and suburban markets, and the major highways that connect them.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Sprint 1-12-11.flv[/flv]

CNBC: Debating Sprint and Clearwire, with Todd Rethemeier, Hudson Square Research and Patrick Comack Zachary Investment Research.  (6 minutes)

(Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader PreventCAPS for sharing the news.)

Some of America’s largest media companies are starting to get nervous over reported stipulations Comcast and NBC-Universal must meet in order to win FCC approval of their merger deal.

The Wall Street Journal reports ‘all-lobbyists-on-deck’ as companies fear collateral damage to their own nascent online video businesses.

At issue is the FCC-proposed condition that would require Comcast to offer NBC programming to any online video service that has reached a similar deal for content from at least one of NBC’s competitors, such as Walt Disney Co. or News Corp.

That could create a highly competitive online video marketplace, with open access to video programming — content many companies want to tightly control.

Last week, lobbyists from Disney, News Corp., and Time Warner pelted the FCC with filings fearing Comcast-NBC deal stipulations could also impact their businesses, potentially risking exclusivity deals with firms like Netflix or Apple.  At the worst, such rules could permit the development of virtual ‘online cable systems,’ delivering hundreds of hours of programming daily — more than enough to potentially invite customers to turn away from traditional cable-TV or satellite packages.

Perish the thought, suggest some Wall Street analysts who are prepared to downgrade companies that cannot maximize revenue from a controlled online video marketplace.

The three companies, among others, have suggested language that limits any stipulations exclusively to the Comcast-NBC deal, or changing the terms to impact their own operations less.

Public interest groups continue to press their views that the proposed deal delivers nothing to consumers but higher bills and fewer programming choices.

Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, joined with more than two dozen public interest groups urging a more careful review of the deal:

“We believe that a merger of this size and scope will have a devastating effect on the media marketplace,” a letter to President Barack Obama and Congress says. “It will result in less competition, higher consumer costs and fewer content choices. It also will give one company unprecedented control over innovative new media that offer news, information, entertainment and cultural programming through emerging technologies.”

Joel Kelsey, policy analyst for Consumers Union, said this proposed merger could have major consequences for consumers: “This merger would combine a major television network and film studio with the nation’s largest cable company and residential broadband provider, which could be a recipe for disaster. This merged giant has great potential to lead to higher cable and broadband rates for consumers, less competition in online video, and less diversity among the programming choices for viewers. There are no clear benefits to consumers from this merger.”

Comcast has agreed to several stipulations that are supposed to protect consumers.  Among them, a three-year requirement Comcast provide standalone Internet service to consumers for $49.95 a month.  But the deal says nothing about Comcast’s Internet Overcharging scheme — an arbitrary usage cap on their broadband service.

Comcast would also agree to adhere to Net Neutrality rules (as defined by the FCC) for up to seven years.  Since those rules are closely aligned to what Comcast volunteered to follow earlier, there was little reservation agreeing to them going forward.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Comcast Deal May Hang on Showing Rivals Online Video 12-23-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News’ Todd Shields explains the proposed conditions the FCC seeks to impose on the Comcast-NBC merger deal.  (12/23/2010 — 4 minutes)

"This will never end well."

Stop the Cap! and our allies Free Press teamed up to expose Frontier’s usage limits for what they are — a broadband ripoff.

KOVR-TV in Sacramento ran an excellent piece on Frontier’s latest embarrassing screw-up: driving their declining landline broadband customers away with unjustified and arbitrary usage caps.

One new piece of the story: Frontier could bring its usage rationing sideshow to a community near you.  As Stop the Cap! informed readers from the beginning, the company has quietly been tracking customers’ usage, looking for outliers they can suggest are using too much.  Now the company says it is ready to drop the hammer on heavy users.

Stephanie Beasly, Communications Manager — Frontier Communications:

“The company letters were sent to customers that are using an excessive amount of the network. Well beyond any reasonable amount for an average user and significant enough to negatively affect other customers’ user experience.

The letters are meant to communicate to these customers that their usage is in excess and we would like to work with them to adjust their plan or their usage. In most cases our customers were not aware of their usage patterns and are willing to work with us to adjust their plans to fit their lifestyles. We do not have a customer capacity on our network. We are looking to work with these customers to help prevent degradation on our network to ensure the customer experience.

The pricing structure was put in place to help us maintain the network experience for all customers. If you choose to use a significant amount of bandwidth we believe you should pay for the service accordingly.

The letters were sent to four markets across the company. We routinely review network usage patterns and these users jumped out as consuming an inordinate amount of bandwidth, enough to negatively affect other customers’ user experience.

All of Frontier markets are reviewed for usage patterns as the markets receiving the letters were reviewed. These specific markets were not targeted.

