Liu

While Buffalo residents fume about missing the latest matchup between the Buffalo Sabres and Edmonton Oilers, the city of New York is pressuring Time Warner Cable to start compensating their subscribers for the loss of one of the most expensive channels on the basic cable dial.

New York City Comptroller John Liu has asked the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, which oversees cable franchise agreements for the city, to make certain Time Warner compensates customers for the loss of MSG and MSG Plus, both removed over a contract renewal dispute.

“Consumers deserve to be compensated for what they have gone through as a result of this dispute, plain and simple,” Mike Loughran, a spokesman for Liu, told Bloomberg News in an e-mail. Loughran said the comptroller’s office would discuss compensation plans with the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications.

Time Warner says it has already effectively compensated impacted customers, primarily in New York State, with a free month of the company’s added-cost sports programming tier.  Time Warner has also replaced the two MSG networks with NBA TV and NHL Network, which are now likely to remain part of the basic package even if Time Warner reaches an agreement with MSG.  (Sorry football fans, NFL Network is still too costly to be deemed a suitable replacement network.)

Time Warner says there is no way they would pay MSG’s asking price for a renewed carriage contract, which the cable company says represented a 53% rate increase.

As Stop the Cap! reported earlier, the dispute is renewing rumblings about how pay television providers handle expensive sports programming.  An increasing number of cable executives are considering breaking sports networks out of the basic cable package and forcing interested sports fans to pay extra to receive them.  But sports remains a lightning rod issue for many pay TV companies, both among subscribers and politicians.  Disrupt a major sporting event at your peril — something Cablevision learned from an earlier dispute with Fox.

In Buffalo, some customers are dropping Time Warner Cable for Verizon FiOS, at least where that fiber to the home service is available.  Residents served by Frontier Communications or Verizon’s DSL have fewer choices — one of two satellite TV companies.

Verizon already carries a standard definition feed of MSG Networks.  AT&T announced this week it was adding MSG in HD to its U-verse lineup in Connecticut.  MSG has spent this week rubbing salt in Time Warner’s wounds, throwing MSG viewing parties in both Buffalo and New York City.  Now that the city of New York is pressuring Time Warner to cough up refunds as much as $4 or more a month for the loss of MSG, the dispute could prove increasingly expensive.  Some customers tell Stop the Cap! they are already receiving informal compensation for the loss of MSG after contacting the cable company by phone or e-mail to complain.

“I wrote Time Warner on their web contact form and a representative gave me a $5 courtesy credit for the loss of the channels after I explained I was shopping around for another provider,” writes Neil Thomowski who lives in Cheektowaga, near Buffalo.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNLO Buffalo Sabres fans dismayed by cable dispute 1-3-12.mp4[/flv]

Buffalo Sabres fans who have Time Warner Cable were left in the dark Tuesday night and couldn’t watch the match-up between the Sabres and the Edmonton Oilers.  WNLO in Buffalo has the story.  (2 minutes)

One of the things we have tried to teach readers over the last few years is how important it is to follow the money trail when encountering a group, politician, or researcher counter-intuitively arguing “up is down” or “right is left.”  So when a business columnist in the Press of Atlantic City slammed rural broadband as a service provided “to a group of people who mostly don’t want it,” we started digging:

The FCC claims this effort will give 7 million rural people reliable access to high-speed Internet connections. So the hundreds of millions of urban and suburban Americans who wish their Internet was faster and more reliable will pay for 2 percent of us to get just that.

Or maybe we’ll be paying for redundant, overpriced telecom work by companies that donate to rural politicians.

Federal stimulus spending in response to the recession already included $7.2 billion for this same purpose. An analysis by Navigant Economics of three big projects under that Broadband Initiatives Program found:

Even “areas in which very high proportions of households were already served by multiple existing broadband providers” were eligible for subsidized broadband work.

The author’s suspicion that money was involved in all this was correct, but he completely missed who was boarding the money train.

Navigant Economics, the “research group” that produced the inflammatory report slamming rural broadband funding, happens to count AT&T as one of its important clients.

The group, a subsidiary of Navigant Consulting, provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues to law firms, corporations and government agencies.

In fact, Navigant pitches its services to a range of corporate clients:

Navigant Economics provides economic analysis in litigation and regulatory proceedings involving competition issues. Our experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.

