Your modem needs an expensive upgrade, even if you own your own.

Stop the Cap! reader Paul in Illinois e-mailed us (along with several other readers) sharing news that Frontier Communications intends to charge their DSL customers a minimum of $6.99 a month for the rental of a DSL-ready modem-router, even if customers purchased and use their own equipment for Frontier’s High Speed Internet service.  Even worse, some customers are being told the monthly combined rental fee for the company’s wireless-ready DSL equipment is a whopping $14 a month — just for the equipment.

The bad news arrived in the form of a postcard notifying customers that their current modem is “out of warranty” and a new “modem support and warranty fee of $6.99 a month will appear on your bill as of 1/12/12.”

Frontier’s alarming notice tries to scare customers, telling them their existing outdated equipment represents a potential security risk, and explains only with their new mandatory “modem support fee” will customers get “unlimited support” and a replacement modem, if necessary.

Eric, a Stop the Cap! reader and Frontier customer notes Frontier has been piling on price increases in the form of mandatory surcharges and fees this year, including a monthly $1.99 “High Speed Internet Surcharge.”

“Former Verizon customers are now being gouged an additional $9.00 per month or $108 dollars per year,” Eric notes, adding up just the cost of the modem rental and the surcharge.

Paul is especially upset because he purchased his DSL modem direct from Verizon just before the phone company sold its business in Illinois to Frontier.

“In fact, the Verizon modem is more ‘advanced’ than the Westell equipment they want to rent me,” Paul says. “The security is better on Verizon’s unit, and I got it as part of a $29.99 ‘Internet for life’ special offer Frontier now wants to renege on.”

“Frontier is running a scam from top to bottom, offering you l0wball Internet pricing that never includes the outrageous add-on fees that you only find out about on your next bill,” Paul says.

Other Frontier customers on Broadband Reports’ Frontier forum are reporting Frontier has been inconsistent explaining the fees, and some are finding promotions that were supposed to protect them from price increases do nothing of the sort.

Stop the Cap! reader Isabella in Indiana wrote us to say her contact with Frontier customer service was likely going to be her second to last.

“Not only do they intend to collect the $7 a month from customers with their own equipment, those of us with wireless are being told it will cost $14 a month for two of their wireless routers we have on their ‘double DSL line’ promotion,” says Isabella.  “The price for their 3Mbps Internet, on special, was $14.99 a month with a multi-year agreement.  The add-on fees they never tell you about are more than the advertised price of the service.”

Isabella calls her Frontier service “bait and switch Internet” and says when the company applies any additional fees to her account, she will terminate her contract and will refuse to pay a penalty, claiming Frontier unilaterally changed the terms.

“The only ‘price protection’ Frontier offers is for the benefit of their bottom line; Frontier representatives told me there was no way for me to avoid these new fees, even though I am supposed to be guaranteed no price increase for two years,” she says.

Paul also ran into a brick wall with customer service.

“They will not exempt you from the fees — for my ‘convenience’ they will be automatically added to my bill starting next month, with or without the new equipment,” Paul shares. “I am beyond outraged.”

“I am contacting my state Attorney General on Monday to file a formal complaint against Frontier for cheating customers on ‘price protection’ plans,” Paul says.

Modem rental fees offer a lucrative opportunity for broadband providers to raise prices while still advertising a low monthly price for the service alone.  Equipment rental fees often run extra and are typically only disclosed in the fine print.  But must providers will exempt customers who purchase and use their own equipment.  Frontier is apparently ending this policy, forcing some customers to pay the fee for equipment they neither need nor want.  Frontier’s $7 a month fee is particularly steep, especially for equipment that can easily be purchased new or used for prices averaging $50 or less.  Frontier will earn back the cost of the equipment within the first year, with the rest simply padding profits.

One of our readers notified us Frontier customer service agreed to “note their account” to not send the new equipment or charge the fee, despite the fact the representative repeatedly encouraged the customer to “upgrade their router.”  But the customer isn’t so sure he believes the company, telling us an earlier victory getting them to waive the “HSI Surcharge” was hollow: Frontier simply began charging it anyway, and refused to remove it despite the earlier agreement.

“What is next — special fees for reading e-mail and visiting web pages?” asks Paul.

FairPoint Communications is under fire for counting customers “broadband ready” when, in fact, they can’t buy DSL service from the northern New England phone company at any price.

One of the commitments FairPoint made to regulators who approved their buyout of Verizon landlines in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont in 2007 was that the company would expand broadband availability to at least 87 percent of residents in states like Maine.  In October, FairPoint claimed it had met that target, but now the Office of the Public Advocate has found instances where the phone company counted customers who live too far away from the phone company’s facilities to buy the service as “served.”

