Most cable operators are doing a better job of providing telephone service than traditional telephone companies, according to a new J.D. Power and Associates survey.

Among the worst providers across all regions were Frontier Communications, which scored dead last in the East and North Central regions, and cable operator Charter Communications, which won the lowest score overall for service in the western United States.  Cox delivered the most consistently reliable service across three of the four regions it serves, although it was beaten by Bright House Networks in the south.

The results:

The study measured customer satisfaction with both local and long distance telephone service in four regions throughout the United States. Five factors were examined to determine overall satisfaction: performance and reliability; cost of service; billing; offerings and promotions; and customer service.

Satisfaction with performance and reliability-the most influential factor contributing to overall satisfaction-has declined by 6 percent to an average of 7.4 (on a 10-point scale) in 2011 from 7.9 in 2011. Within this factor, satisfaction with the service provider’s ability to keep outages to a minimum has experienced the greatest decline.

“The brutal winter weather that plagued much of the country clearly took a toll on service levels,” said Frank Perazzini, director of telecommunications at J.D. Power and Associates. “In fact, the proportion of customers who contacted customer service to report an outage jumped to 21 percent in 2011 from 12 percent in 2010.”

According to Perazzini, a key driver for mitigating losses in satisfaction due to outages is effectively managing customer expectations regarding service restoration. On average, customers who experience an outage are advised that service will be restored within 30 hours, while actual service restoration time averages 25 hours. Overall satisfaction among customers whose service was restored approximately three hours earlier than the time quoted by the service provider averages 705 on a 1,000-point scale. In comparison, among customers whose service was restored three hours after the estimate given by the provider, satisfaction averages 591.

The study also finds that among customers who use an alternative phone service (for example, cellular or Internet service, rather than wireline), the proportion who replace wireline telephone calls with cell phone calls, texts and email remains relatively unchanged in 2011, compared with 2010. However, use of Internet calling services such as Skype or Vonage has increased to 21 percent in 2011 from 16 percent in 2010. Customers who use Internet calling services are significantly less satisfied with their telephone provider (622 on average, which is 14 index points below the industry average of 636) and are more likely to switch telephone providers (23% vs. the industry average of 16%).

Courtesy: Gottabemobile

Just two days after the less-than-overwhelming unveiling of the incrementally-upgraded Apple iPhone 4S, the “must-have-it” crowd has begun melting down the customer service lines of AT&T looking for special discounted upgrade pricing, even though many are months away from the end of their contracts.

AT&T customers are being invited to dial *639# from their phones for an upgrade text message in response.  Others are visiting AT&T’s Phone Upgrade website.  Many are not happy to find AT&T isn’t automatically throwing out the rules for two-year contract upgrade pricing, and are being offered phones that include an early upgrade penalty and a new two year contract.:

1. $250 early upgrade penalty fee;
2. $199 for the iPhone 4S (8GB model) on a new two-year contract (other models available);
3. $18 upgrade activation fee;
4. Shipping, handling, and taxes extra.

For the benefit of having the latest iPhone, AT&T customers will pay at least $467.  That $250 early upgrade fee appears to be different from the company’s standard early termination fee: $325 minus $10 for each full month of your two year contract that you complete.

Several customers are unhappy to hear that, so they are calling up AT&T and demanding the same discounts a new iPhone customer would get.  AT&T has a history of bending over backwards for their iPhone customers, because they often spend more than other customers on higher-priced service plans.  In many cases, customers got their current generation iPhone months before contract renewal time, scoring significant savings and avoiding penalties other phone owners face when attempting early upgrades.  Many customers expect they’ll get the same treatment again, but AT&T is showing signs it has few reasons to agree to every request.

Surveying several message boards, it appears AT&T is granting early upgrades only to their best, biggest-spending customers.  Everyone else gets to wait.  For those who managed to acquire the iPhone 4 on the day it was released, discounted upgrades without the $250 penalty will become available the day after Thanksgiving.