We provide economic analysis and testimony in connection with mergers and acquisitions and antitrust claims of:

• Anticompetitive horizontal agreements (price fixing, bid rigging, potential anticompetitive effects of joint ventures)
• Unilateral conduct (predatory pricing, refusals to deal, monopolization via patent fraud)
• Vertical restraints (exclusive dealing, requirement contracting, tying and bundling)

We also offer economic analysis and testimony on issues of price and rate of return regulation, mandatory access, quality of service, and benefit-cost analysis, with especial expertise in regulatory proceedings involving communications and the Internet (software and hardware sectors, network unbundling and “net neutrality” issues affecting telecom and cable firms, retransmission consent and other content-related issues, and the range of wireless spectrum issues) and all types of energy markets.

Phillip "Making Sense, Not Dollars" Dampier

The result is what critics refer to as “dollar a holler research” — bought-and-paid-for-results that coincidentally fit the framework of a client’s public policy agenda.  In this case, AT&T (among other phone companies) has fretted about broadband stimulus funding ever since the Obama Administration made it clear the industry would not collectively control the program or reward themselves at taxpayer expense.  In addition to criticizing the decision-making process, phone and cable companies have objected to numerous applicants who applied for grants to build networks serving communities those companies have ignored or under-served for years.

To say AT&T has no vested interest in the outcome of rural broadband would be the first major understatement of 2012.

Martyn Roetter with MFR Consulting said Navigant was giving a bad name to researchers.

“Navigant Economics as well as other economists in academia and the consulting profession seem increasingly prepared to support arguments in favor of their clients’ desires and goals regardless of whether they are reasonable or preposterous,” Roetter wrote. “Unfortunately this behavior tends to blur the distinction between (a) respectable advocacy with findings based on evidence and rational arguments and (b) indefensible nonsense, discrediting both academics and consultants.”

Navigant spent much of 2011 trying to convince regulators and the public that T-Mobile actually doesn’t compete with AT&T, so there should be no problem letting the two companies merge.  Readers win no prizes guessing who paid for that stunner of a conclusion.  Thankfully, the Department of Justice quickly dismissed that notion as a whole lot of hooey.

Navigant’s second ludicrous conclusion is that there is no rural broadband availability problem.  Navigant has a love affair with slow speed, spotty DSL (sold by AT&T) and heavily-capped 3G wireless (also sold by AT&T) as the Frankincense and Myrrh of rural Internet life.  With those, you don’t need any broadband expansion (particularly from a third party interloper).

“The notion that a nominal maximum speed in a shared radio access network is comparable to a nominal maximum speed of a fixed broadband line to a location is a striking example of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of the very different operating characteristics and capabilities of these two transmission media,” Roetter soberly observed.

But he knows better.

Roetter

Kevin Post, columnist for the Press of Atlantic City, bought Navigant’s conclusions hook, line, and sinker and repeated them in the press.  In fact, he upped the ante parroting the time-honored provider argument that rural America doesn’t need 21st century broadband because, well, they just don’t want it:

This costly effort is aimed at bringing broadband to a group of people who mostly don’t want it, according to a 2010 Pew Internet survey.

Half of Americans who don’t use the Internet told Pew that the main reason is they don’t find it relevant to their lives.

Only one in 10 nonusers said they would be interested in starting to use the Internet sometime in the future.

Actually, the Pew Internet survey came well before Navigant’s outlandish conclusions, and didn’t directly address the rural broadband availability problem.  Instead, Pew was looking at broadband adoption rates, primarily in places that already have one or more broadband providers.  Pew found what providers have already realized themselves: broadband growth and adoption is slowing; everyone who wants the service in urban America already has it or wants it.  Those that don’t are typically older and lack computers or are too poor to afford the asking price.

Post’s suggestion that a Pew Study concluded rural America does not want broadband service is an exercise in fixing the facts.

That’s the magic of the Dollar-a-Holler Echo Machine.  Big telecom companies hire public policy consultants and researchers to find their way to “scientific” evidence proving their corporate agenda, and then feeds the “facts” and “research” to receptive reporters, astroturf “consumer groups,” and politicians to bolster their case.  It’s not AT&T suggesting there is no rural broadband problem — it’s Navigant Economics.

As Roetter writes, “A basic knowledge of wireless markets exposes the […] indefensible nature of the positions outlined above. A policy based on ‘tell me what you want to hear, pay me, and I will reproduce it all regardless of its merits’ is a disservice to professionals who try to remain objective and independent, i.e. professional.”

AT&T Mobility has agreed to refund Florida wireless customers for a $2.99 Roadside Assistance Plan many never signed up for and didn’t want.

