Verizon hopes to herd its smartphone owners onto limited use data plans on its new LTE high speed network

Verizon this week unveiled a list of 38 major cities where the company’s much-faster LTE wireless broadband service will launch by year’s end.  Dubbed by some as the “list of cities with NFL franchises,” Verizon’s choices delighted some, but puzzled others.

But before the celebrations get out of hand, incoming Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam warned customers need to prepare themselves, and their wallets, for major price changes.

Specifically, the company intends to treat its new 4G network, with top speeds of 5-12Mbps downstream and 2-5Mbps upstream, as a premium product with a premium price.  It comes complete with a classic Internet Overcharging scheme.

“We think there’s a place for unlimited plans,” McAdam announced, “but we think that over time, because we have finite resources, our customers are going to have to shift to a pay-as-you-use model. I would say that clearly over time we will be migrating to a bucket-of-megabytes” price schedule.

Verizon’s finite resources are more infinite than those of its customers, however.

Much like its partner-in-pricing – AT&T, Verizon is preparing to ditch its unlimited data plan for smartphone customers.  Despite the fact its new LTE network will offer a more efficient network experience for both Verizon and its customers, the nation’s largest wireless carrier wants limits on how much data customers can exchange over their new network, with overlimit fees for those who use too much.

Exact pricing has yet to be announced.

Amidst the flurry of excitement over McAdam’s appearance at the San Francisco wireless industry conference, yet more rumors of the forthcoming arrival of a Verizon iPhone also made headlines.  Apple is reportedly releasing a CDMA version of its popular phone soon, and despite the fact there are other CDMA networks in the world, reporters presumed it must be intended for the American market.

After the press conference, the list of cities to get Verizon’s new LTE network became a hot topic for debate.  In western New York, only Rochester made the cut.  For residents in Buffalo, who would like to remind Verizon they have an NFL team, the slight did not go unnoticed.  It made news on the city’s most watched nightly local newscast.

But those of us in Rochester remind our friends in the Queen City they have Verizon FiOS while we are stuck in a broadband backwater with Frontier Communications.  (Besides, the Buffalo Bills training camp is in Rochester.)  The broadband gap between the two cities could have made Rochester a ripe target for Verizon, assuming customers can afford the price of the service plan.

Folks in Austin noted they are not on Verizon’s list either, despite the Texas city’s high-tech-embracing reputation.  Houston, the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, and San Antonio did make the list.  But fear not Austin, you will be able to use LTE at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.

For existing Verizon customers in the chosen places, the imminent arrival of 4G may stall customers from upgrading phones until new LTE-capable models arrive in time for the holidays.  But the Data Grinch That Stole Flat Rate Wireless may still be confounded by the number of customers who let their contracts expire and stick with their existing phones, refusing to expose themselves to mandatory, overpriced data plans.

Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Initial Major Metropolitan Area Deployment

Akron, Ohio
Athens, Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia
Baltimore, Maryland
Boston, Massachusetts
Charlotte, North Carolina
Chicago, Illinois
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, Dallas, Texas
Denver, Colorado
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Houston, Texas
Jacksonville, Florida
Las Vegas, Nevada
Los Angeles, California
Miami, Florida
Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Minnesota
Nashville, Tennessee
New Orleans, Louisiana
New York, New York
Oakland, California
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Orlando, Florida
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Phoenix, Arizona
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Rochester, New York
San Antonio, Texas
San Diego, California
San Francisco, California
San Jose, California
Seattle/Tacoma, Washington
St. Louis, Missouri
Tampa, Florida
Washington, D.C.
West Lafayette, Indiana
West Palm Beach, Florida

Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Initial Commercial Airport Deployment (Airport Name, City, State)