The primary backers of the ABC Plan

Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is scheduled to deliver a major announcement on reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF) — a federal program designed to subsidize the costs of delivering telecommunications services to rural America.

The reform, long overdue, would transition a significant percentage of USF fees every telephone customer pays towards broadband deployment — a noble endeavor.  For years, Americans have paid more than $5 billion annually to phone companies large and small to maintain rural landline service.  Small co-op phone companies depend on the income to deliver affordable service in places like rural Iowa, Kansas, and Alaska.  But large companies like AT&T and Verizon also collect a significant share (around $800 million annually) to reduce their costs of service in the rural communities they serve.

That’s particularly ironic for AT&T, which time and time again has sought the right to abandon universal rural landline service altogether.

Genachowski’s idea would divert USF funding towards broadband construction projects.  The argument goes that even low speed DSL requires a well-maintained landline network, so phone companies that want to deploy rural broadband will have to spend the money on necessary upgrades to provide just enough service to earn their USF subsidies.  The lower the speed, the lower the cost to upgrade networks and provide the service.  Some may choose wireless technology instead.  Since the telephone companies have fought long and hard to define “broadband” as anything approaching 3-4Mbps, that will likely be the kind of speed rural Americans will receive.

At first glance, USF reform seems like a good idea, but as with everything at the FCC these days, the devil is always in the details.

Dampier: Another day, another self-serving plan from the phone companies that will cost you more.

While headline skimmers are likely to walk away with the idea that the FCC is doing something good for rural broadband, in fact, the Commission may simply end up rubber stamping an industry-written and supported plan that will substantially raise phone bills and divert your money into projects and services the industry was planning to sell you anyway.

Stop the Cap! wrote about the ABC Plan a few weeks ago when we discovered almost all of the support for the phone-company-written proposal comes from the phone companies who back it, as well as various third party organizations that receive substantial financial support from those companies.  It’s a dollar-a-holler astroturf movement in the making, and if the ABC Plan is enacted, you will pay for it.

[Read Universal Service Reform Proposal from Big Telcos Would Rocket Phone Bills Higher and Astroturf and Industry-Backed, Dollar-a-Holler Friends Support Telco’s USF Reform Plan.]

Here is what you probably won’t hear at today’s event.

At the core of the ABC Plan is a proposal to slash the per-minute rates rural phone companies can charge big city phone companies like AT&T and Verizon to connect calls to rural areas.  You win a gold star if you correctly guessed this proposal originated with AT&T and Verizon, who together will save literally billions in call connection costs under their plan.

With a proposal like this, you would assume most rural phone companies are howling in protest.  It turns out some are, especially some of the smallest, family-run and co-op based providers.  But a bunch of phone companies that consider rural America their target area — Frontier, CenturyLink, FairPoint and Windstream, are all on board with AT&T and Verizon.  Why?

Because these phone companies have a way to cover that lost revenue — by jacking up your phone bill’s USF surcharge to as much as $11 a month per line to make up the difference.  In the first year of implementation, your rates could increase up to $4.50 per line (and that fee also extends to cell phones).  Critics have been widely publicizing the increased phone bills guaranteed under the ABC Plan.  In response, advocates for the industry are rushing out the results of a new study released yesterday from the Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George S. Ford that claims the exact opposite.  Dr. Ford claims each customer could pay approximately $14 less per year in access charges if the industry’s ABC Plan is fully implemented.

Genachowski

Who is right?  State regulators suggest rate increases, not decreases, will result.  The “Phoenix Center,” unsurprisingly, has not disclosed who paid for the study, but there is a long record of a close working relationship between that research group and both AT&T and Verizon.

But it gets even worse.

This shell game allows your local phone company to raise rates and blame it on the government, despite the fact those companies will directly benefit from that revenue in many cases.  It’s a real win-win for AT&T and Verizon, who watch their costs plummet while also sticking you with a higher phone bill.