An agreement with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi could net full refunds for as many as 600,000 Florida customers who discovered they were enrolled in the add-on plan. The agreement requires AT&T to fully refund all charges for those who didn’t ask for the plan and never used it.

“All customers who paid for unwanted services deserve to be made whole, and we have guaranteed that AT&T Mobility will fully refund their money,” the Attorney General said. “Additionally, AT&T Mobility must notify customers via text message of added charges and service cancellation procedures.”

Specifically, AT&T will send a text message to customers five days after enrolling in the option confirming forthcoming charges.  The message will include cancellation instructions.

Customers complained AT&T automatically enrolled them in a 30-day free trial of Roadside Assistance without their knowledge or consent and began charging them for the service when the trial expired.  Some claim they were never given notification of the trial and assumed the charges were part of their cellular service.

In addition to full refunds for Florida customers, AT&T Mobility will:

• Provide prepaid telephone cards with a face value of $550,000 for donation to members of the U.S. military;
• Donate $10,000 to the Florida Law Enforcement Officer of the Year program;
• Pay $1.2 million to the Attorney General’s Office for future enforcement and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Impacted customers will be notified by postcard or letter with further details about the AT&T settlement at a future date.

[Updated 12:35pm EDT 3/21/2012: Please note Stop the Cap! is in no way affiliated with AT&T.  Readers have been leaving comments attached to this article requesting removal/refunds for the Roadside Assistance program. We are not AT&T so we cannot handle these requests.  We recommend you scrutinize your AT&T monthly bill and look for a $2.99 charge labeled “Roadside Assistance.” If you see this on your statement, you -are- being billed for this feature. If you do not see it specified, you are not being billed for it.

Those who have been charged should call AT&T customer service at the number shown on your bill. 

We recommend you follow this procedure:

1. Tell AT&T you never requested this feature.
2. If you have never used this service, ask AT&T to retroactively credit you for -ALL- charges billed to your account all the way back to the first month you were billed for them. This would appear as a credit on a future AT&T invoice.
3. Make sure AT&T removes future charges from your bill as well.

At some point in the future, you will receive a plain-text settlement postcard in the mail from the class action settlement fund. But you can pursue a full refund from AT&T yourself without waiting around for that. Just remember you cannot get your money back telling us about it. You need to contact AT&T directly.]

Verizon Wireless became the Bank of America of late 2011 when it attempted to impose a $2 “convenience fee” on select customers who prefer to pay their monthly phone bills online or through an automated telephone attendant.  It’s just the latest experiment in customer gouging — the same kind of toe-in-the-water strategic experimenting that unleashed ubiquitous baggage fees on airlines, low balance fees on checking accounts, and the increasingly-common practice of charging customers extra to mail them their monthly bill.

An entire industry of consultants pitch their creative talents to companies like Verizon who want “a little extra” from captive customers.  These specialists sell their expertise identifying the most vulnerable (and least likely to leave), who will grin and bear just about any kind of abuse heaped on them. Many income and resource-challenged consumers are left feeling powerless to protest and reverse unwarranted extra charges.

The consultant gougers-for-hire made millions for large banks when they figured out how to score the biggest bounced check and overdraft fees (simply pay the biggest check first, opening the door to $39 bounced check fees for all the little checks that follow).  Verizon’s $2 fee targeted customers who couldn’t afford to let the company automatically withdraw their monthly payment, or didn’t trust the company to do it correctly.  Even more, Verizon’s fee would target more desperate past-due customers who needed to make a fast payment to avoid service interruption.  Consumer advocates wondered if Verizon was successful charging these customers more, would they expand the fees to cover all online or pay-by-phone payments?

We’ll never know because the public outcry and intensive media coverage during a slow holiday week combined to force Verizon into a fourth quarter revenue retreat, rescinding the fee 24 hours after announcing it.  But Verizon may be pardoned if they feel they were unfairly singled out.  That is because other telecommunications companies have been charging certain customers bill payment fees of their own for years:

Verizon's evolved position on the $2 convenience fee (Courtesy: WTVT)

• Stop the Cap! reader Larry writes to share TDS Telecom, an independent phone company, charges a $2.95 “third party processing fee” when accepting payments by phone.  “In its place you either have to revert to U.S. Postal Service, or agree to electronic billing for on-line payment access.”
• AT&T charges a $5 bill payment fee for “certain customers.”
• Sprint/Nextel not only has its own $5 bill payment fee for those paying at the last minute,  it also forces customers with spotty credit to sign up for auto-pay to avoid a mandatory surcharge.  Want a paper bill?  That’s $2 extra a month.
• Comcast charges a $5.99 payment fee, but only in certain states.
• Time Warner Cable charges fees ranging from an “agent assisted payment” fee ($4.99) to a statement copy fee ($4.99) in some locations.

