Verizon delivers fiber-to-the-home service over its FiOS network.

Verizon Communications says it will not run an Internet Overcharging scheme on its wired broadband customers.

The company that knows about investment and upgrading their networks like few others — bringing true, fiber-to-the-home FiOS service to customers across several states — says it has no need to impose usage caps or metered billing on its wired broadband customers.

“This is something we have looked at in the past, and we’ll continue to evaluate what’s best to ensure our customers get the best broadband service for the best value,” Verizon spokesman Bill Kula told Broadband Reports. “We have no plans to implement usage-based pricing for our fixed broadband customers,” Kula says.

Verizon’s announcement provides additional ammunition against AT&T’s unjustified 150-250GB usage caps over claims it faces congestion issues.

The company doesn’t share AT&T’s “congestion problem,” probably for two reasons:

1. Because it does not exist.
2. Verizon has upgraded their network to keep up with demand, winning new customers with their top-rated FiOS fiber to the home network.

Karl Bode sees right through AT&T’s arguments:

If you believe AT&T’s claim that the new pricing is about congestion and not about protecting U-Verse revenues from a Internet video — and many don’t — Verizon’s decision to spend $24 billion on upgrading more than half of their network to fiber to the home would make a Verizon decision to follow suit a very tough sell. AT&T has previously stated their last-mile customers see little to no congestion, and Verizon’s seeing even less.

Kula notes Verizon doesn’t oppose the use of usage caps, but their TOS allows them to handle any users they deem particularly gluttonous, and even then — Verizon makes it clear to us they’ve never disconnected one of these users. “Verizon terms of service were written in a way to allow us to terminate users if they violate our acceptable use policy, and excessive use ‘could’ constitute a violation,” says Kula. “However, we’ve not disconnected any consumer, small business or mass market customers to date.”

Stop the Cap! has never objected to terms and conditions which provide an escape clause for a provider that encounters a customer creating significant problems on its network, such as e-mail spamming, illegal activity, or causing serious problems for other users.  These terms and conditions are a part of every Acceptable Use Policy, and responsible providers don’t activate those provisions on a whim.

It’s too bad some AT&T customers can’t choose an alternative to a company who promised great things with U-verse, and then put unjustified limits on customer enjoyment.

AT&T's Fairy Tales of Broadband Congestion

Just a few days after Broadband Reports broke the news AT&T was imposing an Internet Overcharging scheme on its broadband customers, evidence continues to arrive illustrating the company’s planned usage limits are more about protecting their U-verse video business than actually controlling “heavy users.”

Dave Burstein, a well-known industry analyst who has tracked the broadband universe for years was so miffed about the nonsense he was reading in the Wall Street Journal, he picked up the phone and called the AT&T spokesperson who claimed the company was overburdened by heavy users:

Mark Siegal, AT&T’s top flack, hung up the phone on me when I said his comment to the Wall Street Journal was apparently a lie. It’s prohibitively unlikely their DSL cap “is to ensure the quality of the customer experience” necessary to solve “congestion in certain points of the network and interfering with other people’s access.” I’m certain that far less than 1% of the time do AT&T DSL customers have any impact from congestion. I’m pretty confident it’s less than 1/10th of 1% and probably less than 1/100th of 1%. My sources that wireline congestion on AT&T is minimal include statements from two CTOs of the company. Cheng, now a veteran in D.C., knew the comment was misleading at best. A mantra in D.C. is “wireline may not have congestion but wireless is different.” It was Sunday and perhaps hard to factcheck, but he’ll easily confirm the problem on Monday.

AT&T has long maintained they have a more robust network and cable is the one with “bandwidth hog” problems. But Comcast’s cap was 60% higher than AT&T and Comcast has said they will raise it. AT&T has gone 13 years without caps on their DSL network because they said they didn’t need them. Traffic growth is actually down slightly (Cisco, Odlyzko) so there’s only one reason to impose caps now: their video service, U-Verse, has become a $5B business. They don’t want people to be able to cut the cord and watch all their video over the net. 150 gigabytes is 40-80 hours of U-Verse quality TV, far less than the average U-Verse user watches.