Austin-Bergstrom International, Austin, Texas
Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshal, Glen Burnie, Maryland
Bob Hope, Burbank, California
Boeing Field/King County International, Seattle, Washington
Charlotte/Douglas International, Charlotte, North Carolina
Chicago Midway International, Chicago, Illinois
Chicago O’Hare International, Chicago, Illinois
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International, Covington, Kentucky
Cleveland-Hopkins International, Cleveland, Ohio
Dallas Love Field, Dallas, Texas
Dallas/Fort Worth International, Fort Worth, Texas
Denver International, Denver, Colorado
Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, Houston, Texas
Greater Rochester International, Rochester, New York
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, Atlanta, Georgia
Honolulu International, Honolulu, Hawaii
Jacksonville International, Jacksonville, Florida
John F. Kennedy International, New York, New York
John Wayne Airport-Orange County, Santa Ana, California
Kansas City International, Kansas City, Missouri
La Guardia, New York, New York
Lambert-St. Louis International, St. Louis, Missouri
Laurence G. Hanscom Field, Bedford, Massachusetts
Long Beach/Daugherty Field, Long Beach, California
Los Angeles International, Los Angeles, California
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International, Metairie, Louisiana
McCarran International, Las Vegas, Nevada
Memphis International, Memphis, Tennessee
Metropolitan Oakland International, Oakland, California
Miami International, Miami, Florida
Minneapolis-St. Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Nashville International, Nashville, Tennessee
New Castle, Wilmington, Delaware
Newark Liberty International, Newark, New Jersey
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International, San Jose, California
North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada
Orlando International, Orlando, Florida
Orlando Sanford International, Sanford, Florida
Palm Beach International, West Palm Beach, Florida
Philadelphia International, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Phoenix Sky Harbor International, Phoenix, Arizona
Phoenix-Mesa Gateway, Mesa, Arizona
Pittsburgh International, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Port Columbus International, Columbus, Ohio
Portland International, Portland, Oregon
Rickenbacker International, Columbus, Ohio
Ronald Reagan Washington National, Arlington, Virginia
Sacramento International, Sacramento, California
Salt Lake City International, Salt Lake City, Utah
San Antonio International, San Antonio, Texas
San Diego International, San Diego, California
San Francisco International, San Francisco, California
Seattle-Tacoma International, Seattle, Washington
St. Augustine, Saint Augustine, Florida
St. Petersburg-Clearwater International, Clearwater, Florida
Tampa International, Tampa, Florida
Teterboro, Teterboro, New Jersey
Trenton Mercer, Trenton, New Jersey
Washington Dulles International, Dulles International Airport, Washington, D.C.
Will Rogers World, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
William P. Hobby, Houston, Texas

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Wireless LTE Announced 10-7-10.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless’ announced LTE network was a common topic on local newscasts in several cities. We include WIVB-TV in Buffalo, noting that city didn’t make the cut, WCVB-TV in Boston which spent plenty of time on the resurgence of the rumored Verizon iPhone, WLFI-TV in West Lafayette, Indiana which discussed the network’s implications for Purdue University students, and a promotional video from Verizon itself interviewing visitors to a Boston pizzeria gushing over the speed of Verizon’s newest technology. (5 minutes)

Back in the 1980s, a group of ragtag rural home satellite dishowners with 10 foot dishes took on the cable television industry for forcing viewers to purchase a set top decoder unit ($395) and paying programming prices higher than what cable viewers paid.  It was all part of an effort by the cable industry, which had an ownership interest in most cable networks back then, to discourage consumers from purchasing satellite dishes to escape ever-increasing cable rates.

Back then, these consumers ran into the same kind of Congress we endure today — quick to listen to industry representatives bearing campaign contributions and slow to respond to the needs and interests of their constituents who elected them.  Indeed, in one infamous example, a call placed to then-New York Senator Al D’Amato resulted in a staff member asking “what company are you with?”

Despite the power and influence of corporate interests protecting their turf, earning enormous profits along the way, many satellite dishowners stayed in the fight, and as cable rate increases continued, major reforms were finally enacted in the 1992 Cable Act which made small satellite dish services like DISH and DirecTV possible.

The struggle for Net Neutrality reminds me of that fight, and the fact it would take time to overcome the special interests and obtain important reforms.  Here at Stop the Cap!, we’ve won more battles than we’ve lost thanks to a small army of consumers who despise Internet Overcharging schemes and are tired of paying outrageous high prices for broadband and other telecommunications services.  Giving up the fight is not an option.

