It’s bad enough when service providers overcharge us for service we use, but it’s even worse when they bill you for services you don’t.

Verizon Wireless may be looking at millions of dollars in refunds for customers who got dinged $1.99 monthly fees on their Verizon Wireless bills labeled mysteriously as “Usage Charges, Data.”

Two dollars on a phone bill that typically exceeds $50 or more is likely to be missed by a lot of consumers skimming the fees, surcharges, taxes and other impenetrable charges that get tacked on to your monthly service.  Even worse, since Verizon charges a fee for a printed bill, most customers never even bother to look at the electronic online bill beyond the general e-mail notification received each month letting you know it has arrived.  But some Cleveland-area residents did bother to take a look, and they didn’t like what they saw:

The Money Matters column chronicled the writer’s six-month ordeal with $1.99-per-month data charges and the possible causes given by Verizon’s customer service workers. All, it turned out, were wrong or only partly true.

More than 400 Plain Dealer readers responded to the newspaper with complaints similar to the ones in the column. The readers collectively pay for more than 1,000 phone lines. In addition, calls to customer service and visits to Verizon stores increased noticeably after the column.

Take a look at your bill

Where to look for the data usage charge: The first page of your bill should have a section labeled “Quick Bill Summary.” Look under the summary for “Usage Charges, Data.”

What to do if you spot an error
Call Verizon customer service (800-922-0204) or visit a full-service store to investigate the charges and ask for a credit.

If Internet usage is the issue, ask technical support to track down the Web sites visited, and dates and times.

If premium text messages are the issue, determine whether you have applications that are downloading information automatically. Go to your “menu,” then click “media center.” You may need Verizon’s help determining what applications cost money.

You can block features you don’t use and don’t want to be charged for by accident, such as Internet access or the weather forecast. Access your account online, call customer service or visit a store.

At a minimum, thousands of customers apparently have been charged $1.99 per month for Internet “data usage” even though they had not tried to go online. In some cases, customers were charged when their phones were off, the batteries were dead, the phone’s Internet access was blocked or even when the phones didn’t have the software to go online.

One clue might be customers who inadvertently accessed the Internet browser just for a few seconds by mistakenly pressing the wrong keys on the phone.  Even a momentary activation of a Mobile Web service could generate the access fee, even if you hit the “end” key on the phone within seconds.

Frustrated customers catching the charge on their bills each month then have to pursue the ordeal of contacting customer service to have the charge removed, and frequently run into misinformed customer service representatives who argue the fees are valid for services customers don’t even have, or are offered free of charge by Verizon Wireless.

Some readers say they’ve been battling the charges for more than a year. Most said they’re tired of calling Verizon month after month. Some were irate because they’d punished their children because they wrongly believed the kids had gone on the Internet. One reader said his mom’s phone was charged for Internet access – weeks after the mother had died and her phone sat idle in her empty home.

Karen Fullerman of Twinsburg is typical of customers who complained to The Plain Dealer last week.

Fullerman has three phone lines; two are for her 23-year-old twin daughters. Fullerman has been charged $1.99 on one or two phones every month. And sometimes there’s an extra $9.99 download fee. Fullerman, who recently lost her job, said every dollar counts these days.

She insists that none of the three has gone on the Internet. And she said Verizon has told her repeatedly that the company has blocked the phones’ ability to go on the Internet – yet the Internet charges continue.

The same is true for James Grega of Brunswick, whose four phone lines with Verizon have been getting charged sporadically for about four months.

“The phones are still being charged after I had them blocked,” Grega said. “Their assurance that the $1.99 charges would stop has been a joke.”

Now, some customers who have repeatedly been credited for erroneous charges are being denied for future requests, and that is partly what prompted The Plain Dealer to get involved.

Verizon Wireless claims to be investigating the problem and promises customers full credit, assuming they specifically request it.  Therein lies a major problem for consumers, one that benefits providers with billing problems.  Consumers frustrated by long hold times or the aggravation of requesting credits may forego doing so, providing a windfall for the service provider based on a billing error.