In fact, AT&T is one of America’s largest Internet Service Providers, and maintains an important role in America’s Internet backbone.  As one of the largest providers, AT&T doesn’t worry about broadband traffic like a small wireless ISP does.  Its broadband pipes from the middle-mile to their nationwide network offers near limitless capacity thanks to fiber optic technology.  In fact, AT&T’s theoretical “bottlenecks” occur in the “last mile” of the network, from the phone company’s central switching offices or its interface between a fiber connection and the plain old copper wires that work their way into your home or business.

But first, a word about costs.

Dave Burstein

We have new evidence from both Burstein and the Internet Overcharging drama unfolding in Canada that providers literally pay pennies per gigabyte of traffic.  In fact, the broadband traffic customers generate represents only 2%-5% of what we pay for broadband in both countries.  Burstein uses some of Craig Moffett’s prolific comments in the media against his own argument for Internet Overcharging.  Moffett, a Wall Street analyst, is not alone when he reports broadband margins are as high as 90%, according to official company filings.  John Hodulik from UBS joins him.

Burstein gives providers’ argued need for increased investment to keep up with demand the benefit of the doubt and is willing to suggest profit margins at a reduced 75%.  In either case, running a large broadband network is a veritable license to print money in North America.  The costs to provide the service keep dropping, and providers keep on raising prices.

Burstein was generous with Comcast when he called their 250GB usage limit imposed in 2008 “fair.”  But as Stop the Cap! has argued, Comcast — like other Internet Overchargers — has not grown the cap over time, even as their costs decline.  In fact, customers are probably lucky the country’s largest cable operator hasn’t reduced it, as providers in Canada have done repeatedly. Burstein calls on Comcast to honor their promise and raise their cap.

Burstein also notes the rest of the world enjoys lower prices, more competition, and often faster service — with providers across the board still enjoying considerable profits.

But why not here?

America’s broadband market is a monopoly or duopoly in virtually every American city.  One cable operator and one telephone company deliver service to the vast majority of American broadband users.  Wireless providers are largely owned by legacy phone companies and strictly limit usage.  Without significant competition, providers can raise prices at will and milk profits to sustain their balance sheets even as other business divisions suffer from a downturned economy or shifting cultural changes.  The “landline” is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and cable television provided by cable and phone companies could face cord cutting from consumers watching their favorite shows over their broadband connections.

Broadband service carries up to a 90 percent profit margin

Burstein tracks the business model:

15 gigabytes/month: The average (mean) user in the U.S., per Cisco’s respected VNI survey and numerous comments from the major companies.

Going Down: Bandwidth usage growth per customer. The rate has been about 30% per year, with the rate slightly falling the last few years. The growth in average usage is actually going down slightly, per Cisco VNI and the MINTS data of Professor Andrew Odlyzko.

Going Down: Capital investment required. In 2009, AT&T cut U-Verse by 1/3rd. In 2010, Verizon cut FiOS by 2/3rds. John Stankey of AT&T has said they will cut U-Verse much further after this year. Fran Shammo of Verizon says “Wireline will continue to come down year over year.” Cablecos have been dropping capex as a % of sales and often in absolute dollars. According to a recent survey by Heavy Reading, 70% of the cable networks have been upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0 already. There’s no significant capital spending beyond that at least until mid-decade. The Columbia University CITI report to the broadband plan aggregated analysts forecast and predicted a drop in overall capital spending on broadband, particularly in wireline. The primary capital spending for wired broadband is behind us, with few significant network buildouts in the next five years or longer.

Going Up: Profit Margins. Prices for broadband have generally been going up in the U.S. since 2007 while costs drop. Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and most others have raised their broadband prices and ARPU. They also have (modestly) raised the prices of triple play including broadband, according to Dave Barden of Bank of America. Capex is dropping pretty dramatically while other operating costs are also falling. Customer support costs have gone down as few new customers (who need more support) are added. Modems and other gear continue dropping in price. Costs down, prices up = higher profits. Both Stankey and Shammo pointed to improved margins.

