The slow lane

Frontier Communications customers in West Virginia are part of a filed class-action lawsuit alleging the phone company has violated the state’s Consumer Credit and Protection Act for failing to deliver the high-speed Internet service it promises.

The lawsuit, filed in Lincoln County Circuit Court, claims Frontier is advertising fast Internet speeds up to 12Mbps, but often delivers far less than that, especially in rural areas where the company is accused of throttling broadband speeds to less than 1Mbps. The suit also alleges Frontier’s broadband service is highly unreliable.

“The Internet service provided by Frontier does not come anywhere close to the speeds advertised,” wrote Benjamin Sheridan, the Hurricane lawyer filing the lawsuit on behalf of three Frontier customers. The attorney is seeking to have the case designated a class action lawsuit that would cover Frontier customers across the state.

“Although we cannot guarantee Internet speeds due to numerous factors, such as traffic on the Internet and the capabilities of a customer’s computer, Frontier tested each plaintiff’s line and found that in all cases the service met or exceeded the ‘up to’ broadband speeds to which they subscribed,” Frontier spokesperson Dan Page told the Charleston Gazette. “Nonetheless, the plaintiffs filed their case in Lincoln County, where none of them lives. If necessary, we are prepared to defend ourselves in court and bring the facts to light.”

Frontier’s general manager in West Virginia, Dana Waldo, may have helped the plaintiffs when he seemed to admit Frontier was purposely throttling the Internet speeds of its customers, a move Sheridan claims saves Frontier “a fortune” in connectivity costs with wholesale broadband providers like Sprint and AT&T.

Sheridan

“If as you suggest, we ‘opened up the throttle’ for every served customer, it could create congestion problems resulting in degradation of speed for all customers,” according to Waldo as part of an email exchange with one of the class members cited in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also cites a state report issued over the summer that found just 12 percent of Frontier customers receive Internet speeds that actually qualify as “broadband” under federal and state standards. Frontier’s speed ranking is the slowest of any provider in the state. That is especially significant because Frontier is the largest ISP in West Virginia, and is often the only choice rural residents have for broadband service.

Frontier dismissed the state’s report claiming it was based on voluntary speed tests performed by disgruntled customers.

“As we’ve said before, the speed tests are the result of self-selected, self-reported samples,” Page said. “People who take speed tests tend to be those with speed problems or low speeds.”

“Even if that were true, it doesn’t account for Frontier’s poor performance,” said Frontier customer William Henley. “If every person that ran a speed test in West Virginia was annoyed with their provider, Frontier still came in last place.”

Frontier’s competitors scored better:

• Comcast: 88% of customers met or exceeded state and federal standards;
• Suddenlink Communications: 80%
• Time Warner Cable: 77%
• Shentel: 71%
• Armstrong Cable: 67%
• LUMOS Networks: 44%

“…Frontier’s practice of overcharging and failing to provide the high-speed, broadband-level of service it advertises has created high profits for Frontier but left Internet users in the digital Dark Age,” Sheridan wrote. “As a result, students are prevented from being able to do their homework, and rural consumers are unable to utilize the Internet in a way that gives them equal footing with those in an urban environment.”

Sheridan also accused Frontier of delivering its fastest speeds only in areas where it faces competition. Where there is none, Frontier can afford to go slow.

But slow speed is not the only issue. One plaintiff — April Morgan in Marion County — says she has to reset her modem up to 10 times a day to stay connected to the Internet. Her modem has been replaced several times by Frontier, but that has done little to solve her problem.

Frontier customers who check the company’s terms of service agreement may question whether Sheridan can get very far suing the company. A clause in the contract states customers must settle disputes only through binding arbitration or small claims court. Individual lawsuits, jury trials, and class-action cases are prohibited.

Sheridan points out customers have to go online to read the agreement – it is not provided to customers signing up for Internet service. A contract that forces customers to agree to its terms without getting informed consent may turn out not very binding under West Virginia law.

Lincoln County Judge Jay Hoke, assigned to hear the case, will likely face that matter in pre-trial motions.

West Virginia residents interested in the class action case can register here for updates.

Two class-action lawsuits were filed Tuesday on behalf of Time Warner Cable customers in 29 states to force the company to refund ill-gotten modem rental fees in violation of consumer fraud laws.