As the 111th Congress draws to a close, efforts to enact Net Neutrality through legislation this year have come to naught.

We were also disappointed by Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  Despite his promising start at the agency, after more than a year watching his performance he has proven to be far better at making speeches than actually implementing policy.  His indecision and dawdling has resulted in a failure to deliver on his promise to reclassify broadband as — what it is — a telecommunications service.  That leaves standing a federal court decision that swept away the Commission’s authority to oversee broadband and stop abusive behavior.  For providers, that’s a dream come true.  Just consider this week’s story that Clear is throttling their customers despite marketing claims they would never do such a thing.

But not to worry, America.  AT&T is “committed to an open Internet,” proclaims the company in a new, feel-good advertisement.  AT&T’s public policy ad claims the company stands with the Obama Administration on delivering universal access to broadband by 2020.

“The future,” the ad claims, “has always been our business.”

The notion is just so warm and fuzzy, it makes me want to adopt puppies and kittens.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Public Policy Commercial.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s newest ad promotes the company’s public policy agenda, which opposes Net Neutrality while still claiming to respect its core principles.  (1 minute)

Of course, AT&T is not so warm and friendly in Washington.  This is the company that dwarfs all other Big Telecoms in spending its customers’ money on hardcore lobbying blitzkriegs on Capitol Hill, drowning Washington in cash and fooling consumers with fake front groups pretending to represent their interests.

Suz, a third-year graduate student at Georgetown University’s Communication, Culture and Technology (CCT) program, noticed some of our earlier coverage on the topic of AT&T and wrote this is a company with a history:

The ad really struck me because of its message and because of the medium. In another class I’m currently taking – The Development of Electronic Media – we just came to the chapter on the development of the telephone and the major influence that AT&T held over that field for the majority of the 20th century. In part because of government regulations supporting the idea of “universal service” and in part because of the desire to connect rural areas with urban areas on the same line of service, the federal powers – though they put a little pressure on after AT&T acquired Western Union with the threat of anti-trust lawsuit – eventually support AT&T’s decompetitive nature by insisting on a compatible network and blocking “duplicative” services, giving AT&T the far-and-away lead in the market.

“The future has always been our business – AT&T.”

Now, there was a lot of history between this “golden age” of monopoly for AT&T and its eventual position today. But what I find striking is the similar-sounding stance to then-CEO Vail’s mission statement of universal service. Their motive may not have been as altruistic as the motto was (one way to attain universal service is to place it in the hands of one provider), but it eventually convinced the government that its powers could be used for good, even at the expense of a competitive (and innovative) marketplace.

Welcome to AT&T v2.0.

AT&T’s dominance in landlines is now at an end, but its influence over the telecommunications medium of the 21st century — the Internet, is just beginning.

The timing could not be more ironic, either.  While AT&T supports the goal for universal broadband service, it is fiercely lobbying to abandon a promise it made a generation earlier to deliver universal landline telephone service.  For that earlier commitment to wire every home, it was granted monopoly status for much of the 20th century.

AT&T has promised to be benevolent if it can remain a completely unregulated mega-player in the broadband industry.  It won’t openly censor opposing viewpoints, but it reserves the right to slow them down to make room for its preferred content partners.  AT&T won’t control what you see or do online, but it does want the right to limit how much of the seeing and doing you can do without overlimit usage fees kicking in.  But no worries, America — AT&T promises full disclosure, so at least you will know you’ve been network managed and overcharged for service.

Jeffrey Burnbaum — writing for the Washington Post — notes AT&T was the gold standard of high powered lobbying and little has changed today:

In the 1980s, AT&T was known for having one of the largest and most skilled corporate offices in Washington. Its representatives were everywhere and well-regarded on Capitol Hill. I remember one encounter between a tall AT&T lobbyist and an elegant McLean matron at a congressional cocktail party. The woman pecked the lobbyist on the cheek and then teased him: “I see you’re wearing your sincere blue suit.” He laughed knowingly — as did the lawmakers standing nearby and with whom he held much sway.

