Grab this bargain: Frontier’s website accidentally placed two different DSL packages on our order despite only requesting one. We didn’t ask for the phone line or satellite TV either, but there they are.

Frontier Communications is in the process of redesigning their website — a project long overdue in an age where customers can pre-qualify themselves for service and schedule installation from most cable operators without ever picking up the phone.

But judging from some e-mail from Frontier employees working on the project, the forthcoming “upgrade” is about to make a bad situation much worse.

Frontier is the sixth largest phone company in the country with customers in 27 states, but they have never run a modern, well-functioning website. Frontier’s service pre-qualification tool has never worked properly in Rochester, N.Y., the largest city where Frontier provides service, and placing an order for service is fraught with confusion for customers who don’t speak telecom jargon.

Based on a reader tip, we tested the website this afternoon here at Stop the Cap! HQ.

Placing an order for DSL service is currently based on your street address, but the order process gives no indication if the company can actually provision service at the speeds requested.

As a customer journeys through a cumbersome 10-step order process, it becomes easy to be sidetracked with endless promotional tricks and traps in numbers I haven’t seen since last ordering a domain name from GoDaddy. The shopping cart also erroneously added two different broadband service packages on our order, despite only selecting one.

Step 1 offers murky promotions such as the impenetrable “Shop Promo VISA CD 100 2Y Challenger.” Promotions do not clearly disclose their terms up front. This one only discloses the two year service agreement with a steep early termination fee with the designation: “2Y.” Avoiding promotions still did wonders for our monthly bill, especially considering we were just looking for broadband service. We found Frontier quietly added a “digital unlimited phone” we could care less about for $30.99 a month, America’s Top 120 (presumably satellite TV we did not request) for $44.99 a month, Broadband Max (the slower DSL service we did not want) for $34.99 and Simply Broadband Ultimate (the service we did) for an extra $59.99. Our out the door price for what was supposed to be broadband-only service? A low, low $170 a month minus a $5 service loyalty credit for taking two services.

Step 2 piled on another $5 fee for satellite-delivered local channels for the satellite package we never asked for, but the duplicate broadband service was gone. Now we were stuck with the slower Broadband Max. Step 3 forced us to wade through more than a dozen phone feature packages for the phone line we don’t need. Step 4 sticker-shocked us with installation fees ranging from $50 for a self-install kit to $175 for a home installation of DSL and Wi-Fi. Those fees can be waived with a perpetually-renewing two year service contract (up to a $135 credit). At that point we had enough and bailed on the order.

This represents Frontier’s online shopping experience today. A Frontier employee who wishes to remain anonymous warns Stop the Cap! things could get much worse.

Our source tells us Frontier has outsourced much of the work on its forthcoming redesigned website to third party contractors who are now reportedly in over their heads, unaware that Frontier operates with a range of very different products and services depending on the service area. For them, one-size-fits-all seemed good enough:

[These contractors] don’t understand products or how those products interact with each other, yet they have been put in charge of creating the ability for customers to order them based on where they live.  The company has current issues with their website in that they can’t figure out how to get the right products to display for a customer in Rochester, N.Y. vs. a customer in Fort Wayne, Ind. Instead, Frontier has products configured by region, then broken down by zip code, and then by the customer’s phone exchange.

Unfortunately, new customers don’t know what phone number they will be assigned and that leaves them unable to determine what products are actually available to them. The products offered should be based on the customer’s actual service address, but these contractors don’t appear to have the expertise to make that adjustment.

The shopping cart application has also proved a problem, according to our source. Internal testing of the new site’s functionality has proved distressing because components of the site are still being developed. Recent tests found customers could not correctly select products available in their area or the site could not properly apply them to the shopping cart (a problem we found ourselves using the live site available now).

Our source tells us Frontier’s project manager is hell-bent on bringing the site up by Feb. 9, ready or not.

“We have brought up the fact that there are HUGE navigation issues that are completely not friendly to the customer,” says the employee. ” They are not concerned with any of those issues at the moment, just getting the product to launch. We have been told to manipulate the processes we are to use in order to be able to get any testing done.”

The whistleblower informs us customers are likely to have a range of problems using the new site if it launches in its current state:

• Customers will be able to place orders for products they can’t get;
• Customers will receive inaccurate information about the products and pricing;
• Customers will not be able to get any promotions that they can currently get on the existing Frontier.com application;
• Customers may not be correctly informed about installation charges or taxes, deposit requirements, credit validations, etc.