“It’s a massive hi-tech consumer fraud accomplished by low-tech methods,” said attorney Steven L. Wittels. “Send customers confusing notice of the fee in a junk mail postcard they’ll throw in the garbage, sock them with a $500 million dollar a year rate hike, then announce on your website that customer satisfaction is your #1 priority. That’s some way to deliver satisfaction.”

The context for the class action suit is that Time Warner Cable began imposing the fee Nov. 1 without giving customers appropriate notification. New York City residents had little more than two weeks notice in the form of a poorly printed postcard. Some residents in western New York and other cities have still not received notification from the cable company, either on bills or in the mail.

The two lawsuits were brought on behalf of Manhattan resident Kathleen McNally and Fort Lee, N.J. resident Natalie Lenett, but the suit asks the court to order refunds for all Time Warner Cable customers charged modem fees across their national service area.

The Consumerist thought the company’s failure to meet the timely notification requirement about the forthcoming modem rental fee might have the cable company dead to rights:

Pricing and Service Changes

Unless otherwise provided by applicable law, Time Warner Cable will notify you 30 days in advance of any price or service change. Notice of these changes may be provided on your monthly bill, as a bill insert, as a separate mailing, in the Legal Notice section of the newspaper, on the cable system channel(s) or through other written means.

But on closer examination, that provision only applies to pricing and service changes for Time Warner Cable’s television service, not broadband or home phone service.

In fact, Time Warner Cable’s new Subscriber Agreement has reserved the right to change just about anything it likes, just by updating the terms and conditions on its website:

We May Change our Customer Agreements

(a) We may change our Customer Agreements by amending the on-line version of the relevant document.  Unless you have entered into an Addendum that ensures a fixed price for a period of time (for instance, a Price Lock Guarantee Addendum), we may also change the prices for our services or the manner in which we charge for them.

(b) If you continue to use the Services following any change in our Customer Agreements, prices or other policies, you will have accepted the changes (in other words, made them legally binding).  If you do not agree to the changes, you will need to contact your local TWC office to cancel your Services.

(c) Any changes to our Customer Agreements are intended to be prospective only.  In other words, the amended version of the relevant document only becomes binding on you as of the date that we make the change.

One significant change Time Warner inserted in its Subscriber Agreement (the one printed in tiny print on tissue-thin paper, occasionally mailed with your bill) was deemed so important, it appears highlighted and in bold language:

Time Warner Cable now requires customers to submit disputes individually to binding arbitration, denying the right to bring or participate in any class action case. However, customers can opt-out of this provision simply by notifying the company through an online form. (You will need your Time Warner Cable account number.)

In practice, this would require McNally, Lenett, and millions of other customers to individually submit to a time-consuming arbitration proceeding — all to fight a $3.95 monthly fee. Few would bother. Wittels told The Consumerist the lawsuit still has merits because of other language Time Warner Cable maintains in its agreement which he believes holds the door open to a class action challenge.

Although customers are invited to purchase their own cable modem equipment to avoid the fee, the lawyers involved say the options are limited and expensive.

AT&T will begin sending out anti-piracy warning notices to subscribers caught downloading copyrighted content from torrent sites starting Nov. 28.

The new anti-piracy measures are part of a joint agreement between the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and five major national ISPs to help curtail content theft.

TorrentFreak obtained internal AT&T training documents that outline how AT&T will deal with customers suspected of illicit downloading. After a series of warnings, AT&T intends to block access to websites suspected of copyright infringement until a customer successfully completes a course on online copyright law. Eventually, those caught repeatedly downloading pirated movies and music could face legal action after AT&T turns over the identities of suspect customers. Gone from early draft proposals are suggestions that ISPs will throttle or suspend service altogether for repeat violators.

Late reports indicate that other ISPs participating in the copyright enforcement action — Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon — will also launch their own programs on the same date.

Most at risk are customers who frequent peer-to-peer file sharing sites. Tracking BitTorrent traffic is a priority for the newly-launched Center for Copyright Information (CCI) — a joint venture run by the ISPs in coordination with the MPAA and RIAA.