But personal respect wasn’t enough to hold back the tide, either. The telecommunications act of 1996 demonstrated the growing clout of the Baby Bells and AT&T made one last stab at restoring its prowess. In 1998 it hired a former White House deputy chief of staff, James W. Cicconi, to reorganize its Washington presence.

The former aide to George H. W. Bush put together what stands to this day as the model of a contemporary lobbying campaign. Under his guidance, AT&T dispensed tons of campaign cash, formed coalitions with sympathetic-sounding organizations, hired some of the biggest names in downtown Washington as lobbyists and spent millions of dollars on television advertising.

Net Neutrality advocates believe broadband reform is essential in the marketplace duopoly that exists today for most Americans.  With limited options, providers must do more than commit to an open Internet — they must be compelled to deliver it.  The industry’s scare tactics of slowed investment, job losses, and lost innovation are as patently ridiculous — and offensive — as similar claims made by the company over its breakup in the early 1980s.  With the power and influence of lobbying, telecommunications deregulation has allowed them to start putting the pieces back together again.  They are richer and more powerful than ever.

But can they be overcome?  Considering the cable industry deeply underestimated the impact of a consumer outcry over the industry’s abusive practices in the 1980s and early 1990s, the answer remains yes.  Just like the speeds of AT&T’s DSL service, it is just going to take awhile.

High speed Internet, snail slow refunds

Each time Frontier Communications gets mentioned on Stop the Cap!, we receive e-mail from disgruntled customers arriving to share their horror stories.  Since Frontier has now absorbed Verizon landlines in several states, that e-mail is only increasing.

Because so many messages arrive on different topics, we’ll be trying to share your stories with our readers based on the types of problems experienced.  Today, it’s the issue of refunds.

Stop the Cap! reader Alexia from Elk Grove, California writes:

Phillip, I want my money.  For four months, I have called, written, and called again to ask where my refund check from Frontier is.  We disconnected our service from Frontier back in May and our final bill had a credit of nearly $150 on our two landlines, DSL, and returned equipment.  Why so much?  Because we were quoted a final amount for our account and instead of using their auto-payment service, we mailed them a last check.  They withdrew that amount electronically from our checking account anyway, so we had double payments.

This isn’t just me.  My sister decided to disconnect her phone and will rely on her cell phone from now on, and she’s still waiting for her final credit balance to arrive back as well.

When you call Frontier, assuming you don’t get a busy signal or are left on hold, they seem very sympathetic and promise the refund has been processed and they are sending the check in the mail.  The Pony Express could have gotten the check to us by now.  My sister is waiting for $22 to be returned to her.

When I have canceled credit cards, utilities, and other services and have a credit balance, most of them include a check either in the final statement or in a letter that arrives within the month.  Not Frontier.  One representative claimed they don’t send refunds right away in case they discover additional charges they need to apply to an account.  What charges?  Are they hoping to find some?  We have not made a long distance call on our landline in years since getting a cell phone and I cannot imagine what other charges they are talking about.

What is the story here?

The check is in the mail

Stop the Cap! reader Jeff in Elko, Nevada had a similar problem:

My job transferred me to Reno in July and we canceled our service with Frontier and are still waiting for our last bill refund because we had a credit balance.  It was only around $8, but that was after I had to argue with them about a cancellation fee they tried to charge me and a fee for the DSL modem we returned to them.  They credited our account for both after talking to a supervisor but now it is a waiting game for the final refund check to arrive.  Every other company we canceled service with, right down to the propane people handled our final bill correctly.  Not Frontier.

Since moving to Reno, we signed up for AT&T service which turned out to be way better than the DSL we had with Frontier that went offline nearly every afternoon, so we’re fine saying goodbye to them.  Frontier has been in Elko for awhile now so I can only imagine what the Verizon customers are now dealing with.

In September, Frontier’s “the check is in the mail” excuse caught the attention of a Sacramento TV station’s consumer reporter.

Jeanne Pritchett Melendez of Elk Grove was also waiting for a refund check from Frontier for just over $15.