Roger Tang, a regional vice president for Verizon, told The Plain Dealer it would resolve accidental web browser access when consumers hit the wrong buttons on their phones.  The default home page for most Verizon phones is Verizon’s own web page.  The company will make visits to that page exempt from Internet time charges “as soon as possible.”

[flv width=”320″ height=”240″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WMAR Baltimore Verizon Wireless 199 Mystery Fee 9-8-09.flv[/flv]

WMAR Baltimore ran a Scam Alert on Verizon Wireless Overcharging (9/8/09)

ABC - Australia's National Public Broadcaster

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has called on the federal government to have its online video service exempted from Internet Service Provider usage caps.

Mark Scott, ABC’s Managing Director, called on the government to intervene as part of Australia’s development of a National Broadband Network (NBN).  In comments directed to legislators drafting the regulatory framework for the NBN, Scott argued that “publicly-funded content and services carried over the NBN, including those of the ABC, should be available free to the Australian people.”

Scott is referring primarily to the ABC’s iView portal, which allows Australians to watch ABC-TV programming online.  Scott is worried that without an exemption, Australians simply won’t take advantage of the service, fearing they’ll exceed their monthly usage allowance.

The majority of Australia’s ISPs have strict usage limits on their services, blaming the expensive and limited underseas fiber connections Australia has with the rest of the global Internet.  Scott argues that since ABC content will be domestically distributed, there is no valid argument to cap it.

Only a small handful of ISPs, iiNet, Internode, iPrimus, Westnet and Adam Internet among them, provide the content without it counting against your usage allowance.

Phillip “Doesn’t Derive a Paycheck From Writing This” Dampier

I see it took all of five minutes for George Ou and his friends at Digital Society to be swayed by the tunnel vision myopia of last week’s latest effort to justify Internet Overcharging schemes.

Until recently, I’ve always rationalized my distain for smaller usage caps by ignoring the fact that I’m being subsidized by the majority of broadband consumers.  However, a new study from Robert Shapiro and Kevin Hassett at Georgetown University is forcing me to reexamine my personal bias against usage caps.

There’s a shock, especially after telling your readers caps “were needed.”

As I predicted, our astroturfing and industry friends would have a field day over this narrowly focused report that demands readers consider their data, their defined problem, and their single proposed solution.  The real world is, of course, slightly more complicated.

I used to debate some of my economist friends on why I thought metered pricing or more restrictive usage caps were a bad idea, but I couldn’t honestly say that my opinion was entirely objective.  My dislike for usage caps stems from the fact that I am a heavy broadband user and an uncapped broadband service is very beneficial to me since everyone else pays a little more so that I can pay a lot less on my broadband service.  But beyond self interest, I can’t make a good argument why the majority of broadband users who don’t need to transfer a lot of data should subsidize my Internet requirements.

Your opinion is still not entirely objective, George.  Your employer has industry connections.

Our readers, many of whom are hardly the usage piggies the industry would define anyone who opposes these overcharging schemes, all agree whether it’s 5GB or 150GB per month, they do not want to watch an Internet “gas gauge” or lose their option of flat rate broadband pricing that has worked successfully for this industry for more than a decade.  George and his friends assume this is an “us vs. them” argument — big broadband users want little broadband users to subsidize their service.

That’s assuming facts not in evidence.

What is in evidence are studies and surveys which show that consumers overwhelmingly do not want meters, caps, usage tiers, or other such restrictions on their service.  They recognize that a provider who claims to want to “fairly charge” people for service always means “everyone pays more, some much more than others.”  To set the table for this “fairness,” they’ve hired Washington PR firms to pretend to advocate for consumers and hide their industry connections.  Nothing suspicious about that, right?

