Broadband Reports has obtained documents accidentally publicly posted outlining some significant changes to how Verizon markets and prices its fiber optic to the home FiOS service.

Most customers can “look forward to” price hikes of $10-20 for their FiOS bundled service package January 17th, if the leaked documents are accurate.  The company will also replace its “TV Essentials” package and bring back symmetrical broadband service options (same upload and download speeds), according to Broadband Reports.

More concerning is the introduction of a uniform $360 early termination fee for customers who sign up for broadband or television service from Verizon and decide to switch providers.  Although the fee will not apply if customers agree to stay with Verizon for their home phone service, the justification for such a high charge will be open for debate.  The company promises to pro-rate the fee for every month a customer does stay with FiOS, but according to the report will impose it against a consumer that finds themselves having to relocate to a non-Verizon service area.  For someone in western New York between Buffalo and Rochester, a move just down the street into Frontier Communications territory could result in a final Verizon bill several hundred dollars more than expected.

Currently, Verizon charges broadband customers on an annual contract a $99 early termination fee.  Television customers pay a $179 fee if they cancel before the year is up.

Some customers reacting to the cancellation fee suggest opting for the month-to-month service plan for an additional $20 a month if a move is imminent or if a customer isn’t sure they’ll keep the service.

Early termination fees are designed to capture and hold customers in place and are common in competitive markets where consumers bounce back and forth between new customer promotions.  Locking a customer in with a multi-year service agreement makes promotion-bouncing expensive, and gets customers to think twice before switching providers.

Verizon’s pricey exit charge could also reflect the company’s desire to recoup wiring expenses to bring fiber to and inside customer homes.

Most Verizon FiOS promotions we’ve seen lately expire January 16th.  That would suggest promotions starting the 17th will carry higher pricing.

A late December 2009 Verizon promotion. Note the expiration date.

Karl Bode notes the price hikes come even though costs are declining for major providers.

Keep in mind of course that these broadband hikes come as the cost of wholesale bandwidth and network hardware continues to drop. The television hikes, meanwhile, come despite the fact that Verizon and AT&T lobbied state lawmakers in dozens of states promising lower TV prices — if they were willing to reconfigure the video franchise system to make life easier on the baby bells.

It also appears that Verizon will be further expanding their free Wi-Fi offer to include customers on 15 Mbps tiers. The service previously was restricted to FiOS customers that subscribed to 20 Mbps service or faster. Like speed? It looks like Verizon’s symmetrical 35 Mbps tier, which is only available in select markets, will be showing up in all Verizon markets next year. The company’s 25/15 Mbps tier will officially become 25/25 (most customers report those speeds already).

Verizon Wireless has defended their decision to double the early cancellation fee (ETF) for consumers purchasing “smartphones” and netbooks from the wireless carrier.  In a letter from Kathleen Grillo, Senior Vice President of Federal Regulatory Affairs, Verizon claims the new $350 fee is justified and actually benefits consumers by providing them with a substantial discount on the cost of the equipment they might not otherwise be able to afford.

“The higher [cancel fee] associated with Advanced Devices (click link to see a list of impacted equipment) reflects the higher costs associated with offering those devices to consumers at attractive prices, the costs and risks of investing in the broadband network to support these devices, and other costs and risks,” Grillo wrote as part of a 77-page submission to the Federal Communications Commission, which demanded an explanation for the price increase.

Grillo claims Verizon’s fees are actually good for consumers:

Verizon Wireless’ term contracts with ETFs promote consumer choice and broadband deployment. This pricing structure enables Verizon Wireless to offer wireless devices at a substantial discount from their full retail price. By reducing up-front costs to consumers, this pricing lowers the barriers to consumers to obtaining mobile broadband devices. It thus enables many more consumers, including those of more limited means, access to a range of exciting, state of the art broadband services and capabilities. The company’s pricing structure therefore promotes the national goal of fostering the greater adoption and use of mobile broadband services. At the same time, consumers are protected by Verizon Wireless’ detailed disclosure practices described in this response, by the Worry Free Guarantee, which allows customers to terminate within 30 days of activation without an ETF, and by the monthly reduction in the ETF amount.

Grillo claims Verizon customers can also purchase a phone at the retail price and avoid a service contract.  Verizon Wireless, for example, charges contract customers $199.99 for the Motorola Droid.  But customers who do not want a contract can purchase the phone from Verizon for $559.99.

In North America, most major cell phone companies subsidize the cost of wireless handsets and make up the difference over the life of a typical two-year service contract.  Cell phone companies claim consumers benefit from the arrangement because they are able to acquire a new phone every two years at a substantial discount.  Some consumer advocates and members of Congress disagree, suggesting carriers more than earn back the cost of the subsidized phone over the life of the contract.  Although customers purchasing a retail-priced phone don’t have to worry about a two year contract, they pay artificially higher prices for service plans designed to recoup the costs from those who did take discounted phones.  The result is a strong incentive to commit to a contract and take the phone, since you will essentially be paying for it anyway.