While Verizon has agreed to drop its latest new charge, the company’s carefully-named bill-padding extra fees attached to monthly bills remain.  In addition to breaking out and passing along all government fees and surcharges, Verizon also bills customers administrative and regulatory recovery fees that, for other companies, would represent the cost of doing business.  These latter two go straight into Verizon’s pocket, despite the implication they are third party-imposed mandatory surcharges.

Had Verizon called their new $2 “convenience” fee a “business efficiency accounting recovery fee,” would they have snookered enough consumers to get away with it?

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTVT Tampa Verizon cancels planned 2 bill-pay fee 12-30-11.mp4[/flv]

WTVT in Tampa says Verizon did a complete 180 on its $2 bill payment “convenience fee.”  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Verizon Dumps Fee 12-30-11.flv[/flv]

CNN hints the FCC’s potential involvement in Verizon’s business may have had something to do with the quick shelving of the $2 fee.  (2 minutes)

AT&T’s fiber to the neighborhood service is not exactly winning consumers over in Chattanooga, Tenn.  As of this past spring, AT&T only managed to convince 821 local customers to sign up for U-verse service, in part because the competition delivers faster service, and one doesn’t slap broadband customers with an Internet Overcharging scheme.

While Comcast remains the dominant cable company in the city with more than 100,000 customers, community-owned EPB Fiber has made major advances, primarily against Comcast, picking up at least 33,000 customers in the city since the summer of 2010.

EPB is turning into a major success story for community-owned broadband, typically maligned as a financial failure by cable and phone company competitors.  EPB offers residential customers usage cap free gigabit broadband, television, and telephone service and is competing effectively against the nation’s largest cable operator.

EPB has been raking in more than $3.8 million a month in telecommunications revenue from residential customers alone.  In less than two years, EPB, which also delivers electricity in Chattanooga, has built a $45 million a year telecommunications business.  As a community-owned utility, most of that revenue stays in Chattanooga, benefiting the local economy and allowing EPB to reinvest in its network and improve service.

Comcast, in contrast, has seen its revenue drop by 8.4 percent during the first six months of 2011, primarily because of departing customers. That has forced the dominant cable company to become more aggressive in its efforts to retain those calling to cancel, primarily by slashing prices if wavering customers agree to stay.

Remarkably, AT&T’s U-verse has merited also-ran third place status — the victim of limited availability, the ongoing trend of customers dropping landline service, and the far-superior broadband speeds available from the competition.  AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme is also the stingiest, limiting broadband customers to just 150GB for its DSL service, 250GB for U-verse broadband, charging overlimit fees when the caps are exceeded.  Comcast has a usage cap of 250GB with no overlimit fee.  EPB has no limits.

The Chattanooga Times Free Press compares all three providers’ strengths and weaknesses:

EPB Broadband speeds are the fastest in the nation.

AT&T — Very aggressively priced introductory offers, more HD channels than its competitors, plus a “quad-play” bundle that includes AT&T wireless service.  But AT&T’s landline network is still the least equipped to compete on broadband speed, an increasing number of residents continue to turn their back on AT&T when they cut landline service, and U-verse’s usage caps come with overlimit fees.

Comcast — Has a substantial number of on-demand programs to access, can be cheaper than EPB during the initial year of service, and is testing home security and automation services.  Also offers two-hour service call windows and aggressively priced retention deals.  But Comcast’s regular prices are high, its broadband service usage-limited, and its reputation questionable after more than a decade of rate hikes and service complaints.

EPB — The fastest broadband speeds anywhere, EPB runs an advanced fiber to the home network, and maintains a very aggressive attitude about expanding and improving service.  EPB is a formidable competitor.  Community-0wned, its service benefits local residents with a locally-staffed call center, revenues that stay in Chattanooga, and management that answers to customers, not Wall Street.  No caps either.  But EPB can be a harder initial sell for price-sensitive customers because it doesn’t offer heavily discounted service to attract new customers.  But EPB prices don’t rise dramatically after the first year, either.  EPB’s television lineup is less robust than others, in part because it lacks a nationwide presence that brings the kind of volume discounts AT&T and Comcast receive.