Every once in a while, a brazen utility service company will come to our attention that is so egregious in its conduct and pricing, it makes Comcast’s business practices resemble Amateur Hour.

Not for lack of trying, Comcast’s worst abuses pale in comparison to the conduct of a nasty little firm called Nationwide Energy Partners (NEP). No customer that endures this pseudo-utility will likely ever forget its name, or the $500+ utility bills the company is known to send to renters in Ohio.

Ohio’s deregulated utility market has opened the door to speculators, multi-level marketing scams, and the new and growing practice of “submetering,” — rebilling renters for utility usage charges on behalf of the property owner. The epicenter of some of the worst abuses is in Columbus, where two “submetering” companies with dubious records and close ties to property developers are getting rich charging customers up to 97% more than other Columbus households pay for basic utilities.

Four families are now taking NEP to court, alleging the company is lying about its rates, overcharging customers, and engineering a monopoly business model that does not allow customers to switch utilities, leaving them captive to the threat of eviction and property liens for those that fall behind on their bills.

Ralph Cantore in Columbus is well-acquainted with NEP. It’s the utility company that has billed him $4oo-525 a month for electricity and water service for his three-bedroom apartment.

“I really enjoy the location,” Cantore told The Columbus Dispatch about Olentangy Commons apartments. “I enjoy everything about it, except the ridiculous energy bills.”

Courtney VanSickle, a registered nurse, says her bills have been as high as $450 a month at her two-bedroom apartment.

Those are two of approximately 30,000 customers served by NEP, many in central Ohio where renters served by these third party companies are often shocked by astronomical utility bills. Another firm, American Power & Light, was founded in 2003 by property developer Don Kenney, Sr. The “energy company” shares office space with Kenney’s other ventures, including Ardent Property Management, Village Communities and Metro Development. Kenney’s companies have built more than 35,000 apartments or condominium units, many coincidentally relying on AP&L as the monopoly provider of utility service.

Nationwide Energy founder and CEO Mike DeAscentis Jr., was frank with investors about the real aim of NEP in a 2010 presentation: “How we make money is we buy power at a commercial rate and we resell it at the residential rate and there is arbitrage in the rate structure,” he said, according to a transcript obtained by The Dispatch.

DeAscentis isn’t an energy man from way back. He’s the CEO of Lifestyle Communities, an apartment developer, which coincidentally contracts with NEP for utility services.

NEP pays developers, owners, and/or managers of condominiums, apartment buildings, and multi-family dwellings for contracts offering exclusivity to provide gas, electric, water, and sewer service to tenants. Tenants are informed at closing or move in that NEP is the only utility service provider available to them and they must sign a service agreement with NEP to obtain basic utilities.

NEP is well aware of the favorable position this puts the company, telling customers on its website:

“At NEP we know you choose us because you have to.”

Under Ohio’s deregulation strategy, utilities are still supposed to be mildly regulated to guarantee quality of service, establish proper disconnection policies, and follow basic guidelines to help manage the competitive market. Except NEP was created at the outset to skirt those rules.

“NEP is the new utility,” DeAscentis said in the 2010 presentation. “We do everything that a utility does except generate power. NEP builds electrical-distribution systems for residential communities, and we were very deliberate when we started the business 10 years ago to put it in a place where it was not regulated.”

That is what has allowed NEP to effectively operate as an unregulated monopoly. If customers can’t or won’t pay, the normal protections extended to customers for utility services that protect life do not apply. NEP and AP&L can cut service at will for non-payment, even during winter when a customer’s safety could be at risk. If residents are late with payments, American Power will sometimes evict them, even if the consumer’s rent is up to date and even though American Power is not the landlord. Another contract provision allows companies to place liens on personal property for non-payment. Both companies have sought hundreds of evictions since 2002. Nationwide appeared to have stopped seeking evictions in 2011.

“Once you enter this slippery slope, where a third party has the ability to order evictions, that’s shocking,” Emily Crabtree, a lawyer with Columbus Legal Aid who has defended American Power customers, told The Dispatch in 2013.