AT&T DSL (left) vs. AT&T U-verse (right): Hunting season on customers of both is now open.

AT&T argues their usage caps are less about the money and more about dealing with network congestion.  But does that play out?

AT&T has a convenient argument to use, which several journalists have come to believe gives the company a track record of being victimized by “heavy users.”  Namely, their network congestion brought about by the flood of iPhone users on AT&T Mobility’s cellular network.  Even if a reporter does not understand the profound differences between a wired and wireless broadband network, they have heard about AT&T’s problems coping with their wireless traffic.

In short, the company underestimated demand from its exclusive deal with Apple for the wildly popular phone, and refused to invest adequately to mitigate overcongested cities.  Instead, it spent millions lobbying for permission to “manage” the traffic with artificially-slowed speeds, usage limits, confiscatory overlimit penalties, and even some equipment to offload wireless users onto home broadband connections (for which AT&T still deducts airtime and data usage from your wireless allowance.)  Robust Wi-Fi also tries to drive customers off of AT&T’s inadequate 3G network.

For home broadband users who will be affected by AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme, let’s break them into two separate categories: DSL customers who face a 150GB cap and U-verse customers who will get a 250GB allowance.

AT&T DSL is a legacy product dependent on traditional copper wire phone lines.  Available in many areas unserved by U-verse, this technology typically provides up to 6Mbps service — often slower, sometimes higher.  The distance between the phone company office and one’s home usually determines what speeds customers receive.  In rural areas, 1-3Mbps is often typical.  In some urban areas, higher speeds are sometimes possible.  DSL is not a “shared” technology like cable broadband.  Each DSL customer has their own line between their home and central office (or remote repeater).  From there, a connection from the central office to AT&T’s backbone is made over a middle mile network.

AT&T U-verse VRADs (a/k/a 'lawn refrigerators') in Houston, Tex. (Courtesy: Swapdisk)

But AT&T’s DSL customers are already constrained by the reduced speeds DSL provides them.  It is unlikely a customer with 3Mbps DSL service is going to present much of a traffic challenge to a multi-billion dollar company unless they purposely under-invest in network upgrades.

Where congestion does exist, it occurs at the central office — usually because the company inadequately provisioned a sufficiently large data pipe to handle the traffic.  Since these circuits are increasingly fiber-based, congestion issues disappear when AT&T uses technology from this century instead of the last.

AT&T argues heavy users are overburdening their DSL lines, but their prescription makes no sense.  The company says, despite the alleged traffic jam, it is more than willing to sell users additional capacity for $10 per 50GB increment.  If AT&T’s aim was to cut congestion, they would be unwilling to sell additional capacity they don’t have to customers who need it.

A usage cap on AT&T’s new U-verse platform makes even less sense and opens a political minefield.

When one pushes away the promotional and marketing glitz AT&T provides when pitching U-verse, you are left looking at just one thing — a high speed broadband connection.  AT&T’s entire platform of television, phone, and broadband all resides on that single, super-speed broadband pipeline.

AT&T has built this super fast pipe with a combination of fiber optic cables and copper phone wires.  It uses fiber, which doesn’t degrade with distance the way copper wire connections do, to reduce the amount of copper phone wiring between your home and AT&T.  With this “fiber to the neighborhood” approach, AT&T can create a robust pipeline which can accommodate multiple television channels, a phone line, and your broadband connection all running concurrently.

AT&T only seeks to limit one part of that connection, however: the broadband service you could theoretically use to bypass AT&T’s television and phone service in favor of another provider.  It’s the same platform — only the services are different.

AT&T claims network congestion is a problem for U-verse as well, which is a controversial claim to make considering AT&T designed U-verse with excess capacity that goes unused to this day.

What does AT&T’s U-verse network look like?

AT&T’s regional offices maintain watch over their U-verse network of TV, Internet, and phone services.  This portion of the network is entirely fiber-based.  From there, fiber extends to individual central offices, part of the company’s middle-mile network.  AT&T’s fiber journey typically ends at large metal cabinets strategically placed in different neighborhoods.  These “Video Ready Access Devices” (VRADs) are probably familiar to you if you live in an AT&T area.  Sometimes derided as “lawn refrigerators,” the huge metal cabinets contain the interface between the fiber optic network and the copper wire telephone lines running to your home.