The customers using an excessive amount of data negatively impact the network for other users. Preventing us from providing adequate bandwidth to all of our users during peak and non-peak times.”

There is less and less to like about Frontier Communications, despite the fact they plan to deliver broadband service to rural Americans unlikely to see it from anyone else.  We’re glad someone is willing to provide the service, but 1-3Mbps broadband with arbitrary usage limits and potentially confiscatory pricing ($250 a month for residential customers), is a trade the devil might make.

Stop the Cap! will continue to organize opposition to Frontier’s foolish pricing schemes wherever they appear.  We will help customers find an alternate provider wherever possible, preferably one that remembers a customer should be treated like gold, not mined for it.

In suburban Sacramento, we highly recommend SureWest — a fiber-to-the-home service provider that not only has no Internet Overcharging scheme, but provides service at speeds that frankly embarrass Frontier’s last-century DSL.  They will even cover up to $200 of any early cancellation fee Frontier charges (and if Frontier tries, we want to know about it).

Our reader, Mr. Brown, was pleasantly surprised to find that SureWest’s speeds just blow Frontier out of the water.  He’s saying goodbye to his 6/0.5Mbps DSL line from Frontier and hello to 25/25Mbps service from SureWest that will also save him $10 a month!  He is also happy to see the back of Frontier’s Overcharging Nanny telling him to get off the Internet.

“[These caps] are a slippery slope and Internet providers need to know that action such as these will result in lost profits,” Mr. Brown wrote on KOVR’s website.  Departing customers typically drop -all- of their Frontier services, costing the company landline revenue as well.

Indeed, Frontier continues to lose more landline customers than its adds, and bungling policies like overcharging for Internet service will only accelerate the departure of angry customers.

Unfortunately, Frontier’s failures extend way beyond their broadband service.

The golden parachute for some, just not for you.

Frontier’s way of doing business has:

• given customers one more reason to cancel their landline service;
• ruined a fiber-to-the-home service that a child should be able to market successfully;
• irritated subscribers with “price protection agreements” that are little more than tricks and traps — delivering all of the protection to Frontier’s bottom line and making you pay the price;
• destroyed what few reasons remain for customers to waste their time with DSL broadband wherever cable or municipal providers exist;
• delivered big dividends and results only to shareholders, siphoning away important financial resources needed to upgrade their facilities.

In Everett, Washington Frontier cannot even manage the steady flow of customers canceling FiOS video service after news of a shocking $30 a month rate increase.  After telling customers they should “upgrade” their Frontier service to DirecTV satellite, those customers that tried encountered news that DirecTV never heard of the promotion Frontier was offering:

Two hours on the phone, six customer service people and a disconnected call — it wasn’t the introduction to DirecTV that one local man had hoped.

A FiOS television customer, Rick Wright sought to take advantage of an offer made last week by Frontier Communications and its partner, DirecTV.

[…]When Wright called initially, the Frontier customer service person was familiar with Frontier’s offer and transferred Wright to DirecTV to get an installation date before cancelling his FiOS TV service. At DirecTV, Wright spoke to six people over a two-hour span before being disconnected. Wright called back to DirecTV the following day only to be told that he was misinformed about the offer. Frontier spokeswoman Stephanie Beasly said Thursday that she was taking care of Wright’s problem.

On Friday, more than a week after Frontier first announced its new offer, Wright said his television service still remained up in the air. Several other FiOS television customers in Snohomish County reported difficulty in getting the free DirecTV offer.

Late last week, Frontier acknowledged some miscommunication between the company and its partner, DirecTV. On Thursday, Beasly said she believed those issues had been resolved. She did not return a request for further information Friday.

DirecTV spokeswoman Jade Ekstedt suggested in an e-mail that FiOS customers should contact Frontier directly for assistance.

“The offer … is a valid Frontier Communications promotion that includes DirecTV service, and DirecTV always works with its partners on valid offers that they introduce into market,” Ekstedt wrote, when asked whether DirecTV is honoring Frontier’s offer.

Complaints are arriving at a steady pace, reports the Washington State Attorney General’s office.

This is a story that never ends well.  But don’t worry — the executives responsible for the notorious bungling have their spots on the compensation lifeboats already reserved.  Too bad customers will likely go down with the ship.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOVR Sacramento Call Kurtis Bill May Triple For Excessive Internet Usage 1-13-11.mp4[/flv]

KOVR-TV in Sacramento worked with Stop the Cap! and Free Press to develop this story about Frontier’s unjustified Internet Overcharging schemes.  (4 minutes)

Frontier's Fiber Fantasies

Frontier FiOS is the fiber-to-home network that gets no respect, at least from the company that now runs it.

What Verizon considers its crown jewel, Frontier Communications considers an afterthought. Since buying up several million landlines from Verizon, Frontier has reluctantly adopted the fiber-to-the-home service already up and running in a handful of areas Verizon sold off.

Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter said Frontier would not increase pricing on its services, in fact stating they had not had a price increase in several years.  But just months after winning approval of the deal with Verizon, Frontier stunned customers and regulators with one of the largest rate increases ever seen in the cable television industry: a $30 monthly increase for basic cable.

Understandably, angry customers have been calling Frontier in droves demanding an explanation.

Stop the Cap! reader Betsy was floored when a Frontier representative actually suggested to her its FiOS network wasn’t worth the trouble, and the representative was telling all of the customers calling they should “upgrade” to satellite TV instead.

“How do you even respond to that?  I thought I heard her wrong — I had the speakerphone on, but after the Frontier rep said it, my 87 year old mother who was listening hollered ‘that’s a bunch of bull****’ from the other room,'” Betsy shares.

“My mother almost never swears,” Betsy tells Stop the Cap! “But she was living with us when our family endured satellite’s rain fade, the neighbor’s trees, the picture freezes, and the equipment issues for almost ten years — why would we go back to that?”

In fact, it was Verizon’s FiOS network which attracted the Washington State family to take the satellite dish off the roof and toss it.  So it came as quite a shock to have a Frontier representative try and get her to rip a state of the art fiber network out to go back to DirecTV.

Frontier wants their customers to give up on this...

“Does anyone at this company have a clue what they are doing?  Using their logic, we should go back to dial or hand crank telephones,” Betsy concludes.

We wondered if this was a fluke, but then we found Frontier telling customers nearly the same thing in Ft. Wayne, Ind.

The Journal-Gazette reports Frontier’s rate hike in the Pacific Northwest foreshadowed similar rate hikes likely in the midwestern city that is Frontier’s second largest market, behind Rochester, N.Y.

Frontier Communications FiOS cable customers could be facing a monthly increase of $12 to $30 in coming weeks.

Many of the affected subscribers have a $99 bundle for monthly TV, telephone and Internet services. As an alternative, Frontier will offer DirecTV satellite service free for the rest of the year for customers paying for telephone and Internet, a spokesman said Wednesday.

“We will be making more information available by Tuesday of next week,” said Matthew Kelley, adding that existing customer contracts will be honored.

“With DirecTV, it really is a chance to get three services for the price of two. The channel lineups are pretty comparable.”

DirecTV offers more than 200 channels, Kelley said.

...and "upgrade" to this instead.

“Don’t sign me up,” Betsy writes when we showed her the Journal article.  “Channel lineups don’t mean much when you can’t watch them.”

Betsy’s satellite dish took a beating not only from the weather and efforts to find a clear view to the sky, but also from some birds advertising for a mate.

“The woodpeckers just loved to attack the dish — the jack-hammering sound could be heard all over the neighborhood when they got going,” she said.

Frontier’s Kelley admitted the company is small potatoes in the cable world, and simply can’t compete for good programming prices.

But even those of us at Stop the Cap! know that smaller players need not negotiate programming contracts themselves — they can join one of several groups that pool smaller providers together to grab substantial volume discounts.  Municipal players manage to find reasonable cable programming prices, but a multi-state corporate player like Frontier apparently cannot.

Bruce Getts, business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 723, shrugged off Frontier’s FiOS failures.

Getts, whose union represents 700 installers, repair technicians, customer service representatives and dispatchers at Frontier told the newspaper more people are going online to watch TV anyway, so the impact of the price hike might well become moot.

Unfortunately, Frontier is the same company testing an Internet Overcharging scheme in the Sacramento area that makes online viewing an expensive proposition, even more expensive than Frontier’s FiOS rate hikes.

“I think people will rue the day they let these bozos take over our phone service,” Betsy says.  “It looks like our family has a reason to cancel service with Frontier and head to cable.”

After an outpouring of complaints from UK mobile data customers, T-Mobile’s UK division has announced it is backing off implementing ‘new and improved’ usage caps of 500MB per month, down from the 1-3GB customers used to enjoy.  But the change of heart will only apply to existing customers.  New customers will find themselves second class citizens of the T-Mobile family — stuck with a 500MB allowance other customers won’t have to cope with.

The company claims it changed its mind after hearing from customers, but we suspect the real reason for the sudden change was word the British regulator OFCOM was considering an investigation, suggesting T-Mobile could have violated its own contract with customers by not providing 30 days of advance notice.

There were also reports angered customers seeking an early end to their contract were meeting resistance from T-Mobile’s customer relations department.  Customers who quit early face steep early cancellation penalties, despite the fact they should be waived if a mobile provider materially changes the service consumers thought they were getting when they signed up.

Another object lesson learned: Internet Overcharging schemes often start with “generous” allowances that some providers will lower if it means reducing demand on their networks, without ever bothering to lower prices for customers.