The Government Accountability Office found early termination fees to be among the top four consumer complaints filed with the FCC about wireless carriers.  Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) re-introduced legislation December 3rd to try and limit early termination fees.

Senator Amy Klobuchar

“Changing your wireless provider shouldn’t break the bank,” Klobuchar said in a Dec. 3 statement. “Forcing consumers to pay outrageous fees bearing little to no relation to the cost of their handset devices is anti-consumer and anti-competitive.”

The Cell Phone Early Termination Fee, Transparency and Fairness Act would prevent wireless carriers from charging an ETF that is higher than the discount on the cell phone that the company offers consumers for entering into a multi-year contract. For example, if a wireless consumer enters into a two-year contract and receives a $150 discount with the contract, the ETF cannot exceed $150.

The legislation would also require wireless carriers to prorate their ETFs for consumers who leave their contracts early so that the ETF for a two-year contract would be reduced by half after one year and to zero by the end of the contract term. In addition, the bill would mandate that wireless carriers would provide “clear and conspicuous disclosure” of the ETF at the time of purchase.

Co-sponsoring the bill with Klobuchar are Sens. Russ Feingold, Jim Webb and Mark Begich.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Amy Klobuchar ETF Fees 9-13-07.mp4[/flv]

Back in 2007, Sen. Klobuchar introduced nearly identical legislation to deal with mobile phone providers charging high termination fees.  CNBC ran this debate between Klobuchar and the cell phone trade association.  Klobuchar found herself in a 2-against-1 debate when the CNBC anchor defended the wireless industry.  (9/13/07 – 5 minutes)

Keyser, West Virginia

Frontier Communications’ West Virginia roadshow continued this week as company officials continue to sell the company’s plan to take over telephone service from Verizon across much of the state.  But have they stretched the truth to sell state officials on the deal?

Paul Espinosa, general manager of Frontier, told a West Virginia newspaper the company “prides ourselves in taking good care of our customers,” claiming 95 percent of their current residential customers have broadband Internet.

“In some areas it’s DSL. In other markets we do offer fiber,” he told the Mineral Daily News-Tribune in Keyser.

Keyser, a community of just over 5,000, considers broadband high on its list of concerns.  They want it, but they also want to know it is the kind of broadband that will keep Mineral County competitive, particularly for small businesses that depend on it to reach customers.  The county created a Communications Infrastructure Council (CIC) to review broadband communications options considered vital to the community’s economic development.

Rick Welch, who serves on the CIC,  said the economic future of Mineral County depends upon high speed or fiber-optic Internet and not DSL, or Internet service which utilizes existing telephone lines.

Verizon West Virginia has bypassed the state for FiOS development, which provides a fiber-optic connection to the home, claiming the infrastructure costs are too high at today’s prices to satisfy Return On Investment requirements.  Frontier has never had an ambitious broadband agenda centered on fiber optics.

Frontier traditionally offers 1-3Mbps DSL service in most of the smaller communities they serve.  Frontier’s claim that they are currently providing customers in “other markets” with fiber broadband brings these questions:

• Exactly where?
• Under what terms?
• Is this true fiber-to-the-home service, or simply fiber connected central offices?
• Are advanced levels of service are provided to these fiber customers, or are the plans, terms, and speeds identical to traditional DSL plans?

If the deal goes through, Frontier would assume ownership of pre-existing Verizon FiOS deployments, but those were proposed and planned by Verizon, not Frontier.

“DSL will not bring anything to Mineral County as far as economic development is concerned,” he said, noting that high technology businesses require far faster speeds than DSL traditionally provides.

A Verizon representative tasked with trying to sell the deal that gets the company out of the West Virginia’s phone business said that something is better than nothing.

“To hear you say that DSL is not the future is troubling,” Verizon’s John Golden said. “If you are without broadband, DSL would be the future.”

The Mineral County Commission was unimpressed with Golden’s statement.  Commission president Wayne Spiggle told the News-Tribune a lot of businesses and those who work from home would not consider coming to Mineral County when they discovered only low speed DSL service available, commonplace more than a decade ago in other areas. Spiggle said real broadband service was essential to attract the kind of businesses Mineral County needs to succeed.

“Our mission and responsibility to Mineral County is to create an entrepreneurial garden, and high-speed broadband is essential to that,” he said.

The Communications Workers of America are also been fighting to warn state and local officials about the gamble West Virginia will take with Frontier Communications.  Considering the last three deals resulted in bankruptcy for all three, it’s a risk the CWA doesn’t think is worth taking.

“Frontier will wind up taking on at least $3.4 billion in debt from Verizon,” said John Johnston, speaking on behalf of the CWA. “Frontier has said they’ll expand broadband, but will they? With $3.4 billion in debt, that’s a lot of money,” he said.