It’s this “choke point” AT&T tries to claim as a point of congestion.  If enough customers use their connection at the same time, it can “overburden” the network.  But can it, really?

Early adopters of U-verse pestered AT&T engineers about the network as it was constructed and learned a lot about it.

Phil Karn has been a U-verse customer since November 2009 and has become an expert on how his U-verse service works, and importantly how it holds back a considerable amount of available bandwidth.

An AT&T engineer “tried to tell me that the network equipment was like the engine in a sports car. You don’t want to drive it at the red line all the time because that will wear it out. I don’t know if he was told to use that analogy or if he came up with it on his own, but needless to say it’s a pretty silly one. And completely inapplicable,” Karn shares on his website.

He then claimed, rather weakly, that backhaul capacity considerations from the VRAD limit how much can be offered to each individual subscriber. This argument might even have begun to hold water except for the numbers he then provided. The VRADs, he said, are connected by 10 gigabit Ethernet over fiber, and each VRAD serves upwards of 200 homes. Let’s see…10 gigabits over 200 homes is 50 megabits per home. My [U-Verse] link runs at 32.2Mbps.

The whole point is that it doesn’t really matter how fast or slow the backhaul from the VRAD may be. With modern Internet routers and priority [Quality of Service] mechanisms, there is no reason to force capacity to remain idle when a user could be using it. Not unless, of course, you’re trying to maintain the public impression that broadband capacity is really scarce and expensive.

Karn

In fact, because few Internet users fully drive their broadband connections on a continuous basis, it can be argued that continuous video streams delivered to television sets left on in the homes of U-verse customers for hours at a time present a bigger “congestion” problem for AT&T, at least at this point in their network.  But the company has no plans to limit television viewing — only their broadband Internet service.

U-verse is AT&T’s answer to slow speed DSL, and part of how the company intends to stay relevant as landline customers depart.  But the company’s business plan depends on a certain percentage of customers subscribing to their pricey television service.  Should AT&T’s broadband customers decide to stop paying for television service, watching everything online instead, that threatens a $5 billion dollar business.

Burstein predicted this scenario when he discussed it with former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

“In 2005, Kevin Martin discussed with me the issue of what he would do if AT&T favored U-verse. I believe he felt he would have to act, but at that point hoped competition would prevent him from facing that decision. Now AT&T’s multi-million dollar über-lobbyist Jim Cicconi has presumably told them [current FCC Chairman] Julius Genachowski is sufficiently under control he won’t do anything about this.”

In the end, many of AT&T’s arguments simply are incoherent.  If only a small handful of AT&T customers are creating such a dilemma for the company it has to inconvenience every customer with a usage limit, AT&T has a much larger problem to contend with.  Furthermore, the company’s existing acceptable use policy already includes provisions for dealing with users that create problems on their network, all without bothering everyone else.

Frontier Communications is trying to enforce an Internet Overcharging scheme it deleted from its Acceptable Use Policy months earlier, telling customers the company generously extended them an allowance “well above our usual 5GB monthly limit,” but using 100GB per month is “just too much.”

Customers in suburban Sacramento are the latest recipients of letters some are calling “extortion,” giving them seven days to call the company with a promise to cut back or move up to “the next price tier,” priced at $99.99 per month.

Ironically, some of Frontier’s customers receiving the letter say it’s the company’s own fault — they’ve been watching Frontier’s heavily promoted online video website, ‘my fitv.’

“You may not be aware that your specific usage has consistently exceeded 100GB over a 30-day period.  This is excessive for residential usage and more represents the amount of bandwidth usage of a typical business,” the letter says.  “If you wish to maintain your current pricing plan, you may work with us to reduce your Internet usage.  Another option is to move to the next price tier of $99.99 per month, which reflects your current average monthly usage.”