Back in May, Jeanne paid her Frontier phone bill ahead of time.  And when she canceled her service mid-month, her bill was pro-rated and she was promised her money back.  She called the company… Asking when her check would be sent. And every time, she says she was told, it’s on its way.  But after more than three months…

“I was very frustrated and I said, you know what, if I don’t have a check in the mail by Friday, I’m going to call Kurtis [Ming – CBS13 Consumer Reporter],” says Jeanne.

Melendez got her refund before our readers did, along with an explanation from Frontier about why refunds take months to arrive:

Frontier Communications Statement:

Frontier’s refund process is to refund the final credit balance on disconnected accounts within 2 to 3 bill cycles from the disconnect date to allow time for any additional credits or charges that need to be applied to the account. This process is to ensure that the customer receives an accurate refund check.

The customer’s account reflects that the service was disconnected on May 13, 2010. The May 22nd , June 22nd and July 22nd bills reflected a credit balance in the amount of $15.03. A refund check in the amount of $15.03 was processed on the account on August 9th. The customer will receive the refund check within 10 to 14 business days to the address on record.

The representatives are trained to alert the customer that it can take 2-3 billing cycles which is usually between 30-60 days. However in the case of Ms. Melendez’s account the disconnect notice was so close to the bill date that three bill cycles were required to process the refund.

— Stephanie Beasly, Communications Manager

This isn’t the first time Kurtis Ming has had to approach Frontier Communications about Sacramento area residents’ frustrations with the company.  Back in July, KOVR-TV ran a story about a Frontier customer who was paying a whopping $15 a month for Frontier’s Peace of Mind hard drive backup service he never got because he didn’t realize he had to download software to get the feature installed.  While that was not Frontier’s fault (and the company provided a credit to the customer for the service he never used), charging $15 a month for a service other customers are paying less to receive isn’t exactly fair either.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOVR Sacramento Frontier Service Problems 7-7 and 9-17-10.flv[/flv]

KOVR-TV in Sacramento ran two segments on Elk Grove-area customers having problems with Frontier Communications — one waiting for a refund and the other charged for a service he didn’t realize he had.  (4 minutes)

Verizon, the nation’s largest wireless phone company, has agreed to refund erroneous data charges for 15 million subscribers who paid for data sessions they did not initiate.

Those familiar with the proposed refund settlement claim the company could spend between $50-90 million in refunds for customers without data plans who were charged, in some cases repeatedly, $1.99 for a few seconds of web access.

The problem stems from Verizon phones that make accessing data services easy to trigger.  One misplaced button press can launch a data session, resulting in a web access fee.  Verizon repeatedly denied the company was charging customers who accidentally landed on the provider’s wireless home page, but customers loudly claimed otherwise, filing hundreds of complaints against Verizon with the Federal Communications Commission.

Teresa Dixon Murray, a reporter for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, was among the first to report on the mysterious charges many customers couldn’t figure out, especially as they continued even for customers who placed a “block” on accessing data services or who had powered their phones off and were still charged the fees:

In a column last summer, I chronicled my battle with Verizon after I discovered Verizon had been concocting $1.99 monthly charges for supposed Web use by my family plan numbers. Verizon’s ruse ended the month that my son’s phone was dead and locked away for weeks.

Verizon responded directly to me in a meeting with several top executives, and they promised to investigate the problems suffered by thousands of customers nationwide. The company in August also promised to change its policy of charging customers if they accidentally hit their phone’s “mobile Web” button. The new policy: To get charged, customers now supposedly have to type in a Web address.

A Verizon Wireless employee anonymously told the New York Times the scheme was a planned money-maker for Verizon, which earned up to $300 million a month just from accidental web access:

“The phone is designed in such a way that you can almost never avoid getting $1.99 charge on the bill. Around the OK button on a typical flip phone are the up, down, left, right arrows. If you open the flip and accidentally press the up arrow key, you see that the phone starts to connect to the web. So you hit END right away. Well, too late. You will be charged $1.99 for that 0.02 kilobytes of data. NOT COOL. I’ve had phones for years, and I sometimes do that mistake to this day, as I’m sure you have. Legal, yes; ethical, NO.

