A Sprint customer in Tulsa, Okla., was recently sold a Blackberry plan that included a data add-on service that allowed him to tether his Sprint wireless connection to his laptop, perfect for wireless broadband on the go.

John signed a two-year contract with the company, which included a copy of his plan choice and the charges associated with his account. There it was, right on his bill — Sprint’s “Phone as Modem” add-on, priced at $15 per month.

A few weeks later, the service stopped working, and after multiple phone calls with Sprint, John was told he should have never been sold that data plan add-on; it was only available to corporate customers, not individuals.

John pointed to his contract with Sprint, which clearly showed he was paying to receive the service, but Sprint didn’t care.  Nor would it permit him to exchange his phone for wireless broadband equipment that would provide him with the broadband service he needed.  Why?  Because he was already into his two year contract.

John was left fuming, wondering why Sprint’s contracts allow them to renege on a deal made fair and square while trapping him with equipment he can no longer use to obtain the service he needs.

“To me, they voided the contract when they took away the service without my knowledge,” John told KJRH-TV’s Problem Solver Pete Knutson. “This is principle, this is sole principle.”

John canceled his contract, but Sprint promptly billed him a $125 early termination fee and sent his account to collections, threatening his credit rating.

John was not alone in his predicament.

Sprint quietly canceled its individual “phone as modem” tethering option for Blackberry owners last April, literally stripping the feature off of any plan set up with a personal Social Security number.  Business accounts configured with a Taxpayer ID Number associated with the business name on the account kept the option.

Sprint was supposed to notify affected customers through bill inserts, but since most Sprint customers are now billed electronically, few customers got the message.

Several customers reported they were “notified” when the service simply stopped working one day last spring.  One Shenandoah Valley customer found out the hard way.

“My wife used her 8330 for internet access, and we purchased the MBR900 to tether the phone so she could have it in the best place for reception,” the customer notes.  “Sprint decided to disable the use of the phone as a modem, I thought the router went kaput until she called Sprint.”

It took five rounds of calls with Sprint customer service before finding a support representative with the real answer.

An even bigger question is why a Sprint salesperson pitched John a plan with an option that has not been sold to individuals for nine months.

As has so often been the case, phone companies seeking to avoid bad publicity nearly always waive fees and credit a customer’s account when the media comes calling.  John’s account balance was brought back from collections and promptly credited to reflect a zero balance.

Sprint refused to provide a specific explanation for how this happened. Channel 2’s Knutson advises customers to always check their cell phone contracts to make sure they are actually getting the services they are paying to receive.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJRH Tulsa Cell company drops service still charges cancellation fee 1-13-11.flv[/flv]

KJRH-TV in Tulsa shares the story of John, a former Sprint customer who didn’t get the service his contract promised.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Frontier vs CityNet Pt 1 12-11-10.mp4[/flv]

DecisionMakers: Frontier vs. Citynet, Part One  (10 minutes)

Bray Cary

Bray Cary, who runs a Sunday news-talk-interview show on his network of West Virginia-based television stations, turned his attention back to the mediocre broadband picture across the state.  Once again, the “free market can do no wrong”-host showered attention and praise on Frontier Communications for their promises to improve West Virginia’s bottom-of-the-barrel rankings in broadband adoption, availability, and speed.  Only this time, one of his guests took him to school on why Frontier Communications is not the state’s broadband savior.

In this round, Cary invited Frontier’s senior vice president Dana Waldo and Citynet president and CEO Jim Martin to discuss where the state’s broadband is today and where it is going tomorrow.

The community of French Creek can't get Frontier broadband even after promising the company dozens of new broadband customers.

Cary wears his opinions on his sleeve, and he’s no fan of the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program, believing private companies will deliver West Virginia from its broadband doldrums. That’s wishful thinking Cary can afford as he browses the web from well-wired cities like Charleston.  But if you live in a community like French Creek in Upshur County, that talk isn’t going to get you broadband from Frontier or anyone else.  Stop the Cap! has heard from residents in the community who have delivered petitions from dozens of residents ready and willing to sign up for -any- broadband service, but Frontier hasn’t responded.

Martin opines that as long as stimulus money is available, using it to get the best bang for the buck could improve service for residents from the Panhandle to the Virginia border, instead of simply improving Frontier’s bottom line.

Cary did seem concerned that Frontier was ill-equipped to deliver service to all residents, regardless of cost.

Martin argues Frontier’s broadband network will do nothing to stimulate competition and bring better service.  Martin wants funds redirected into a robust middle-mile statewide backbone, preferably fiber-based, that is open to all-comers at reasonable wholesale pricing.  Citynet has been aggressively complaining about broadband stimulus grants in the state which seem to benefit a handful of companies and projects that don’t actually result in service to individual residents.

The reality is, Cary’s “free market” approach will not deliver service to tens of thousands of West Virginians who will never get wired because of “return on investment” requirements for service in the mountainous state.  Martin’s middle-mile mentality won’t bring access to the last mile, critical for wiring individual homes, either.  But one thing Martin does see that Frontier doesn’t — fiber is the future.