The letter adds if the customer does not make a decision, the company will terminate the account in 20 days.  No word if the customer is on the hook for an early termination fee amounting to more than $100 in most cases.

The customer who received the letter, who lives in Elk Grove and wishes to remain anonymous, was highly annoyed.  He sent Stop the Cap! a screenshot of Frontier’s new “Flexnet/Account Editor,” poorly documented on Frontier’s own website, which shows over the last three months, he only broke the invisible 100GB Frontier barrier once, by just 38GB.  For that, Frontier wants to more than double his monthly Internet rate for its DSL service.

The monthly usage limit was news to him… and us… and everyone else.

A well-placed source at Frontier tells Stop the Cap! the company is making the rules up as it goes.

“There is no set plan here — Frontier’s corporate office is testing the waters in different communities to see what kind of response they get,” our source says. “We have been quietly collecting usage statistics on our customers for a year now, and here and there we are chasing those outliers using far above the norm in order to keep our costs as low as possible.”

Our source adds the company wants to keep bad publicity to a minimum, so these kinds of Overcharging schemes are not publicized, and unless customers make a federal case out of it, most will simply reduce usage to avoid the overlimit rates.

“They absolutely do not want a big political stink over this, because it creates headaches and leaves customers with a negative impression about the company and that usually means a disconnect order will follow, usually taking all of their business somewhere else.  That’s why we usually are strictest in places where the customer has nowhere else to go.”

Our reader was perplexed by the letter, the policy, and his options, especially since Frontier does not disclose either a usage limit or a $99.99 plan on their website.

“The [representative] from Frontier told me that the monthly usage limit is 5GB. I told him this is not enough for checking e-mail and surfing the web and reading news.” our reader writes. “He did not answer [when I challenged him about this].”

But no worries, the representative told the Elk Grove customer. If he exceeded 100GB of usage again, he’d automatically be billed the $99.99 rate — no decision needed.

Our reader adds when he signed up, nobody told him about a monthly limit, and there is none disclosed on the website.  Stop the Cap! fought to remove Frontier’s 5GB usage limit from its Acceptable Use Policy for more than a year, finally succeeding earlier this year.  But now it appears Frontier wants to enforce limits anyway, with no disclosure and little recourse for customers who don’t have access to a competing provider.

Before our reader started watching online video, he used about 16GB per month just web browsing, checking e-mail, and downloading the usual software updates.

Didn’t that put him over Frontier’s invisible 5GB cap already?

“The representative told me if I kept it under 50GB a month, I’d be safe,” our reader writes.

So is the usage cap 50 or 100GB per month?

Our customer exceeded Frontier's arbitrary, unpublished usage cap just once in the last three months (click to enlarge)

Stop the Cap! called Frontier customer service three times this morning as a potential new customer.  The responses we received:

• “There is no usage cap I am aware of.”
• “We don’t limit your Internet service.”
• “I don’t understand what you mean when you say limit?  We don’t censor websites.”

Sandy, who also contacted Stop the Cap! also received a letter, and ironically blames Frontier for the usage.

Frontier's own video website was responsible for one customer using "too much" Frontier Internet service.

“I received a warning letter from Frontier for using too much Internet, but get this — all of the growth in my usage came after the company started promoting its new online video website, which my family has fallen in love with,” Sandy writes. “We hooked up a video box on our television, something Frontier helped us with, and we’ve been streaming my fitv a lot.”

“That is extortion plain and simple and is illegal under California state law, especially because the representative told us we’d be charged $99.99 the moment we went over the limit again, and we are on a two-year ‘price protection agreement’ Frontier says locks in our price, which is a lie,” Sandy says.

Her next call was to the California State Attorney General.  Sandy was told the office has already received more than a dozen complaints from Frontier customers in the Sacramento area alleging violations of California contract law.

Jeff, a Broadband Reports reader, also received a letter from Frontier and was told the company was getting plenty of pushback from angry customers.

“The tech guy said they just started metering and have been getting a ton of calls regarding the letters being sent out. He then asked if I got the 100GB or the 250GB letter, as apparently the 250GB warning letters were more severe stating to pay up or get cut off.  The 100GB letter stated they’d work with you to help ease usage or recommended a business plan. They said the “work with you to help with usage” was new and just added if you call within 7 days or else get cut off after 20 days.”