Frontier needs to take a lesson from some of their competitors that have greatly simplified the ordering process for consumers that can get quickly confused. Frontier should de-emphasize the tricks and traps from the many add-ons and service commitment agreements thrown at customers. Efforts to repeatedly up-sell customers on products and services should be managed separately, perhaps in a follow-up verification phone call where a customer service agent can handle any order changes required. With customers getting a choice between a cable, satellite, or a telco provider, those overwhelmed by one company’s website will simply find another provider.

In the meantime, those with questions or concerns about Frontier might do better just calling them directly at 1-800-921-8101.

Time Warner Cable customers in southern California are bracing themselves for a rate increase that will raise prices by 8.2 percent — almost four times the rate of inflation.

The price for digital basic cable, the most popular cable television package, will rise from $67 to $72.50 per month. The price charged to record shows from that package is also going up. “DVR service,” which does not include the DVR equipment itself, is rising 18.6% — from $10.95 to $12.99 a month.

Stop the Cap! reader Steve in Carlsbad adds his rate increase notification also mentions price increases for bundled packages:

All Standard and Basic packages and bundles will increase by $5.00 and all digital video packages and bundles will increase by $3.00.

The rate increases are by no means over. As Time Warner mails its price change notifications for 2013 to customers, it also signed a 25-year deal with the Los Angeles Dodgers for yet another regional sports channel showcasing the baseball team. Industry insiders estimate the deal is worth between $7-8 billion and could eventually cost cable subscribers an additional $5 a month, whether they watch the channel or not.

It is likely the latest rate increase does include the cost of the 2012 launch of Time Warner Cable SportsNet, which features the Los Angeles Lakers. Time Warner asks competing satellite and telephone company video services to pay between $4-5 a month to provide SportsNet to their customers.

The rate increases will not affect customers on retention or promotional packages until they expire. As usual, Time Warner blamed the rate hike on increasing programming costs, notably for sports and broadcast television stations.

Although many Californians have alternatives, ranging from AT&T U-verse to two satellite television providers, those companies are raising prices as well:

• Comcast (San Francisco Bay area) rates went up 4.3% last year and will increase again this summer;
• DirecTV rates will increase Feb. 7 by about 4.5 percent;
• Dish Networks’ most popular packages rose $5 a month on Jan. 17;
• AT&T U-verse will boost prices on components of its service by around $2 a month each on Jan. 27.

Customers facing price increases can use the rate increase notification as the trigger to threaten to cancel service to win a lower price with a customer retention offer. Stop the Cap! published a comprehensive guide on how to win a lower rate from Time Warner in 2012 and those tips are still working for our readers today.

If Time Warner seems unwilling to bargain, customers can also consider taking their business elsewhere by signing up for a promotional introductory offer with a competitor. When that offer expires, Time Warner will take you back with a new customer promotion as well.

In general, bundling all of your services with one provider will save the most money. Triple play packages consisting of television, broadband, and phone service are the most economical when considering the cost of each service. But it is also a good idea to consider whether you need all three services.

The weakest link of the triple play package is the landline. If you subscribe to broadband and cable service, consider switching to a broadband-based phone company like Ooma, which received a high rating from Consumer Reports. After an initial investment of around $150 for the equipment, the price of the phone service itself is next to nothing and includes nationwide unlimited calling. Ooma basic customers only pay for FCC-mandated fees and local taxes and surcharges. Combined these are usually well under $7 a month. Ooma Premier customers pay $119.99 a year and get a free number transfer, free calling to Canada, the choice of a Bluetooth Adapter, Wireless Adapter or Extended Warranty, a large list of calling features, a second line, voicemail, and free mobile calling minutes.

This digital adapter cable box is free through 2015. A traditional set top box from Time Warner costs $8.49/mo.

Next consider your current cable television package. Scrutinize your bill for add-on fees, especially for digital/HD add-on packages for channels you may never watch. Do you still need to pay for HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, and Starz? Consider Netflix, Redbox, and Amazon video — among others — to satisfy your movie needs without paying more than $15 a month for HBO alone.

Equipment fees may also make up a substantial portion of your bill. If you pay separately for DVR equipment and service, you are probably paying Time Warner’s regular customer rates. Seize the opportunity to demand a better deal. Customers with multiple set top boxes may want to consider ditching them on secondary sets, especially if they don’t need an on-screen program guide or access to on-demand programming.