Although George can’t make a good argument opposing usage caps, that doesn’t mean there aren’t any.  Among the many reasons to oppose caps:

• Innovation: Jobs and economic growth come from the online economy.  New services created today by U.S. companies, popular here and abroad, would be stifled from punitive usage caps and consumption billing.  Even the broadband industry, now in a clamor to provide their own online video services, sees value from the high bandwidth applications that would have never existed in a capped broadband universe, and they are the ones complaining the loudest about congested networks.
• Consumer Wishes: Consumers overwhelmingly enjoy their flat rate broadband service, and are willing to pay today’s pricing to keep it.  The loyalty for broadband is much greater than for providers’ other product lines – television and telephone.  That says something important — don’t ruin a good thing.
• The Fantasy of Savings: As already happened across several Time Warner Cable communities subjected to “experimentation,” the original proposals for lower consumption tier pricing offered zero savings to consumers who could already acquire flat rate “lite” service for the same or even lower prices.  Even when tiers and usage allowances were adjusted after being called out on this point, consumer outrage continued once consumers realized they’d pay three times more for the same broadband service they had before the experiment, with absolutely no improvement in service.  Comcast and other smaller providers already have usage caps and limits.  Pricing did not decline.  Many combine a usage allowance -and- lower speed for “economy” tiers, negating the argument that lower pricing would be achieved with fast speeds -and- a usage allowance.
• Justifying Caps Based on Flawed Analysis: The report’s authors only assume customer adoption at standard service pricing, completely ignoring the already-available “economy” tier services now available at slower speeds.
• Speed Based Tiers vs. Consumption Based Tiers: Consumers advocate for speed-based tiering, already familiar to them and widely accepted.  New premium speed tiers of service can and do already generate significant revenue for those who offer them, providing the resources for network expansion providers claim they need.
• Current Profits & Self Interested Motives: Broadband continues to be a massively profitable business for providers, earning billions in profits every year.  Now, even as some of those providers reduce investments in their own networks, they claim a need to throw away the existing flat rate business model.  Instead, they want paltry usage allowances and overlimit penalties that would reduce demand on their networks.  That conveniently also reduces online video traffic, of particular concern to cable television companies.
• Competition & Pricing: A monopoly or duopoly exists for most Americans, limiting competition and the opportunity for price savings.  Assuming that providers would reduce pricing for capped service has not been the result in Canada, where this kind of business model already exists.  Indeed, prices increased for broadband, usage allowances have actually dropped among some major providers like Bell, and speed throttles have been introduced both in the retail and wholesale markets.

More recently, building our colocation server for Digital Society has made me realize that usage caps not only has the potential to lower prices, but it can also facilitate higher bandwidth performance.  Case in point, Digital Society pays $50 per month for colocation service with a 100 Mbps Internet circuit, and at least $20 of that is for rack space and electricity.  How is it possible that we can get 100 Mbps of bandwidth for ~$30 when 100 Mbps of dedicated Internet bandwidth in colocation facilities normally costs $1000?  The answer lies in usage caps, which cap us to 1000 GBs of file transfer per month which means we can only average 3 Mbps.

One thousand gigabytes for $30 a month.  If providers were providing that kind of allowance, many consumers would consider this a non-issue.  But of course they are not.  Frontier Communications charges more than that for DSL service with a 5GB per month allowance in their Acceptable Use Policy (not currently enforced.)  Time Warner Cable advocated 40GB per month for $40-50 a month.  Comcast charges around $40-45 a month for up to 250GB.  Not one of these providers lowered their prices in return for this cap.  They simply sought to limit customer usage, with overlimit fees and penalties to be determined later.

Of course, web hosting is also an intensively competitive business.  There are hundreds of choices for web hosting.  There are also different levels of service, from shared web hosting to dedicated servers.  That is where the disparity of pricing is most evident, not in the “usage cap” (which is routinely more of a footnote and designed to keep Bit Torrent and high bandwidth file transfer services off their network). There is an enormous difference in pricing between a shared server environment with a 1000GB usage cap and a dedicated rack mount server located in a local facility with 24 hour security, monitoring, and redundancy/backup services, even with the same usage cap. For those seeking reliable and scalable hosting solutions, Voxfor’s offerings, including lifetime VPS plans and customizable management services, provide exceptional value and flexibility without the recurring costs.

So the irony of a regulation intended to “protect” the little guy from “unfair usage caps” would actually force our small organization onto the permanent slow lane.