The centerpiece of the Ohio lawsuit is the allegation NEP charges residents substantially more that what regulated or municipal providers charge their customers. A 2013 investigation by The Dispatch found that once all the fees and surcharges were calculated, customers paid up to 94% more than if they had an account directly with the regulated or municipal utility serving the area.

“This rate arbitrage is how NEP makes money,” the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs claim NEP won’t disclose its energy charges, making it difficult for customers to compare what they are paying for service in contrast with their non-NEP neighbors.

“NEP’s website falsely states that ‘NEP is contractually bound to match the rates of the host utility for both electric and water,’ that ‘rates [customers] are charged by NEP are the same residential rates that are charged by [their] current utility provider,’ and that customers ‘will not pay a higher rate for [their] electric and water as a NEP customer.'”

Ironically, NEP’s CEO stated that NEP “adds value” to services traditionally provided by public or private utility companies.

“The only entity that benefits from NEP’s business model is NEP,” the lawsuit claims.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Columbus Dispatch Submetering 10-20-13.flv[/flv]

The Columbus Dispatch investigated submetering back in 2013, and the large spike in consumer complaints that resulted from the practice. (4:24)

Consumers, when they find out about the submetering practice, are shocked to discover it is completely legal under Ohio law.

Guy Fulcher, a former American Power customer who now lives in Galena, got the pass-the-buck treatment when he complained.

“The attorney general back then was Richard Cordray, and his office just rolled over and said, ‘We don’t regulate that,’” he said. “They said to go to [Ohio’s Public Utilities Commission]. PUCO said, ‘We don’t regulate that.’”

When other renters have complained to regulators, attorneys representing submetering companies argue the complaints should be ignored or rejected for lack of standing.

“This complaint should begin and end with the determination that Mr. Whitt lacks standing to bring a complaint concerning utility services (at his condo) because he is not the utility customer,” said Howard Petricoff, attorney for Nationwide Energy, in a filing.

According to the company, the true customer is the condo association, not each resident, reported the newspaper. Nationwide Energy has a long-term contract with the association to act as the exclusive reseller of utility services.

AE&P spokeswoman Terri Flora said the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of renters.

“As people make choices to rent in an apartment, they need to be fully aware of what that choice involves,” Flora told the newspaper about the possibility of paying higher prices with a submeter company. “It’s a different environment than consumers are used to.”

Customers in other states beyond Ohio should also be on the lookout because submetering is legal in several other states. Where money can be made, submeterers are sure to expand. NEP is already active in Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Submetering, with an allowance for charging a substantial markup, was legal in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and Washington as of 2013.

Building in protection from cord-cutting, AT&T today announced it was bringing back its unlimited data wireless plan for customers that subscribe to U-verse TV or DirecTV.

The new AT&T Unlimited Plan claims to offer unlimited data, talk and text for $100 a month. Additional smartphones are $40 per month each, with a fourth smartphone free to add at no extra charge.

“Video traffic continues to grow on our network as fast as ever because people enjoy viewing their favorite video content on their favorite devices,” said Ralph de la Vega, CEO of AT&T Mobile and Business Solutions. “And, they will get a high-quality video streaming experience from the start. No compromises in video quality.”

Except that AT&T discloses in its fine print, “After 22GB of data usage on a line in a bill cycle, for the remainder of the bill cycle AT&T may slow data speeds on that line during periods of network congestion.”

Speed throttles often affect video quality and can stall playback.

It’s the first time in five years AT&T has offered an “unlimited data” wireless option to its mobile customers. Analysts suspect the offer is designed to compete with T-Mobile’s free video streaming “BingeOn” promotion, while also protecting AT&T’s video platforms from cord-cutting. AT&T also gets an opportunity to add new video customers to its recently acquired DirecTV service, because only customers with a qualifying video subscription are allowed to buy the unlimited data plan.

AT&T is tying the unlimited data promotion to its satellite offering DirecTV, not U-verse, with a promotional satellite TV package for new video customers beginning at $19.99 per month for 12 months, with a 24 month agreement. After one year, the base TV package increases to $49.99 a month.