The USF program was designed to provide for the neediest rural phone companies, but under the new industry-written rules being considered by the FCC, just about everyone can get a piece, as long as “everyone” is defined as “the phone company.”  There is a reason this plan does not win the hearts and minds of the cable industry, independent Wireless ISPs, municipalities, or other competing upstarts.  As written, the USF reform plan guarantees virtually all of the financial support stays in the Bell family.  Under the arcane rules of participation, only telephone companies are a natural fit to receive USF money.

Genachowski will likely suggest this plan will provide for rural broadband in areas where it is unavailable today.  He just won’t say what kind of broadband rural America will get.  He can’t, because the industry wrote their own rules in their plan to keep accountability and oversight as far away as possible.

For example, let’s assume you are a frustrated customer of Frontier Communications in West Virginia who lives three blocks away from the nearest neighbor who pays $50 a month for 3Mbps DSL broadband.  You can’t buy the service at any price because Frontier doesn’t offer it.  You have called them a dozen times and they keep promising it’s on the way, but they cannot say when.  You may have even seen them running new cable in the neighborhood.

Frontier has made it clear they intend to wire a significantly greater percentage of the Mountain State than Verizon ever did when it ran things.  Let’s take them at their word for this example.

The telephone companies have helpfully written their own rules for the FCC to adopt.

Frontier’s decision to provide broadband service in West Virginia does not come out of the goodness of their heart.  At a time when landline customers are increasingly disconnecting service, Frontier’s long-term business plan is to keep customers connected by selling packages of phone, broadband, and satellite TV in rural markets.  Investment in DSL broadband deployment has been underway with or without the assistance of the Universal Service Fund because it makes financial sense.  Our customer in West Virginia might disconnect his landline and use a cell phone instead, costing Frontier any potential broadband, TV and telephone service revenue.

Under the ABC Plan, Frontier can be subsidized by ratepayers nationwide to deliver the service they were planning to provide anyway.  And what kind of service?  The same 3Mbps DSL the neighbors have.

If your county government, a cable operator, or wireless competitor decided they could deliver 10-20Mbps broadband for the same $50 a month, could they receive the USF subsidy to build a better network instead?  Under the phone company plan, the answer would be almost certainly no.

Simon Fitch, the consumer advocate of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, which advises the FCC on universal service matters, says the ABC Plan is a consumer disaster.

“Although a stated goal of the FCC’s reform effort is to refocus universal-service funding to support broadband, the industry’s ABC plan requires no real commitment to make broadband available to unserved and underserved communities,” Fitch writes. “Companies would receive funds to provide broadband with upload and download speeds that are already obsolete. States would be given no real enforcement power.”

Fitch is certain companies like AT&T and Verizon will receive enormous ratepayer-financed subsidies they don’t actually need to provide service.

Back to AT&T.

In several states, AT&T is seeking the right to terminate its universal service obligation altogether, which would allow the same company fiercely backing the ABC Plan to entirely walk away from its landline network.  Why?  Because AT&T sees its future profits in wireless.  Under the ABC Plan, AT&T could build rural cell towers with your money to provide “replacement service” over a wireless network with or without great coverage, and with a 2GB usage cap.

At the press conference, Genachowski could still declare victory because rural America would, in fact, get broadband.  Somehow, the parts about who is actually paying for it, the fact it comes with no speed, coverage, or quality guarantees, and starts with a 2GB usage cap on the wireless side will all be left out.

Fortunately, not everyone is as enamored with the ABC Plan as the groups cashing checks written by AT&T.

In addition to state regulators, Consumers Union, the AARP, Free Press, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates are all opposed to the plan, which delivers all of the benefits to giant phone companies while sticking you with the bill.

There is a better way.  State regulators and consumer groups have their own plans which accomplish the same noble goal of delivering subsidies to broadband providers of all kinds without increasing your telephone bill.  It’s up to the FCC to demonstrate it’s not simply a rubber stamp for the schemes being pushed by AT&T and Verizon.