Actually, the Massa bill has no impact on web hosting usage caps whatsoever.  George’s provider friends would be his biggest risk — the ones that would “sell” insurance to his organization is he wanted assurance that his traffic would not be throttled by consumer ISPs.  I’d be happy to recommend other hosting providers for George if he felt trapped on a “slow lane.”  That’s because there is actual competition in web hosting providers.  If the one or two broadband providers serving most Americans had their way, it would be consumers stuck on a permanent slow lane with throttled service, not organizations like his.

So, who is in agreement with George on this question?  None of his readers, as his latest article carries no reader responses.  But fellow industry-connected astroturfers and providers themselves share their love:

• “This is the story that ISP’s have failed to tell effectively — that consumption-based billing may, in fact, be fairer for consumers.” — Michael Willner, CEO Insight Communications
• “Ars Technica reports on an interesting theory being floated by former Clinton economic advisor Robert J. Shapiro and Federal Reserve economist Kevin A. Hassett” — Brad, astroturfer Internet Innovation Alliance
• “The only way … is to introduce some form of equitable pay-as-you-use pricing.  And I could not agree more.” — Ulf Wolf, Digital Communities Blogs (sponsored by AT&T, Qwest, etc.)

PC Magazine reported even Robert Shapiro, one of the report’s authors, is not advocating for usage caps:

“We’re not talking about a bandwidth cap,” Shapiro said during a call with reporters. “We were looking simply at the different pricing models and their impact on the projections of broadband uptake based on these income sensitivities.”

The report does not specify how ISPs should implement pricing, Shapiro said. “The most important thing to me as an economist is the flexibility – that is, Internet Providers can better determine than I can the particular model that works best.”

That’s not the message astroturfers are taking forward, as they try and sell this as “pro-consumer.”

Competition does occasionally bring lower prices, but only to those who threaten to abandon their current provider to take their business elsewhere.

Residents in several suburbs of Syracuse, New York have learned that trick as Verizon nears the launch of FiOS service in their area, and the result is significant savings of more than $240 a year, just for the asking.

“Where we find the competition really paying off is for those consumers who might already be with Time Warner,” Doug Williams, a Cambridge-based analyst with Forrester Research told the Syracuse Post-Standard.  “People whose promotional deals are ending are often able to get a sweet deal with nothing more than a phone call and a mention of the word “FiOS.”

It worked for Doug himself up in Boston, where his mother is served by Comcast:

Doug Williams had a fool-proof plan for his mother-in-law to get at least $20 knocked off her cable bill: Call the cable company and tell them Verizon FiOS television was in her neighborhood.

It worked without a hitch. The operator looked up her address, then gave her a discount without any hesitation. Williams’ family lives in the Boston area, where Verizon’s fiber optic television service is the first real competition to the area’s entrenched cable provider, Comcast.

The Syracuse suburbs of Clay, Cicero, East Syracuse, North Syracuse and Fleming already have, or will soon have access to FiOS.  The towns of DeWitt and Salina last week approved franchise agreements with Verizon to provide the service, and Camillus approved the franchise agreement on August 25.

The addition of the Camillus television franchises brings to 161 the total number of New York municipalities that have authorized Verizon to provide FiOS TV service.

The company is in the process of building and installing the necessary video equipment in local central offices in the central New York region, and anticipates that FiOS TV service will be turned on for new customers in
municipalities there in the fall.

[flv width=”296″ height=”222″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse FiOS Coming to CNY.flv[/flv]

WSYR-TV Syracuse covers the announcement by Clay officials of Verizon’s first franchise agreement in the area. (3/16/2009)

Time Warner Cable has been preparing for Verizon for at least a year, starting with complaints about how the franchise agreement was handled in Clay, where Time Warner officials claimed they were given insufficient notice to review the franchise proposal.  That claim was brushed aside by the New York Public Service Commission, which has a history of rubber stamping franchise proposals anyway.  Time Warner has had little to say about other franchise agreement negotiations since.

The cable company has also been wringing its hands about fears Verizon’s construction crews will be digging up their customers’ lawns, making a mess, and accidentally interrupting service for their customers.  Time Warner’s concerns may have come in part from a WSYR-TV report back in June highlighting the frustrations of Clay residents who have been inconvenienced by Verizon’s slow work in their area.  But most consumers welcome the competition.