Jeff’s response to all this?

“Comcast is looking better every day now.”

So far, Frontier has not imposed its usage cap on its ex-Verizon FiOS customers.

“Putting a 5, 100, or even 250GB cap on a fiber optic connection would just be plain greed,” says our reader Ajai. “But of course, Frontier needs as much cash as possible to pay out those high dividends to shareholders that often exceed the company’s earnings.  There is nothing to like about this company, period.”

Frontier’s letters sound suspiciously similar to the enforcement letters sent to some of their customers in Mound, Minn. Those letters stopped after Stop the Cap! distributed copies to a wider national audience.  Our source at Frontier says the company doesn’t appreciate our help one bit.

“The higher ups on the corporate level despise your website, but they also pretend to dismiss you as an angry blogger that nobody reads,” our source says.  “I get a laugh out of that whenever I get another memo from the executive office basically delivering talking points to counter your arguments, so they very much do care what you and your readers say and apparently read Stop the Cap! regularly.”

For our source, it’s all “so stupid.”

“Trust me, a lot of guys who deal with customers every day want nothing to do with their usage caps which do nothing but infuriate customers,” he says. “They wonder why people are disconnecting Frontier landlines and taking their Internet business elsewhere — it’s policies exactly like these combined with pretty low speed DSL service which makes our customers easy pickings for our competitors.”

But not every customer has a choice.

“Where we own the broadband market, it’s too bad for customers — either ration your use, pay us double, or go without.  It is as simple as that.”

Almost two years to the day Frontier Communications quietly introduced language in its customer agreements providing a monthly broadband usage allowance of just 5GB per month, the company has quietly removed that language from its terms and conditions.

The 5GB usage allowance was deemed generous by Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter.  Frontier claimed most of its 559,300 broadband subscribers (2008 numbers) consumed less than 1.5 gigabytes per month.  But news of the cap angered customers anyway, particularly in their biggest service area — Rochester, N.Y.  In fact, Frontier’s usage cap was what sparked the launch of Stop the Cap! in the summer of 2008.

While never universally enforced against the company’s DSL customers, Frontier has used that portion of its acceptable use policy to demand up to $250 a month from some “heavy users” in Mound, Minn.

Frontier’s usage limit language also played a role in a major controversy in April, 2009 when Time Warner Cable planned usage limits of their own for western New York customers already faced with Frontier’s 5GB usage limit.

The phone company used Time Warner’s planned usage cap as a marketing tool to switch to Frontier DSL service.

Frontier used Time Warner Cable's usage cap experiment against them in this ad to attract new customers in the spring of 2009.

This website has pounded Frontier for two years over its continued use of the 5GB language as part of its broadband policies.  We raised the issue with several state regulatory bodies as part of Frontier’s purchase of Verizon landlines in several states.  Several state utility commissions raised the usage cap issue with Frontier as a result, deeming it negative for rural broadband customers who would effectively endure rationed broadband service from a de facto monopoly provider.

We also criticized Frontier for promoting its MyFitv service, little more than a website containing Google ads and embedded videos already available on Hulu, while not bothering to tell its customers use of that service on a regular basis would put them perilously close to their 5GB allowance.

In the end, Frontier itself denied they would strictly enforce the 5GB limit, making its continued presence in the company’s terms and conditions illogical.

Now, the company has returned to the earlier language it formerly used, reserving the right to shut you off if you use the service excessively or abusively.  This resembles similar language from most broadband providers.  While not absolute in defining those terms, Frontier doesn’t commit to a specific number either.  Today’s “generous usage allowance” is tomorrow’s “rationing.”

If Frontier cuts off customers for using only a handful of gigabytes a month, deeming it excessive, we want to know about it.

Stop the Cap! opposes all Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, speed throttles, and so-called “consumption billing.”  We believe such limits retard the growth and potential of broadband service and are unwarranted when considering the ongoing decline in costs to provide the service.  We do not oppose providers dealing with customers who create major problems on their networks, but believe those issues are best settled privately between the company and the individual customer.