FairPoint is apparently counting most customers within a DSL-equipped exchange as reachable by broadband, even if only some of them actually are.  The rest either live too far away to get proper broadband speeds, or are connected to inferior lines that will not sustain a serviceable connection.

Maine’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) is upset FairPoint seems to be padding the numbers in its favor.  Maine’s Public Broadcasting Network talked with commissioners:

“I just find it hard to reconcile that it’s in the public interest to include in the definition of addressable lines, a line on which no customer can be connected and to which Fairpoint has made no planning or economic commitment to serve in the future,” said Vendean Vafiades. She, along with fellow commissioner David Littell, voted in favor of a decision which is likely to require Fairpoint to re-calculate the 87 percent figure using a stricter methodology.

“And I do believe that Fairpoint has a commitment to be economically viable in this state and to provide good quality service. And at a minimum I think Fairpoint should be required to provide actual access to meet its merger condition and obligations,” said Vafiades.

The holdout vote was that of PUC Chairman Tom Welch, who sympathized with Fairpoint on this issue.

The vote in Maine is likely to force FairPoint, which had hoped it was “all done” fulfilling broadband obligations, to spend more to upgrade its network to sufficiently service customers it promised it would.

FairPoint defends their interpretation of the numbers, noting the company has spent more than $169 million across their northern New England territories on broadband, making good on their commitment.  The state’s consumer advocate and PUC disagree, so now all parties will be re-evaluating their numbers, and FairPoint customers still waiting for DSL might still have a chance to get it after all.

Maine’s Public Broadcasting Network reports on the controversy over FairPoint’s promise to serve at least 87% of Maine with broadband service. Maine’s public utility commissioners voted to ramp up the pressure on Fairpoint Communications with regard to their broadband rollout. The expansion of high-speed internet to most areas of Maine was one of the conditions of Fairpoint’s purchase of Verizon’s former landline operation in 2007. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Watch these shows online, if you want to risk some uninvited guests.

There is nothing new about news outlets promoting tips and tricks to lower your monthly cable bill.  We publish similar stories ourselves here on Stop the Cap!  But some newspapers take things further, openly advocating you disconnect your cable service for good and watch everything online.  This week, we found one even willing to publish website addresses that skirt copyright laws and take online video underground.

The State Press encourages Arizona State students to thumb their noses at Cox Communications’ latest offer — cable television for $29.99 a month, good for six months (regular price $70).  Instead, they encourage, take your viewing online to Netflix and Hulu — the former for movies, the latter for television series.  But with cable companies and Hollywood studios conspiring to tackle the growing problem of cord-cutting, new restrictions are finding their way to fans of both websites, including waiting periods, limited series runs, and higher subscription fees.  This means war to the State Press:

There is a dark side to these two corporate entities, however. In their attempt to slowly weasel their way into your pockets a bit more, Hulu has gone Plus and Netflix has divided their packages, limiting your viewing. Hulu has seemingly said, “You can pay a little more to watch it the day after, right? No? Well, then I guess you’re waiting five more days for that recent episode,” while Netflix has exclaimed, “Unlimited to our choosing! You’re going to have to pay up if you want every movie out there.” So we must retaliate and go a little dark ourselves.

The author advises readers there is a way around the roadblocks — visiting a website already shut down once by copyright enforcement action (but has since resurfaced with a Chinese web address), providing a list of links to other websites that host copyright-infringing videos you can’t watch on Hulu or Netflix.

While the author of the State Press story may not realize it, a brief test visit to the “pirate-streamed site” opened the door to some nefarious extras.  With the help of Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware, we stopped unwanted browser toolbars, various intrusion attempts, and even a few pieces of actual malware that wanted in on the party.  Without the most robust security software, visits to websites with underground video content can wreak havoc, and there are not that many TV shows worth watching to make that headache worthwhile.

The website owner disclaims responsibility from just about everything:

“[This website] does not host, provide, archive, store, or distribute media of any kind, and acts merely as an index (or directory) of media posted by other webmasters on the internet, which is completely outside of our control. Whereas we do not filter such references, we cannot and do not attempt to control, censor, or block any indexed material that may be considered offensive, abusive, libellous, obnoxious, inaccurate, deceptive, unlawful or otherwise distressing neither do we accept responsibility for this content or the consequences of such content being made available.”

We encourage you to exercise caution visiting websites that are willing to skirt copyright laws.  Up-to-date antivirus and spyware detection software when visiting is a must at all times.  Many of these sites stay in business selling ad space to anyone, and those ads can come with unwanted malware that can find its way onto your computer long after the viewing is over.  Be careful.