Chuck Fouts, who serves as local CWA president said bankruptcy brings job losses.  “If you go bankrupt, the first thing that goes is people,” he said.

The union says the state should join their efforts to force Verizon to “do what they said they were going to do” and provide a plan to upgrade the state’s telecommunications system to fiber optics.

As it stands, Verizon sees higher returns from cherry-picking more urban areas for its FiOS service, and isn’t willing to provide the kind of universal service throughout its service areas that phone companies have traditionally provided for decades.

“How can Frontier provide the fiber they claim to offer in “other markets” when Verizon’s deeper pockets have thus far been turned out empty for residents in West Virginia?” asks Stop the Cap! reader Hyatt.

Investment firm D.A. Davidson downgraded Frontier’s stock last week, reporting they felt the deal would be bad for Frontier shareholders.

Moving the stock rating back to “underperform,” the firm was skeptical Frontier would be able to pull off the cost-savings it promised as part of the deal.  They also anticipated Frontier will have to finance as much as $3.3 billion of the debt (at 8-9%) it will take on as part of the transaction.  Perhaps more revealing is their prediction that Verizon shareholders who receive distributed shares of Frontier stock will likely dump them as fast as possible, remembering earlier Verizon deals that quickly led to falling stock prices and eventual bankruptcy.  D.A. Davidson warned potential Frontier investors to “at least move to the sidelines” during the anticipated grand sell-off, moving back into the stock only when it bottoms-out.

Sometimes the marketing hype associated with broadband products goes just a tad too far.

Michael is a Verizon DSL customer living with Verizon’s $34.99 3Mbps DSL service.  He reported to The Consumerist that a nearby friend in the same zip code was able to get Verizon’s 7Mbps service for $42.99 a month, so he called Verizon to see if he could obtain the same service.

I was told that it wasn’t available at my address, which is in the same zip code, but they sure can offer me 5MB for $49.99. After the run around, I politely declined and left everything be.

[Upon further checking their website] 7MB is available for my address, and for $42.99 with contract! Call #1 ended up me being told that I can in fact get 7MB but for $49.99. I declined and said no thank you. Call #2 told me that 7MB was not available, only 5MB, and it also was $49.99. I declined and called back a third time. Call #3 told me I can upgrade to 7MB but only online as “they have different specials we don’t honor over the phone.” The problem? My address states it has 7MB available… as a NEW account. If I log in my account and choose to upgrade, I can only order 5MB. I call back again, and a couple calls routed me to either the Philippines or India, and I politely hung up in frustration even before I started a conversation.

[…]

At this point I was livid and called to cancel my service.  The woman told me 7MB is absolutely 100% definitely not available for my address. She couldn’t explain why I could order it as a new account but not as an existing customer. The next part takes the cake from every reply I’ve ever heard. I directly asked “why is it I can open a new account with 7MB but I cannot order it as an existing customer?” Her response: “Your home cannot handle the 7MB speed. If I put in the order for 7MB, it will burn your house down.”

Michael was, of course, flabbergasted.  Besides, it’s usually cable installers that set your house on fire.

Verizon’s rate plan shell game guarantees they are always the winner:

“Last night surprisingly I get an email about my Verizon account. My rates are being raised to $36.99 for my current 3MB service.”  Presumably Verizon needs to purchase fire insurance to protect customers from the blazing fast speeds.  Or is that red hot glow coming from customers?

The Consumerist recommends an e-mail carpet bombing of Verizon executives’ e-mail accounts to get someone to resolve his problems.  Here’s a better answer for unresolved complaints regarding Verizon: Call the Verizon Executive Customer Relations office at 1-800-483-7988 and press 3.

While Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility have settled their differences in the courtroom, agreeing to withdraw mutual lawsuits against one another over their advertising claims, the war on the airwaves continues.  We had some good response to the last round of ads and lots of people dropping by to watch them, so it’s time for another round of fun.  Most of the ads will appear below the page break, so be sure to select Continue Reading… to see the entire article.

In North America, the holiday season is  -the- time of the year to move mobile phone products.  They are a perennial favorite for gift giving and providers know it, so they pull out all of the stops on advertising.  Verizon Wireless upped the ante this year by vilifying AT&T’s 3G coverage areas to gain a competitive advantage.  A clearly stung AT&T has since struck back with Luke Wilson, going all out to challenge Verizon’s map claims with postcards and marbles, as well as a website to de-fang Verizon’s map comparisons.  We’re even back to AT&T taking pot shots at Verizon over those “milky minutes” that expire at the end of the month.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Marbles.mp4[/flv]

Verizon Wireless is full of marbles in AT&T’s view.  Luke Wilson tries to do damage control over Verizon Wireless calling out AT&T’s 3G map coverage.

… Continue Reading