While not all peer-to-peer file traffic consists of illicit swapping of copyrighted works, some high profile torrent sites are among the first choices for consumers looking for free movies or music. CCI believes its Copyright Alert System (CAS) is primarily an educational tool for consumers who may not realize they are stealing copyrighted content. With its “six warnings” policy, CCI wants consumers to take action to protect themselves, their Internet accounts, and home networks well before any legal action is taken.

The latest implementation of the Copyright Alert System has watered down some of its earlier provisions, which could have put a customer’s Internet account at risk of being speed throttled or canceled. For now, consumers will receive six warnings about any suspected copyright infringement:

• The first three strikes carry no consequences and are intended to serve as informational warnings that the downloading of copyrighted content may be taking place;
• The fourth and fifth strikes will trigger forced browser redirects to a copyright education page and an online course on copyright law that must be successfully completed before the customer can once again visit suspect websites;
• Strike six means AT&T (and presumably other ISPs) will turn over the IP addresses of repeat offenders and comply with any subsequent court orders requesting the identity of the customer for possible legal action. AT&T does not say it will terminate the customer’s account, but does remind customers to be mindful of its Acceptable Use Policy, which does allow them to terminate service for illegal acts.

Edward Stroz

Consumers caught allegedly downloading copyrighted content can protest their innocence, but a $35 refundable filing fee is required to begin the arbitration process. If a consumer proves the files downloaded were not illegally obtained or that their account was flagged in error, they can have the warning canceled and get their filing fee refunded. But there are no penalties for CCI, its copyright tracking arm run by MarkMonitor, or the ISP if the copyright tracking system gets it wrong.

Critics of the copyright enforcement scheme claim it delivers too many benefits for CCI and its industry backers and insufficient protection for consumers misidentified during copyright infringement dragnets.

For-profit copyright tracking companies have made false allegations in the past, forcing CCI to hire an “independent and impartial technical expert” to verify the accuracy and security of the tracking technology used. CCI hired the firm of Stroz Friedberg as their expert.

Critics charge Stroz Friedberg is actually a recording industry lobbying firm, who worked with the RIAA for five years, earning $637,000.

Eric Friedberg

“It’s a disappointing choice, particularly in light of CCI’s professed desire to build public confidence in CAS and the fairness of its processes,” University of Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy told TorrentFreak. “It would have been refreshing to see an academic computer scientist or some other truly independent party appointed to fill that important role.”

Bridy calls CCI’s Copyright Alert System lacking in transparency and stacked in favor of copyright holders, not consumers.

Stroz Friedberg’s appointment has also raised eyebrows among others that suggest their past lobbying violates the spirit of a Memorandum of Understanding signed by all parties requiring “independent and impartial” oversight.

“CCI’s choice of a former RIAA lobbying firm makes it clear that the copyright owner parties to the Memorandum of Understanding were more interested in appointing someone they trust than in appointing someone the public can trust,” Bridy adds.

Network World columnist Steven Vaughan-Nichols worries this is just the beginning of another copyright enforcement overreach:

The name of their game is to monitor your network traffic, with the help of your friendly ISP. Their justification for this is the usual made-up “facts” that content theft leads to “more than 373,000 jobs, $16 billion in lost wages, and $2.6 billion in lost taxes.” Yeah, I’m also sure someone downloading copyrighted porn leads to cats and dogs living together.

One reason I can’t buy into all this is that, as TorrentFreak points out, the Center’s expert who vouches that this all works is none other than Stroz Friedberg, a former RIAA lobbyist. Oh yeah, he doesn’t have bias for paranoid copyright protection companies.

What this means for you is that if your ISP is AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, or Verizon, they’ll be watching your use of BitTorrent and letting CCI decide if you deserve some warnings, an end to your Internet service, or a full-out lawsuit.

[…] The RIAA, the MPAA, and other copyright “protectors” have never done anything for content creators. They’re all about protecting the businesses stuck with old, broken, pre-digital business models. Even that wouldn’t be so bad, except historically they’ve always vastly over-reacted.

We all know the stories of some poor slob who’s been slammed with tens of thousands of damages for downloading a song. What you may not know is that all the powers that be have to do is to claim something is copyrighted, whether it is or not, and multiple websites can be closed in minutes or your entire digital library can be destroyed.

Does that sound like paranoid fantasy? I wish.