Time Warner is offering customers “digital transport adapters” (DTAs) at no cost through 2015. These boxes, a fraction of the size of a traditional set top box, will allow older sets to access most digital channels that are included in your cable television package. But a DTA won’t work with on-demand programming or premium channels, at least for now. The devices also do not support a handful of digital channels that Time Warner provides under a bandwidth-saving scheme that only delivers a network if a customer with a traditional set top box actually starts to watch. In western New York, we found about 10 unavailable channels, virtually all very minor networks that won’t prove much of an inconvenience. Using a DTA instead of a set top box can save up to $8.50 a month for each cable box it replaces.

If you subscribe to Time Warner Cable broadband and are paying the company’s $3.95 a month modem rental fee, you are throwing your money away. Invest in purchasing your own cable modem. They are simple to install and are reliable. You’ll earn back the purchase price in as little as a year. Now may also be a good time to review your speed needs. Time Warner recently boosted its standard broadband speed to 15/1Mbps. If you pay extra for Turbo, this might be a good time to consider dropping it if you don’t need the incrementally faster 20Mbps download speed Turbo offers.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act strikes again.

Effective this week, a temporary provision that protected consumers taking their existing, newly-unlocked phone to another carrier has expired. As a result, anyone who attempts to unlock a cell phone without permission could be liable for up to $1,000,000 in fines, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both. Phone companies are exempt, but the customers who purchase phones from them are not.

The DMCA was never specifically written to stop customers from moving phones between wireless companies, but because its provisions are so broad, the Act caused a number of unintentional problems that leave copyright lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation scratching their heads.

“This shows just how absurd the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is: a law that was supposed to stop the breaking of digital locks on copyrighted materials has led to the Librarian of Congress trying to regulate the used cellphone market,” says EFF attorney Mitch Stoltz.

The DMCA’s overly broad provisions are slightly tempered by the Library of Congress, which maintains an extensive exemptions list designed to cover for the law’s more ridiculous overreaching consequences. But those exemptions only last three years, and the one covering cell phone unlocking expired Sunday.

Jailbreaking your phone to strip away carrier-installed and mandated bloatware remains technically legal, but you won’t get far taking your phone to another provider without getting your current carrier’s permission. Some companies will gladly unlock cell phones for customers who have maintained an account for a certain number of days or have fulfilled their two-year service contract. But not all.

If your current phone company wants you to stay, your only recourse may be to buy a new cell phone from your new provider, who may never want you to leave either.

Verizon Wireless has been making a killing herding customers into its Family Share data plans.

Originally introduced last year, Verizon charges outrageously high prices for a paltry mobile data allowance that can be shared (think Oliver Twist on a diet) with other wireless devices attached to your plan.

The company’s latest financial report shows growth in average revenue earned from each account shot up 6.6 percent in the fourth quarter to a budget-busting $146.80 a month. The more Verizon can push customers to its shared data platform, the richer the company will get. With just 23 percent of Verizon customers currently on such plans, there is plenty of room for even more earnings.

Even though the value for money has deteriorated, Verizon has placed its data plans on a usage allowance diet for two years running.

Originally, Verizon charged $29.99 a month for unlimited data usage. In 2011, the company kept the price the same but slapped on a 2GB monthly allowance. This year, new customers pay $50 for just 1GB of data on the company’s data share plan.

The lower the limit and the more devices added to your wireless account, the more money Verizon will collect as customers are forced to upgrade to more expensive plans with more generous data usage allowances.

At the same time, Verizon’s network costs are dropping because the company’s LTE 4G network is five times more efficient moving data than the older 3G network it may eventually replace.

Susan Crawford’s new book, “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” is on the receiving end of a lot of heat from industry lobbyists and those working for shadowy think tanks and “consumer groups.”

Most of the critics have not disclosed their industry connections. Stop the Cap! will.

Crawford’s premise that Americans are suffering the impact of an anti-competitive marketplace for broadband just doesn’t “add up,” according to Zack Christenson and Steve Pociask, both with the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research.

Christenson and Pociask’s rebuttal of Crawford’s conclusions about broadband penetration, price, and its monopoly/duopoly status relies on industry-supplied statistics and outdated government research. For instance, the source material on wireless pricing predates the introduction of bundled “Share Everything” plans from AT&T and Verizon Wireless that raised prices for many customers.

Their proposed solutions for the problems of broadband access, pricing, and competition come straight from AT&T’s lobbying priority checklist:

• Free up more wireless spectrum, which is likely to be acquired by existing providers, not new ones that enter the market to compete;
• Allow AT&T and other phone companies to abandon current copper-based networks, which would also allow them to escape legacy regulations that require them to provide service to consumers in rural areas.