To bring back AT&T wireless customers that left for another carrier, AT&T is offering up to $500 in incentives when customers switch to the AT&T Unlimited Plan with an eligible trade-in and buy a new smartphone on AT&T Next. Customers who combine their U-verse or DirecTV account with AT&T Wireless on a single bill will also get an extra $10 off per month.

AT&T is effectively selling its Unlimited Plan for $60 a month, double AT&T’s original rate for unlimited data of just under $30. With a video subscription pre-qualifier, customers enrolling in the plan can expect a substantial bill.

On the mobile side, customers will be initially expected to pay up to $220 a month for four active lines. The $40 credit for the fourth smartphone only begins after two billing cycles, finally reducing the bill to $180 a month before taxes and surcharges. A required video package will range from $19.99 for a basic DirecTV plan ($49.99 in year two) to as much as $80 or more for U-verse TV, bringing a combined television and wireless bill to more than $300 a month.

Those with 4G tablets can save some money dropping the $40 unlimited data device access fee and choosing a $10 1GB data plan for tablets instead.

The three candidates running for President of the Republic of China are: James Soong from the People First Party (PFP) (L), Eric Chu from the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) party (Center), and Tsai Ing-wen from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) (R).

Taiwan’s three presidential candidates, appearing in a nationwide debate on Sunday, promised to deliver improved High Speed Internet in the Republic of China, with some candidates committing to give broadband away for free to low and middle-income families.

Taiwan is making broadband expansion and improvement a top national priority, as the country races towards delivering gigabit wired broadband and 5G wireless service. The government wants to boost the country’s broadband ranking, now 33rd in the world.

Bringing speeds up while reducing broadband bills is the goal of Eric Chu, the candidate from the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) party. During his terms as leader of New Taipei and Taoyuan County, Chu presided over a major expansion of Internet penetration rates. Chu believes the next step is to make broadband service free of charge for low/middle-income residents and deliver nationwide free Wi-Fi to every centimeter of Taiwan.

Internet providers would still profit from selling faster access to customers willing to pay for it, but Chu’s policies continue a theme that broadband access is a basic human right, a position increasingly popular in the country. Voters appeared skeptical of Chu’s claims, however, because the KMT has garnered a reputation of being in bed with big business during its last two terms in office. But that has not stopped Chu from criticizing telecom executives for not doing more to invest and eventually offer next generation 5G wireless service in Taiwan.

James Soong, from the People First Party — considered to have a close (but frequently tense) alliance with the KMT  — predictably agreed with Chu, but also wants Taiwan to do more to protect Internet privacy and online safety. Soong wants to completely scrap the country’s legacy copper wire telecommunications infrastructure and replace it with fiber optics, delivering fiber service to every home and business in Taiwan. With a fiber upgrade, Soong is convinced Taiwan will achieve his goal of top-10 broadband status.

Tsai Ing-wen from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) said when private companies don’t deliver, it is government’s responsibility to address the digital divide, by making high quality service affordable and fast. Taiwan’s telecom companies are paying close attention to the DPP candidate because polls make her the favorite to become the next president of Taiwan, after the election on Jan. 16.

“The use of broadband Internet service should be part of the people’s basic human rights,” she said. “It is also important to narrow the digital divide to improve educational opportunities for children in remote areas and develop children’s digital capabilities.”

With broadband being treated as a high priority issue in the presidential race, Taiwan’s largest broadband provider, Chunghwa Telecom – 中華電信, has announced the first commercial deployments of G.fast technology – the newest generation of DSL – across Taiwan.

Israeli chipmaker Sckipio demonstrated G.Fast technology at CES 2016 in Las Vegas this week, claiming it is faster than traditional DSL and cable broadband. In a limited demonstration, the company demonstrated download speeds achieving 750Mbps over traditional copper wire networks, about 50 times faster than average broadband speeds. Sckipio promised G.Fast technology will debut in the United States later this year.

If residents in rural Kentucky want Time Warner Cable to offer broadband service, they better be prepared to pay for it.