[flv width=”296″ height=”222″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Preparing for FiOS.flv[/flv]

WSYR-TV Syracuse highlights the plight of Clay residents running out of patience as Verizon wires their community for FiOS. (6/4/09)

“People are excited. It looks like there will be an opportunity for choice,” Cicero town supervisor Chet Dudzinski told the newspaper.

Verizon FiOS installation crews start to wear out welcome in Clay, N.Y.

Time Warner claims it’s not worried by the competition, noting it successfully competes in many other FiOS-wired communities.  But Time Warner’s marketing efforts have changed with the looming threat of competition.  First, the company brought a “price protection agreement” to the area, trying to lock in existing customers to a lengthy contract before the competition arrived, limiting their chances to switch providers.  Then the company embarked on a major HD channel expansion, quickly bringing Syracuse residents more than 100 HD channels.  Time Warner promoted their heavy emphasis on local sports programming, touting Syracuse University football and basketball games, and local high school sports coverage.

Verizon shot back they will feature more than 115 HD channels, and 70% of their 15,000 videos on demand are available for free.  Verizon also will carry many Syracuse sports events, and will also bring NFL Network and ESPN 360 to the area, services Time Warner has refused to carry.

Consumers enjoy the competitive choice, and with the possibility walking their cable and broadband service to the “other guy” across town, will be able to leverage some additional savings off their service.

For Syracuse city residents, the wait will be somewhat longer.  City officials are wrangling over the kinds of public access programming and service policies Verizon will be required to provide before they will negotiate a franchise agreement with them.  The foot dragging may last a year or longer, as the city will vote Monday on whether to spend $30,000 of taxpayers’ money just to ascertain what the city needs from Verizon when negotiations begin.  City residents who want competition now may want to inform their elected officials spending $30,000 to “study” the issue is just a tad excessive, especially considering The Google provides ample information, for free, about what other communities across the northeast have accomplished as part of their negotiations with the dominant phone company in the region.

Verizon’s complete list of franchises in New York state is below the jump.

… Continue Reading

Argentina's largest cable operator wants to get even larger

The Argentine government recognizes market concentration when it sees it, and has overturned a decision by the Argentine Supreme Court to approve the merger of two giant cable conglomerates in Argentina — Cablevisión and Multichannel, both owned by Grupo Clarín.  Combined, they would control more than half of the nation’s cable television marketplace.  The decision to block the merger, announced by Federal Broadcasting Committee Chairman Gabriel Mariotto  in testimony before the Argentine Congress, came out of concerns that a combined company would abuse its market position.  But Mariotto also expressed concern that the single company would have a stranglehold over soccer coverage, something Argentina’s citizens could never accept.

Mariotto said Argentina’s new media law to combat market concentration would  “do away with the status of dominant market position.”

“With the control these two companies would have over popular television programming like football, which would likely only be available on their cable systems, competitors could never get off the ground,” argued Mariotto.

Gabriel Mariotto, Chairman of the Federal Broadcasting Committee - Argentina

Cablevisión executives immediately condemned the decision by the government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, and questioned why the transaction, approved by the former government run by President Kirchner’s husband, Nestor, was now suddenly off the table.

“Cablevisión is at 47% market share nationally, far from the telephone companies as they reach over 95%,” according to Cablevisión officials.

Cablevisión’s statement added: “It is very striking that Chairman Mariotto made the decision without ever notifying Cablevisión of the reasons, and never gave the company a chance to respond.  Cablevisión strictly complies with all Argentine laws, in regards to our franchise agreements, programming contracts and corporate governance.”

The company accused Mariotto of playing politics, accusing him of “misleading” lawmakers and the public, and grandstanding through his very visible public announcement.

Ironically, Argentina’s challenge of big cable operator mergers comes just one week after a federal judge in Washington threw out an FCC-mandated maximum limit of 30% market control for America’s cable operators.  A legal challenge, brought by Comcast, resulted in the cap being tossed.  Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator, is already nearing the former 30% limit and is now free to exceed it with additional mergers and acquisitions.