Cable subscribers paying ever-increasing television bills for hundreds of channels they never watch may find some relief if Comcast decides its experiment in “a-la-carte” cable-TV is a success.

The company is testing a new way of selling service that delivers a basic package of channels for a lower price and then offers customers bouquets of add-on channels sold in “theme packs” for $10 apiece.

Comcast is testing what it calls MyTV Choice in parts of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Charleston, South Carolina, and plans to expand it to the Seattle area soon.

Here’s how MyTV Choice works:

Customers start with a basic package of channels that Comcast calls “Get Started” ($24.95) or “Get Started Plus,” which sells for $44.95 a month.

What differentiates the two options are the networks they contain.  Inexpensive cable networks turn up in Get Started — A&E, Discovery, C-SPAN, Animal Planet, Daystar, Food Network, home shopping, and The Weather Channel are among the 32 channels that accompanies a basic package of local channels.

Get Started Plus includes all of those networks plus sports — the budget-busting networks that help keep cable bills growing.  ESPN and other regional sports channels are included in the more expensive package.

Missing from the basic package of channels are kids shows, news, movies, and niche networks.  That’s where Comcast’s “Choice” packs come into play.  Customers can add a 19-channel News & Info pack, 31-channel Entertainment & Lifestyle pack, 16-channel Movie pack, and/or an 11-channel Kids pack for $10 each.

That’s where the “choice” ends.  Customers cannot skip the basic channel package to select only one of the theme packages, individual channels are not for sale, and anywhere outside of Charleston, customers also have to buy phone and Internet service from Comcast. HD also costs extra.

So much for a lower bill.

In fact, Comcast sells a digital cable package incorporating a full lineup of basic cable channels for just under $60.  If your family loves sports, has kids, and needs news channels, sticking with the digital cable package is actually cheaper than MyTV Choice.  That’s because the latter will require a $44.95 base package, plus three theme packs for an additional $30 a month.

Comcast denies their experimental a-la-carte package has anything to do with cord-cutting Internet viewers.

“It’s more or less responding to feedback from customers that they want more choice,” Comcast spokesman Bill Ferry told the Post & Courier.

While Ferry and others argue the pay-per-channel is not economically feasible, Christopher C. King, a telecom analyst for Stifel Nicolaus in Baltimore told the newspaper that is the trend.

“Certainly the industry’s moving more toward an a la carte model,” King said.

Theme-packs are not a new concept for some pay television viewers.  In the 1980s and 1990s, consumers owning large 6-to-12 foot satellite dishes routinely encountered the channel bouquet concept.  Customers would purchase a basic package and then select from a dozen or more mini-tiers, usually made up of networks owned by one company.  Want TBS and TNT?  Turner Broadcasting sold an add-on with those two channels.  Wanted a superstation package?  Channels uplinked by cable companies like TCI from Denver could be purchased as a small package.  So could stations like WSBK in Boston, WWOR and WPIX in New York, KTVT in Dallas and KTLA in Los Angeles.

Comcast has “simplified” things with a much smaller set of choices.  But that also dramatically limits any potential savings.

The concept of a-la-carte cable horrifies cable companies and their Wall Street shareholders, because a true “pay-per-channel” offer would dramatically cut the average revenue earned per subscriber if customers took a hatchet to the bloated channel packages most customers receive today.

Cable operators have resisted the concept because every channel would have to be encrypted to sell individually, billing would become more complicated, and the business model of niche-oriented networks supported by more popular fare would end.  That’s why programmers hate the idea as well.  While A&E, TNT, and CNN would have no trouble surviving, networks like Current TV, TV One, Hallmark, Cloo, and LOGO probably would not.