As Time Warner customers consider the company’s latest rate increases, which now include a $10 modem rental fee and an increasingly common $4.99 “Wi-Fi Fee” if you don’t use your own wireless router, there are other customers signing contracts for residential Internet service from Time Warner at prices as high as $410 a month.

Jack Prindle lives in the Big Bone community near Union, Ky., — close enough to Cincinnati to be a suburb, but rural enough to be bypassed for broadband. Two dozen of his neighbors live along a nine-tenths of a mile stretch of Big Bone Church Road, which isn’t exactly a priority for Time Warner Cable. The families have spent a decade trying to entice anyone to offer broadband Internet access. Insight Communications (Time Warner’s predecessor) and Cincinnati Bell have never shown much interest. Time Warner Cable, however, has been engaged in a type of cat and mouse game, offering service at ever-escalating prices only to change its mind at the last minute.

“Within the last year, I have signed contracts with Time Warner for Internet service starting at $300 a month, with a three-year contract, only to have them come back and raise it to $350 for five years, and then $410 a month with a commitment of five years,” Prindle wrote in the Community Recorder. “Then only to be told a month later they were not going to provide Internet. Others of the 24 have similar bizarre stories concerning Time Warner and Cincinnati Bell.”

“Prindle’s story is an example of what is wrong with rural broadband in the United States,” writes Cynthia Rawley, who shared the story with Stop the Cap! “Unchecked cable and phone companies get federal dollars and the benefit of a fake broadband map that has no relationship to reality, leaving many to believe there is no rural broadband problem to solve. But there is.”

Union, Ky.

Rawley points out the FCC’s official National Broadband Map shows the two dozen homes around Prindle are all provided 5-50Mbps broadband service by both Time Warner Cable and Cincinnati Bell, despite the fact neither offers any broadband service to anyone in the vicinity.

“Boone County Judge-executive Gary Moore wrote to inform the FCC of this error and failed to get a response,” Prindle noted. What bothers him even more is his tax dollars have paid to subsidize rural Internet service he cannot get at any price.

“Some basic research reveals that Time Warner has received millions of taxpayer dollars to provide broadband Internet in rural areas,” Prindle notes. “The commonwealth of Kentucky has given over $100 million to Internet providers alone to provide broadband Internet in rural areas alone. Opensecrets.org reports that Time Warner spent $4,950,000 in lobbying efforts of federal, state, and local governments in 2015. With this amount of money changing hands, the conspiracy theorists among us see a 20/20 episode coming.”

Prindle better have his rabbit ears ready to watch, because at the rate providers are not expanding rural broadband, he will have a long wait before being able to watch that 20/20 episode online.

Dear Readers,

It was another great year at Stop the Cap! and we are very grateful for our growing readership and your involvement in the fight against data caps and for better broadband.

Phillip Dampier

Since 2008, Stop the Cap! has exposed the lies about the need to limit your unlimited broadband. We tirelessly check what company executives tell their investors and Wall Street and what they tell consumers and the press about the successes and challenges providing broadband Internet access. The chasm between the two is wide. While companies like Comcast have spent years telling shifting stories that usage caps are not usage caps at all, that limits are needed to ensure fair access to broadband by all of its customers, and that usage-based billing is only designed to force heavy users to subsidize the investments Comcast makes in faster broadband, company officials tell Wall Street a much simpler (and honest) story: usage caps are about monetizing broadband usage to boost profits.

There has never been anything fair about “fair usage policies” for wired broadband. Rationing Internet usage at a time when fiber optic lines are being installed at a rate not seen since the dot.com boom and the arrival of the next generation standard for delivering broadband over cable television lines simply does not make sense. But it makes a lot of dollars.

Customers continue to make it quite clear to all who choose to listen: usage caps and the industry’s version of usage-based billing are both unacceptable.

Tens of thousands of complaints about usage caps arrived at the FCC in 2015, while the agency continued to drag its feet on a much-needed review of their impact on competition. “Cord cutting” is no longer just a theory. While providers openly engage in wound licking over video subscriber losses, they also quietly appreciate the fact they own the broadband pipes that their new online competitors depend on. Worried that Hulu, Netflix, and Sling TV are stealing your customers? With a crafty usage cap, customers learn soon enough the money “saved” cutting the cord will instead be spent covering overlimit fees incurred using broadband to watch television. Heads they win, tails you lose.