“Every month, the 87 million customers will accidentally hit that key a few times a month! That’s over $300 million per month in data revenue off a simple mistake!

“Our marketing, billing, and technical departments are all aware of this. But they have failed to do anything about it—and why? Because if you get 87 million customers to pay $1.99, why stop this revenue? Customer Service might credit you if you call and complain, but this practice is just not right.

“Now, you can ask to have this feature blocked. But even then, if you one of those buttons by accident, your phone transmits data; you get a message that you cannot use the service because it’s blocked–BUT you just used 0.06 kilobytes of data to get that message, so you are now charged $1.99 again!

“They have started training us reps that too many data blocks are being put on accounts now; they’re actually making us take classes called Alternatives to Data Blocks. They do not want all the blocks, because 40% of Verizon’s revenue now comes from data use. I just know there are millions of people out there that don’t even notice this $1.99 on the bill.”

Verizon’s decision to refund the erroneous data charges also comes long after a class action lawsuit was filed earlier this year against the company by Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., of behalf of customers.

Impacted existing customers can expect credits, typically ranging from $2-6 on their October or November bills.  Former customers will get refund checks in the mail.

The Federal Communications Commission said it was opening an investigation into the Verizon overcharges, seeking a financial penalty from the wireless carrier, according to Reuters.

The news agency noted some customers were billed for data fees just because of software pre-loaded onto phones:

The charges affected customers who did not have data usage plans, but were billed because of exchanges initiated by software built into their phones.

For example, trying out a demonstration of a game that Verizon Wireless had pre-loaded onto a phone would sometimes trigger data transmissions from the phone unbeknownst to the customers who were then charged by Verizon Wireless for the data.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPRI Providence Verizon To Pay Millions In Refunds 10-4-10.flv[/flv]

WPRI-TV in Providence covers the Verizon overcharges, pondering ‘why did it take more than two years for refunds?’  (3 minutes)

Stage two of the nightmare is billing problems, and one West Virginia family discovered a phone bill they couldn't imagine possible.

Frontier Communications’ performance in West Virginia is starting to resemble northern New England’s never ending nightmare with FairPoint, the phone company that couldn’t manage landline service for customers in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont and ended up in bankruptcy.  Things have gotten so bad, Frontier Communications now earns an “F” rating from the Better Business Bureau, called out specifically for failing to respond to complaints filed against the provider, failure to resolve the complaints they did acknowledge, and government action taken against the company for deceptive business practices.

Stop the Cap! reader Ralph in West Virginia drops us a line to share the latest progress the company is making in his part of West Virginia, or rather the lack thereof, starting with his own personal story:

The afternoon of  Thursday Sep. 2nd, our phones were out of order for awhile but were working by 4pm.  The DSL was still out so I waited to see if they’d get it fixed later that evening.  When it was still out Friday afternoon, I called to report it and asked if they had a reported outage for the area.  Their answer was no, and they proceeded to ask me to reset the modem and perform some additional diagnostic testing.

That didn’t “fix” it so they filed a trouble ticket and told me a technician would be out to check the outside wiring and, if needed, give me a new modem.  Frontier never showed up, so I called again and was left on hold for 30 of the 35 minutes that phone call lasted. I was finally told that it was a known outage affecting 12 people in the area.  No repairs were made on Sunday so I called on Monday and was told the problem now affected 16 people and they had no idea when it would be fixed.  It was finally fixed five days after initially reporting the outage, and nobody bothered to explain why it took so long.  I was later bemused to find an article in the weekly county paper that noted the outage was now up to impacting 20 people.

In your earlier report about Frontier, a spokesman for the company claimed the company follows a protocol about calling customers with service problems to see if the issues were resolved, but that call didn’t come until Sep. 8th, a full 24 hours after our DSL service was restored.  Keep up the good work, maybe Frontier and other providers will realize that the system is broken and we do want and need high speed Internet.