There is a third way to get service without waiting from Frontier’s 1-3Mbps service with an Internet Overcharging scheme or Martin’s middle-mile network that goes past your home but never stops there — petition your local government to empower itself and build a community-owned network that answers to residents, not to Frontier’s dividend-obsessed shareholders.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Frontier vs CityNet Pt 2 12-11-10.mp4[/flv]

DecisionMakers: Frontier vs. Citynet, Part Two  (9 minutes)

Kent Carper says magicJack has been stiffing Kanawha County for 911 fees the Florida-based phone company has refused to collect from its customers in West Virginia.

Carper, who serves as president of the County Commission, is taking his case to the West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) with the hope they’ll order the West Palm Beach-based YMax Communications, which owns the service, to start paying up.

“There’s nothing ‘magic’ about magicJack,” Carper told the Charleston Gazette. “It erodes the ability of the 911 center to pay for the services it’s being mandated to provide. MagicJack is not paying a penny, and their position is they don’t have to.”

Kanawha County currently collects a surcharge of $3.34 a month from landline and “digital phone” customers, $3 a month from those with cell phones.  If the county wins its dispute, the costs for 911 service will far outweigh the $19.95 a year magicJack charges for its own service.

Even Carper admits, “They’re practically giving away telephone service.”

It’s a high stakes battle for magicJack, because if it loses, other counties will surely follow with demands for 911 surcharges of their own.  magicJack officials argue they cannot collect the fees Kanawha County wants because of the way the product is marketed — typically through annual subscriptions.

magicJack’s lawyers also argue the company is not selling a true “voice-over-IP” (VoIP) service, comparable to Vonage, cable’s “digital phone” products, or other similar services.

The Federal Communications Commission partly defines VoIP as a single service for making and receiving phone calls over the public telephone network.  That’s a distinction that allows most Skype customers to avoid getting hit with fees and surcharges — Skype has a business firewall between their incoming and outgoing services. SkypeOut, which allows callers to connect with non-Skype customers, is a subscription service and does not support 911 calls.  SkypeIn service requires most users to dial from their computer, not a traditional phone line, unless a customer optionally rents a phone number from Skype.

The inventor of magicJack, Dan Borislow, said in legal filings with the PSC that customers are only buying a license for the device and the accompanying software — making and receiving calls are handled by two different services that customers get for free as part of the annual license:

The magicJack is a portable device that can be used by a customer anywhere in the world by plugging the device into a computer USB port, provided the computer has a broadband connection.

Upon purchasing a magicJack device, a customer receives a one year license, with the option to renew for an additional year or years, of software commonly known as a “softphone”. The software allows the magicJack device to operate.

The softphone operating software license gives the customer the option to subscribe to magicIn, which is a service offered by YMax. MagicIn permits a customer to obtain a phone number and to receive phone calls via his or her magicJack device.

The softphone license also permits a customer to subscriber to a service offered by magicJack known as magicOut. Subscription to the magicOut service allows a customer to make outgoing calls to the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands through his or her magicJack device.

A magicJack purchaser who subscribes to magicOut or magicIn is not charged for either subscription, and the purchaser is also not billed for incoming or outgoing calls made or received through the magicJack device.

Kenawha County is West Virginia's most populous, home to Charleston, the state capital.

Billy Jack Gregg, the PSC’s former consumer advocate who was hired as a consultant by the Kanawha County Commission, thinks that’s nonsense. Gregg suspects magicJack is trying to avoid being designated as a VoIP provider because of mandated fees and surcharges that could come along for the ride.  Gregg testified few, if any magicJack customers are aware of “magicIn” or “magicOut,” and they don’t have the option of choosing one or the other anyway.

Gregg left Wal-Mart employees scratching their heads when he proved his point trying to only purchase the magicOut outgoing call service.  They had no idea what he was talking about.

Presumably, neither does the PSC which has rejected repeated attempts from magicJack and YMax to dismiss the case using those arguments.  Hearings are scheduled for March 1-2.

Carper says he has nothing personal against magicJack — he just wants the company to realize its refusal to collect and pay 911 fees affects the county emergency operations center’s ability to serve the public.

“Simply put, the failure of any provider to collect and remit fees impacts public safety and the ability of Metro 911 to serve the citizens of Kanawha County,” he said. “It erodes our ability to afford these emergency services.”

Some outside observers have zeroed in on a related matter — the very steep $3+ monthly 911 fees demanded by the county, West Virginia’s most populous and home to the state capital, Charleston.

Most 911 surcharges in the United States range between $0.35-0.50, with some larger cities across the country charging one dollar.  Some state laws prohibit fees in excess of $2 per month.

In earlier filings, magicJack’s lawyers appeared amenable to negotiating smaller payments, but not the $3+ county officials are demanding.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Boston Globe MagicJack Review.flv[/flv]

The Boston Globe’s video review of magicJack was more charitable than the accompanying write-up, which called its marketing “gaudy,” “sleazy,” and “crude.”  Author Hiawatha Bray also didn’t think that highly about the quality of the service he received, saying the product doesn’t inspire confidence and is not suitable as a home phone replacement.  Still, for long distance calls, a second line, or for travelers, magicJack can save you money.  (2 minutes)

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)

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 letter to customers.

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.

Saginaw, Mich.

AT&T DSL is one alternative.

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.

SkyWeb is the other.

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)