Providers must also be honest in recognizing that broadband is a dynamic medium.  They have a responsibility to grow their networks to meet demand, especially at current pricing which provides major financial returns for those offering the service.  We also believe broadband tiers should be limited to speed, not consumption.  Customers with higher data demands will naturally gravitate towards higher-priced, faster-speed tiers, providing higher revenue to offset the minimal costs of moving data back and forth.

Broadband customers will be loyal to the providers that treat them right.  We applaud Frontier Communications for finally removing the last vestiges of its infamous 5GB usage allowance.  Hopefully, going forward, Frontier will spend its time, energy and money improving its broadband service instead of trying to convince customers to use less of it.

While several residents of Mound, Minnesota try to negotiate to keep their broadband service from Frontier Communications after the company sent them letters threatening to cut off their service, a Rochester, N.Y. television station handed over five minutes of airtime during its morning newscast that was little more than a promotion piece for Frontier’s broadband packages, right down to quoting inaccurate pricing, but no time to mention to viewers the company maintains a 5GB “appropriate usage limit” in its Acceptable Use Policy.

WHAM-TV ran a virtual infomercial (thanks to PreventCAPS for the tip) that was supposed to be about changing service providers, but devolved into a promotional puff piece for Frontier.  Among the services promoted were high bandwidth applications you can ostensibly use with Frontier DSL, despite the company’s continued insistence on defining an acceptable amount of usage at a level so low, you can’t possibly use those applications much and stay within the limits.

Michael Johns, from Frontier’s Network Operations Center misquoted Frontier’s own rates for DSL service, claiming the company sells service for between $18-26 a month, which seemed quite low.  We called Frontier Communications this morning to ask for those prices, telling the representative we saw them on WHAM’s sister CW Network station “CW16.”  The customer service representative in DeLand, Florida didn’t know what we were talking about.

In fact, we were quoted a far higher price for Frontier High-Speed Internet Lite – 768kbps service, with no term commitments starting at $39.99 a month. The representative claimed they could reduce the price, but only with a multi-year term commitment and a service bundle that included phone service. Even with those discounts, the price was still more than $20 a month. Considering Frontier’s term commitments carry a steep early disconnect penalty, there isn’t much value to be found here.

For standard 10Mbps DSL service, $26 a month isn’t going to get you far. In fact, Frontier wants around $45 a month for the service, not including a modem rental fee/equipment charge of $4 per month. Again, there were some discounts available for bundling, but they always carried those pesky term commitments and never brought the price down to what Johns claimed was available.

Michael Johns (left) from Frontier speaks with WHAM reporter Evan Dawson (right)

Also along for the ride was a hard sell for add on products like “anti-spam technology,” hard drive backup, technical support for your computer and Internet service — each carrying an additional monthly price.

Getting Frontier pinned down on prices is next to impossible as the representative kept coming back with new offers when I didn’t agree to “begin the sign up process today.” Apparently there is plenty of room for negotiation when signing up for Frontier service in a market where Time Warner Cable eats their DSL service for breakfast.

But the most fun came last when I asked about Frontier 5GB monthly usage allowance. The representative promised me “we don’t do that in your area so you can ignore that,” and “we’re never going to hold you to that. It’s there so we can control the pirate downloaders.” When I asked why Mound, Minnesota was apparently a hotbed of pirates (who knew?) the representative didn’t understand what I was talking about. When I explained, she put me on hold and came back apparently now acquainted with Frontier’s experimental hard capping in Mound, and asked me how I found out about that.

How did I, indeed.

If such experiments are deemed successful by the company, all of Frontier’s customers will find out about them soon enough.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHAM Rochester Changing Your Internet Provider 5-3-10.flv[/flv]

On Monday, WHAM-TV’s sister station “CW16” handed over five minutes of the morning news for an extended-length commercial for Frontier Communications.  Judge for yourself whether this story was about how to change providers or how to change to Frontier DSL.  (5 minutes)