Comcast is by far the biggest menace we will fight in 2016. Their multi-year “experiment” in Internet rationing continues to spread like a virus into new markets, mostly in the deregulatory/hands-off states in the southern and western U.S. The “free market” paradise that was supposed to bring robust competition has too often brought higher bills and usage limits instead. To observers, Comcast’s decision to cap its customers in Chattanooga, Tenn., seems crazy. Comcast faces robust competition from EPB Fiber Optics and AT&T. EPB doesn’t cap its customers and AT&T U-verse wouldn’t dare. But Comcast has decided to cap anyway.

In 2015, consumers continued to despise Comcast (while also throwing Time Warner Cable under the bus for lousy service and high prices), despite CEO Brian Roberts’ reflexive promise he was solidly committed to improving Comcast’s image with customers. Capping customers’ usage while creating a $30-35 “insurance plan” to protect customers from Comcast’s overlimit fees would seem counter-intuitive, or at least ironic, to improving customer relations. Yet Roberts continues to tell investors with a straight face customer reaction to caps remains “neutral to slightly positive.” (Perhaps at the online equivalent of Mistress Raisin’s S&M Club, but likely nowhere else).

In addition to fighting usage caps, Stop the Cap! also taught consumers how to fight for a better deal. We attracted over two million visitors to Stop the Cap! in 2015, many looking to cut their cable and phone bills. We showed them how. These articles were among the most visited for 2015:

#5: How to Get a Better Deal for Verizon FiOS; $79.99 Triple-Play Offer With $300 Rebate Card (14 comments, originally published in December, 2013)

#4: How to Get Verizon Wireless’ 4G $30 Unlimited Use Hotspot Feature Added to Your Account (47 comments, originally published in July, 2011 and no longer timely)

#3: Source: FCC Will Get Serious About Data Caps if Comcast Moves to Impose Them Nationwide (149 comments, first appearing in May, 2015)

#2: Updated! How to Score a Better Deal From Time Warner Cable and Save Over $700 a Year: 2015 Edition (150 comments and first updated in March, 2015 and again over the summer)

#1: How to Score a Better Deal With AT&T U-verse; $28/Mo for 18Mbps, $33/Mo for 24Mbps (112 comments and originally published in December 2013)

Our audience is global. Most of our readers are located in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, but we recorded visitors from 209 countries in 2015.

The interconnection wars between cable and phone companies and online video providers like Netflix also helped bring readers to Stop the Cap! In fact, our busiest day in 2015 came on June 23rd when 14,362 unique visitors arrived to read our story: AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable Implicated In Content Delivery Network Slowdowns.

In 2015, Stop the Cap! published 452 news stories. Since 2008, we’ve archived 4,494 original articles here.

How do people hear about us? The top five referring websites in 2015:

Once people hear about us, many become regular readers and participants. We recognize our top-five participants who frequent the comment section found at the bottom of every Stop the Cap! article:

#5: Limboaz, with 23 comments in 2015

#4: AC, with 27 comments

#3: BobinIllinois, with 27 comments

#2: Paul Houle, with 28 comments

#1: Joe V, with a whopping 67 comments in 2015.

Welcome to 2016. The fight continues.

We appreciate your financial support and you will find a donate button on the right that allows you to make contributions with a credit card or bank account. Stop the Cap! does not accept industry money and is fully funded with contributions from readers like you. Your donations allow us to subscribe to news-gathering and research services, pay costs to support this website, fund software upgrades, and help cover expenses involving testimony before regulatory bodies. Providers may be getting rich, but we certainly are not, which is why making a regular contribution to Stop the Cap! will make a big difference in how far we can take this fight.

Thanks for your support!

P.S. – You can follow breaking stories from us on Twitter (@stopthecap) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/stopthecap/). You can follow my own views on broadband and other matters via my Twitter account (@phillipdampier). We intend to beef up our social media presence this year so stay tuned!

Sincerely,

Phillip Dampier – Your Editor