Ralph is not alone in having trouble with Frontier.  Just as Stop the Cap! reported with FairPoint’s failure in New England, service problems are just the beginning of the “fun” for transitioned customers.  Billing problems come next, and Frontier followed through in spades for one West Virginia family.

Meet Johna and Paul Snatchko, who are being billed $671.45 for dial-up Internet service calls by Frontier.  Not only did Frontier fail to deliver broadband service to the northwestern part of the state, now the Snatchko family has had to quit using dial-up Internet as well because the Snatchko’s claim Frontier made accessing the service a long distance call.

“When we switched from Verizon to Frontier, they said nothing will change,” Paul told WTOV News. “Well, there’s change.”

Despite selling the Snatchko family “unlimited long distance” service, Frontier still charged every call to their ISP at the regular long distance rate.  Why use dial-up in the first place?

“In this part of West Virginia, you’re very limited in your service,” Paul explained. “Dial-up is it for us. We’ve tried everything else. The only thing we could get was dial-up.”

The family also endured another Frontier specialty — the constantly changing promotional offers that are poorly explained by the company’s customer service representatives.

“They said it doesn’t include their package deal with the computer,” Johnna said, referring to a common Frontier promotion for a free netbook in return for a bundled package of services on a two year contract. “The first couple months it did and now it doesn’t include it.”

Frontier Communications earned an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau

Frontier’s spokesman for the area, Bill Moon, made yet another TV appearance to try and explain it all away.

“There are billing problems that can happen anytime you have a switch over like that,” he told WTOV. “It’s probably a simple mistake on this particular customer’s bill, something that can be rectified pretty easy.”

Apparently not. Frontier told the family they have received two credits already and that is the last time the company is willing to provide them.

Despite the increasing frequency and seriousness of complaints now becoming a staple on the nightly news, Moon said incidents like this are rare.  He told the station out of more than 60,000 lines of service, they’ve had about 10 problems at most.

West Virginians are also waking up to the realization that Frontier’s promised “fiber upgrades” are little more than bait and switch, and they’ll never be able to directly access the fiber the company is installing.  As Stop the Cap! has reported previously, Frontier’s residential customers are more likely to encounter beneficial fiber in their morning breakfast cereal than from Frontier Communications.

The Charleston media is abuzz about the fact taxpayers are footing the bill for a $40 million fiber network that the company will own free and clear, and charge top dollar prices to access.  Citynet, one of Frontier’s competitors, blew the whistle over Frontier’s much-ballyhooed fiber expansion that is actually intended to serve public institutions, wholesale customers, and Frontier’s “middle-mile” network — not directly benefit consumers:

[…]Once Frontier spends the $40 million of taxpayer money to expand its network, it will be the sole owner of that network and the State will have no ownership rights. Thus, Frontier’s monopoly in the State of West Virginia will have been financed with taxpayer money.

Frontier will then sell services to state entities such as schools and government offices at the existing exorbitant prices. Those prices will never decrease, because no competitor can afford to spend $40 million or more of its own capital to build out its network.

Citynet, however, has provided the state with a plan for the expenditure of the taxpayer money that will expand broadband access in the state while at the same time lowering the cost of broadband access by 70 percent to 90 percent.

It is true that competitors, like Citynet, have existing contracts with Frontier for access to fiber facilities, but given that Frontier’s new network will be built with your money, it is Citynet’s position that those facilities should be made available to competitors at a nominal cost so that competitors can make their services available to the public at large at much lower prices.

Frontier has flatly refused Citynet’s proposal and intends to require competitors to pay inflated prices for access to fiber facilities it built for free.

As currently structured, the state’s plan for expanding broadband will do nothing more than expand Frontier’s monopoly, and will not address the fundamental problem of the high cost of broadband access.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTOV Steubenville Speaking Too Soon – Frontier’s Customers Still Complaining 9-15 and 9-28-10.flv[/flv]

WTOV-TV thought Frontier’s problems were behind them when they ran the first of two stories about the company Sep. 15th.  But then they met the Snatchko family and learned they spoke too soon.  Last night, they tried to determine how a West Virginia family could be charged nearly $700 for dial-up Internet service.  (4 minutes)