A Montreal blogger experienced the wrath of some Videotron employees when he casually snapped a photo of their recently-remodeled store in the Carrefour Agrignon.

Elias Makos shares the crazy story of his experience last November:

Walking to the Best Buy, I noticed the Videotron store, which has recently been remodeled as the company focuses more and more on its new cell phone services. Not only was the store remodeled, but there was a ratio of about 6 employees per customer in the store.  This was hilarious to me, and even more so when I think about how Videotron’s parent company, Quebecor, has locked out 253 Journal de Montreal employees for almost two years now. Apparently the company can’t pay for journalism but can afford an army of numbskulls selling cell phone contracts.

So I took out my phone and snapped one picture of the store from about 20 feet away. Put my phone back in my pocket and walked to Best Buy. About a minute later, I feel a hand on my back.

The photo worth a thousand punches to the face. (Courtesy: Elias Makos)

“Why did you take a picture of me?”

I was floored. “What?” I said, realizing that it was a Videotron employee from the store. He asked the same question again. I looked at him, flabbergasted that he even cared. He looked very nervous, like he knew he and his store was incompetent. He told me not to take pictures of his store, or else. I stared at him, realized I didn’t have to tell him a thing, and walked away, although not before I must have gave him the most confused look in my life.

I get to Best Buy, walk to the games section (major cutie working there today!) and found several new copies of both games. I was happy. I picked both games up. Then, out of nowhere, this guy approaches me.

“If you take another photo of my store, I’m going to punch you.”

Minutes later, the mall’s security guards approached Makos demanding he delete the photos, claiming taking photographs inside the mall violates mall policies.

Makos’ story turned into a bigger story on CBC Radio, with company officials trading accusations with Makos over whether the public has a right to snap pictures of its stores.

Foolishly, Videotron didn’t learn the cardinal rules of good public relations — strong-arming a member of the public and reflexively taking the side of the goon-employees who subsequently stalked Makos inside the mall will never turn out well no matter how you defend it.

CBC Radio Montreal talks with area blogger Elias Makos, who related his ridiculous encounter with some bored (and boorish) Videotron employees at the local mall who were more than a little camera shy. (12 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;”>

Just shy of one month after adoption, the Federal Communication Commission’s Net Neutrality rules face a legal challenge by one of the parties that helped write them.

Verizon Communications filed suit Thursday in the same federal court that in April threw out much of the authority the FCC thought it had over online telecommunications.

“We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,” said Michael E. Glover, Verizon’s senior vice president and deputy general counsel. “We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

Verizon’s lead attorney in the case in Helgi Walker, who will be a familiar face in the court — Walker successfully argued the original case Comcast brought against the Commission for trying to regulate its Internet service.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's cowardly cave-in on strong Net Neutrality was rewarded with... a lawsuit from Verizon to overturn the regulations the company helped write.

But Verizon wants an even greater shot at success, asking for the same panel of judges who ruled in the Comcast case to also hear its challenge.

“Verizon has made a blatant attempt to locate its challenge in a favorable appeals court forum,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director of the Media Access Project.

Outgunned.  Again.

The earlier decision in the Comcast case not only stripped the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband under a regulatory framework established under the Bush Administration, it derided the logic behind it.  During arguments, the FCC’s general counsel acknowledged he was likely to lose the case, and actually asked the Court for guidance on how to write better rules.

Remarkably, Verizon’s legal challenge comes after the company worked closely with the Commission to moderate Net Neutrality regulations.  The rules issued in December exempted wireless communications and were criticized by consumer groups for not truly representing a free and open Internet.

Rob Pegoraro, a Washington Post columnist, was incredulous the phone company was spending subscribers’ money fighting net policies that nearly mirrored the voluntary agreement it reached with Google last year.

“Okay, so you’re going to spend some of my money to fight a minimal set of regulations written to stop you from tampering with my Internet access? How is that supposed to make me feel comfortable doing business with you?

“(Note to Verizon: You are not only an enormous telecom conglomerate, you are The Phone Company. You don’t get to say “trust me.”)

“Then I got more annoyed.

“The regulations that Verizon regards as an affront to the Constitution match up closely with the proposal that Verizon published with Google in August–a suggested regulatory framework that many people, myself included, criticized for its minimal restrictions on wireless broadband services.

[…] “And not only did Verizon think that its proposed set of rules would be good for business last summer, it did so as recently as 2:25 p.m. Thursday, when a post on its public-policy blog favorably cited those suggestions.”

Nate Anderson at Ars Technica isn’t sure why Verizon is spending time fighting rules it supposedly agrees with either, and he produced a chart proving it:

Excerpted below are the main Verizon/Google provisions, followed by their matching item in the FCC’s “open Internet” order from December. All are exact quotes.

Despite the perceived rush to court, legal challenges against the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules were widely expected.  The FCC continues to tell the press (on background), it believes it has the authority to enact Internet-related regulations and policies.  But many court watchers familiar with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals think it is more likely than not Verizon will prevail on similar legal arguments Comcast used to win its case.

What then?

Pegoraro: “I’d like to think that it would be fitting if the FCC responded by returning to the regulatory strategy it should have adopted in the first place: putting broadband Internet services back under a simplified form of the “Title II” common-carrier regulation that most operated under until 2005.”

“But if the FCC couldn’t find the gumption to choose that more aggressive but more legally grounded option before, why would it now?”

Frontier used Time Warner Cable's usage cap experiment against them in this ad to attract new customers in the spring of 2009. Now they're no better.

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)

Talk. Watch. Surf. Cancel. -- Major price increases on the way for Frontier FiOS customers in Indiana.

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.

"It's not just a price increase, it's an offer!"

“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)

In case you forgot, Time Warner Cable and Sinclair Broadcasting only agreed to extend talks for two weeks on reaching a long term retransmission consent agreement that will keep 33 Sinclair-owned stations on the cable lineup.

On Thursday night, the latest deadline will expire, and Time Warner Cable is signaling negotiations are continuing, but do not look too promising.

In a prepared statement, Time Warner says Sinclair has summarily rejected every offer and has repeatedly claimed to “terminate” negotiations over the past three months.

The cable company has spent part of the last two weeks arranging for alternative program feeds from all four major networks should negotiations end without a final agreement.  That could be an important distinction for customers, most of whom watch Sinclair stations primarily for network programming.

“We will provide all available Big 4 network programming in the event that Sinclair takes away its signals,” said Rob Marcus, President and COO of Time Warner Cable. “We want our customers to remember that we’re fighting hard to contain the rising costs of broadcast programming. We are also still working to reach a long-term agreement with Sinclair before our current contract ends tomorrow night, and in fact discussions between the Time Warner Cable programming team and Sinclair have taken place as recently as this morning and are ongoing.”

But the two are still trading barbs.  As recently as today, the two were debating about how many customers would be impacted by a loss of the Sinclair signals.

The cable company said Sinclair was “inaccurately portraying” the number of impacted customers.

“Time Warner Cable has approximately 4 million customers who receive local broadcast stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting,” a cable company statement said.