More importantly, many subscribers might find savings elusive from a-la-carte, because the most expensive cable programming networks also happen to be among the most popular.  ESPN and Fox News Channel, for example, have dramatically increased their rates to cable companies, who helpfully pass them along to you.  But if cable operators suddenly stripped those networks out of basic packages, while leaving the much cheaper networks together in broad-based theme packages like “lifestyle and entertainment,” subscribers may howl in protest or accuse the cable operator of playing politics.

It gets even harder when the cable companies selling the big packages of channels customers never watch also happen to own some of the networks found within those packages.  Comcast shareholders may not like the cable side of the business kicking lucrative NBC-owned and operated cable networks like The Weather Channel, USA, E!, Cloo, and other owned networks to a-la-carte Siberia.  Every cable subscriber pays for Cloo and E! today.  How many will choose to pay for those networks under an “a-la-carte” model is an open question.

Only two cable operators have expressed an interest in switching to a true, a-la-carte model to date — Suddenlink and Mediacom — both small, regional players that have no programming interests and lack sufficient buying power to score the kinds of discounts available to companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable — discounts they can have if they agree to keep as many channels bundled in one digital cable package as possible.

South Africa’s largest Internet Service Provider, the former state-owned telephone company Telkom, has introduced uncapped broadband service across the country.

Telkom’s Do Uncapped offering removes usage limits after “intensive market research” and “data usage trials” concluded South African consumers absolutely despise usage limits on their Internet access.

In fact, in overwhelming numbers, consumers preferred unlimited access over faster broadband speed packages.  Even throttled “fair use” policies which slightly reduce speeds during peak usage periods are more tolerable than restricted usage allowances, overlimit fees, and punishing “dial-up” speeds when customers exceed their usage limit.

“To feed the hunger for data, Telkom has tailored its Do Uncapped range according to consumer usage patterns derived from findings of the Company’s broadband trials on higher cap trials conducted earlier this year,” the company said in a statement.

Inexpensive, lower speed offerings are available at 384kbps and 1Mbps, but do come with certain daytime speed restrictions, especially on peer to peer traffic.  The premium 4Mbps package is truly unlimited.

South Africa’s challenged telephone network has resulted in relatively low broadband speeds when compared against Asia, North America, and Europe, but the unlimited offerings are being welcomed by Telkom customers across the country.

Because DSL service from the phone company has traditionally been slow and, until recently, expensive, many South Africans rely primarily on wireless mobile services, which can be more reliable in some parts of the country.  Some purchase wireless broadband service from providers like MTN instead of DSL from the phone company.

As a home broadband replacement, wireless mobile broadband has always meant compromising on usage, because most plans are heavily capped and some block access to certain web content.  But MTN is responding to Telkom’s move away from usage caps by removing them from its own wireless network, at least during a promotion.

MTN is kicking off the South African summer with its newest promotion, unlimited speed and uncapped wireless data access on the company’s HSPA+ network, effective Oct. 1.

The limits stay off until the end of summer — Jan 2012.

“We have seen a significant number of our customers taking up latest smartphones, tablet PCs, wireless routers and laptop deals that MTN is offering,” said Serame Taukobong, MTN South Africa Chief Marketing Officer. “This promotion is a response to the increased data appetite that comes with the usage of these devices.”

That’s an attitude foreign to North American mobile operators, who see those devices as enemies of their wireless network (or the basis for future profits).  In South Africa, consumers adopting new wireless devices and increased usage has triggered a marketplace response that eases or ends usage caps.  In North America, the opposite is happening.

MTN has slashed its mobile broadband prices over the course of 2011 for the highest speed, unlimited access package from a budget-busting $248 a month to $111 a month.  A slower speed unlimited package now sells for $37 a month.  That becomes very affordable for Internet users who use their mobile devices exclusively for access.  Even a package selling over $100 a month may be comparably affordable to an American who is required to maintain a home broadband and mobile broadband account.

MTN even allows wireless peer to peer traffic, but the company asks subscribers to be reasonable and not leave it running 24/7.