Wireless operator (and cable company) Rogers Communications likes to spend big dollars pushing the message Canada is in the midst of a wireless spectrum crunch — a big reason why it wants “equal treatment”-bidding in upcoming spectrum auctions that may include “set-asides” exclusively for emerging Canadian wireless competitors.

But apparently the spectrum shortage only impacts areas outside of the province of Quebec, because Rogers plans to experiment with a new LTE wireless video on demand service it plans to pitch Quebecers, perhaps as early as next year.

Rogers CEO Nadir Mohamed told the Montreal Gazette the cable company intends to enter the Quebec market with an “over-the-top” on-demand video service, distributed over Rogers’ growing LTE wireless broadband network.  While Mohamed was quick to say this doesn’t mean Rogers intends to launch a full-scale competitive invasion against provincial providers Videotron, Ltd., and Bell Canada Enterprises, it is pre-emptively getting into the business of serving cord-cutters who drop traditional cable packages to watch online video.

The new service is expected to be accessible on phones, tablets, and Internet-enabled televisions and video game consoles, presumably through a wireless Internet adapter.

Mohamed

“Video for wireless has huge potential for growth,” Mohamed told the Gazette. “It’s sort of the mirror image of (how cable evolved), which went from video, to data to voice.”

Nothing eats bandwidth like online video, and Rogers traditionally caps this and other usage on their mobile wireless network, citing spectrum and capacity shortages. But Rogers sees few impediments serving up certain kinds of online video: namely their own.

That’s not a message the company continues to deliver consumers on its “I Want My LTE” website, part of a robust lobbying effort to get its hands on as much new spectrum as possible, even if it means locking out would-be competitors.  In fact, leaving the impression the company has spectrum to spare is so politically dangerous, Mohamed took the wind out of his own announcement by mentioning, as an aside, their networks still don’t have enough capacity to deliver full-motion video to a large number of customers at the same time.

“I think wireless networks in the foreseeable future will not have the capability to deliver full-motion video to a large number of customers at the same time, even with LTE,” he said. “So what you will see is an integration of wired and wireless, where the wireless network will off-load the traffic to a wired network.”

Rogers’ decision to limit the service, both in scope and range, is also designed to protect itself (and other cable operators) from unnecessary competition.  Rogers won’t offer a full menu of video services outside of its traditional cable system areas in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland, and only Quebec residents (where Rogers doesn’t sell cable TV) will have the option of signing up for the wireless video-on-demand service.

Alltel Service Areas Sold by Verizon Wireless to AT&T

When Verizon Wireless won approval of its takeover deal with formerly-independent wireless carrier Alltel, the federal government required Verizon to divest itself of Alltel’s assets in areas where the combined company would have a mega-share of the local wireless market.  The majority of affected customers, particularly in Montana and the Dakotas, were eventually acquired by AT&T, which uses a completely different network standard.  Customers were handed new phones that work on AT&T’s GSM network, but have since discovered those phones have little use in wide areas where AT&T simply doesn’t deliver a signal.

Even worse, Verizon’s robust network across the region is off-limits for roaming purposes, forcing customers that were perfectly satisfied with Alltel ready to throw their AT&T phones off Mount Rushmore.

“We got stuck with AT&T, which doesn’t care about the rural areas,” Mark Freeman of Harlowtown, Montana told a visiting reporter with the Wall Street Journal.

In the Black Hills, where AT&T’s network is as spartan as the landscape, some customers waited months before they could actually make and receive phone calls in places where Alltel’s old network (and their roaming agreement with Verizon Wireless) suited local residents just fine.

“We’ve been getting dropped calls, missed calls, and [have trouble] servicing [ATM] machines,” said Bill Huffman, an armored car worker in Sioux Falls frustrated by AT&T.  Area ATM machines depend on AT&T’s wireless network to alert drivers when local cash machines run low.  But AT&T’s network isn’t dependable, according to Huffman.

Ironically, customers are flocking to the carrier that would have been their new provider to begin with if not for the federal government divestiture order: Verizon Wireless.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ In South Dakota Dropped Calls and Dead Spots 11-27-11.flv[/flv]

Verizon Wireless stores in the region have suffered periodic equipment shortages ever since AT&T switched on their own, less satisfactory network.  That’s because AT&T customers are dropping their contracts at a rate rivaling the number of calls AT&T itself drops across the region.  The Wall Street Journal visits with perturbed local residents in Montana and South Dakota.  (4 minutes)