One pertinent detail missing from the piece published in the Daily Caller is the disclosure Pociask is a a telecom consultant and former chief economist for Bell Atlantic (today Verizon). The “American Consumer Institute” itself is suspected of being backed by corporate interests from the telecommunications industry. ACI has closely mirrored the legislative agendas of AT&T and Verizon, opposing Net Neutrality, supporting cable franchise reform that allowed U-verse and FiOS to receive statewide video franchises in several states, and generally opposes government regulation of telecommunications.

Critics for hire.

The so-called consumer group’s website links primarily to corporate-backed astroturf and political interest groups that routinely defend corporate interests at the expense of consumers. Groups like the CATO Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Koch Brother-backed Heartland Institute, and the highly free-market, deregulation-oriented James Madison Institute are all offered to readers.

The Wall Street Journal trotted out Nick Schulz to handle its book review. Schulz is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, which is funded by corporate contributions to advocate a pro-business agenda.

Schulz attempts to school Crawford on the definition of “monopoly,” eventually suggesting “oligopoly” might be a more precise way to state it.

“Washington’s fights over telecommunications—and just about every other industrial sector—could use a lot less militancy and self-righteousness and a lot more sound economics,” concludes Schulz, while ignoring the fact interpretation of what constitutes “sound economics” is in the eye of the beholder. All too often those making that determination are backed by self-interested corporate entities with a stake in the outcome.

Hance Haney from the Discovery Institute claims Crawford’s conclusions are “misplaced nostalgia for utility regulation.” Haney cites AT&T’s breakup as the spark for competition in the telecommunications sector and proof that monopolies cannot stand when voice, video, and data service from traditional providers can be bypassed. That assumes you can obtain those services without the broadband service sold by the phone or cable company (that also likely owns your wireless service provider and controls access to cable television programming).

Haney also ignores the divorce of Ma Bell has been amicably resolved. AT&T and Verizon have managed to pick up most of their former constituent pieces (the Baby Bells) and today only “compete” with one another in the wireless sector, where each charges identically-high prices for service.

Crawford’s critics often share a connection with the industry she criticizes in her new book.

Haney places the blame for these problems on the government. He argues exclusive cable franchise agreements instigated the lack of cable competition and allowed “hidden cross-subsidies” to flourish, causing the marketplace to stagnate. Haney’s argument ignores history. In the 1970s, before the days of USA, TNT and ESPN, the two largest cable operators TelePrompTer and TCI nearly went bankrupt due to excessive debt leverage. With a very low initial return on investment, exclusive cable franchise agreements were adopted by cities to attract cable providers to wire their communities. Wall Street argues to this day that there is no room for a high level of competition for cable because of infrastructure costs and the unprofitable chase for subscribers that will be asked to cover those expenses. Government was also not responsible for the industry drumbeat for consolidation, not competition, to protect turfs and profits.

The cable industry repeated that argument with cable broadband service, claiming oversight and regulations would stifle innovation and investment. The industry even won the right to exclude competitors from guaranteed access to those networks, claiming it would make broadband less attractive for future investment and expansion.

Haney never discloses the Discovery Institute was founded, in part, to support the elimination of government regulation of telecommunications networks. Broadband Reports also notes the Discovery Institute is subsidized by telecom carriers to make the case for deregulation at all costs.

The Discovery Institute is essentially a PR firm that will present farmed science and manipulated statistics for any donating constituents looking to make a political point.

Broadband for America, perhaps the largest industry-backed astroturf telecom group in the country and itself cited as a source by the American Consumer Institute, seized on the criticism of Crawford’s book for its own attack piece. But every book critic mentioned has a connection to the telecom industry or has ties to groups that receive substantial telecom industry contributions.

NetCompetition chairman Scott Cleland, who accused Crawford of cherry picking information, does not bother to mention NetCompetition is directly funded by the same telecom industry Crawford’s book criticizes. Cleland in fact works to represent the interests of his clients: large phone and cable operators.

Randolph May’s criticism of Crawford’s book is unsurprising when one considers he is president of the Free State Foundation, a special interest group friendly to large telecom companies. FSF also supports the work of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group with strong ties to AT&T.

Richard Bennett, who once denied to Stop the Cap! he worked for a K Street lobbyist (he does), attacked the book on behalf of his benefactors at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a group Reuters notes  receives financial support from telecommunications companies. He also received a $20,000 stipend from Time Warner Cable.

In fact, Broadband for America could not cite a single source criticizing Crawford’s book that does not have ties to the industry Crawford criticizes.