[…] Oh yeah, I feel really sure that the CCI and friends are going to do a good job. Welcome to the new copyright world, same as the old, where you’re always considered guilty rather than that quaint idea of being considered innocent before proven otherwise.

CCI admits sophisticated pirates will probably never get caught by its Copyright Alert System, because most of them are moving to secured Virtual Private Network (VPN) technology that effectively masks their identities. TorrentFreak notes sales for VPN’s are skyrocketing, many headquartered far away from the reach of the United States in exotic, subpoena-proof locations like Cyprus, the Seychelles, Romania, and Ukraine.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/RT Thom Hartmann Copyright Alert System 3-20-12.flv[/flv]

RT’s Thom Hartmann presided over a debate about online copyright theft control measures proposed earlier this year by the entertainment industry and Internet Service Providers. Appearing with Hartmann are David Seltzer, Attorney & Mark Bledsoe. (March 20, 2012) (12 minutes)

The entertainment industry, in cooperation with the nation’s largest Internet Service Providers, joined forces to open a new copyright enforcement center that critics charge sidesteps judicial process, leaving consumers forced to prove they are innocent after they’ve been accused of being guilty.

On Monday, the Center for Copyright Infringement named its executive director and board, and intends to gradually begin serving as a clearinghouse for copyright infringement complaints brought by the nation’s music and movie companies.

CCI has representatives from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon Communications collectively working to streamline enforcement of copyright law and control Internet piracy.

Often known as the “Six Strikes Plan,” CCI participants will coordinate piracy notification warnings for suspected illicit downloads of copyrighted content from peer-to-peer file sharing networks.  Hollywood studios and recording labels will identify those they suspect are involved in illegal file swapping and participating ISPs will notify customers tied to the infringing IP addresses up to six times before reducing a customer’s Internet speed, temporarily disabling the account, or terminating service.

The CCI hopes to bypass the court system and adopt a self-regulation, “in-house” approach to Internet piracy.  Some courts have proven increasingly-reluctant to hand over identifying information to copyright holders based on the sometimes-flimsy evidence of illegal downloading included in supporting affidavits.  Judges in some courts have also become leery of a cottage industry of “settlement specialists” that threaten expensive litigation for alleged copyright infringement that can be resolved with a quick cash settlement.

Judge James F. Holderman of the Northern District of Illinois ruled against one litigant who demanded ISPs divulge the identities of every participant exchanging bits and pieces of a copyrighted work in a so-called “BitTorrent swarm,” because they were involved in a conspiracy.  Holderman dismissed that argument.

Such tactics have allowed some settlement specialists to demand settlement payments from a larger group, substantially boosting revenue at little cost to them.

CCI’s executive director Jill Lesser says laws no longer favor copyright holders.

“While laws that protect intellectual property remain strong and enforcement efforts continue, technology has tipped the balance away from the interests of most creators and artists,” Lesser said. “The ease of distribution of copyrighted content has helped create a generation of people who believe that all content should be free.”

CCI’s so-called “Copyright Control System” will bypass the courts entirely, as entertainment companies coordinate directly with major ISPs agreeing to enforce copyright compliance.

Lesser says consumers will still have a fair process to challenge notices of alleged infringement.  But it will cost at least $35 for consumers to argue their case.  Additionally, as a self-regulated, industry-controlled body, consumers’ rights of appeal are undetermined.  The arbitration process will be administered through the American Arbitration Association.

Why would ISPs want to become involved in a copyright control regime?  To reduce their own expenses and legal risks.  Copyright holders and their agents have peppered service providers with compliance and identification demands for years, creating full time positions processing the paperwork.  By adopting a clearinghouse and developing a streamlined process to handle complaints, service providers can cut costs and avoid possible litigation against themselves.

Still, both the entertainment industry and ISPs seem to be open to listening to consumer advocates.  Lesser was formerly involved with People for the American Way, a group sensitive to privacy rights.  Serving on the advisory board are Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge and Jerry Berman, founder of the Center for Democracy and Technology.  Neither have direct authority over the group’s enforcement efforts, but Sohn told Ars Technica she hoped her involvement would give a voice to consumer interests and maintain transparency in the enforcement process.

California AT&T customer Matt Spaccarelli can’t understand why his wireless phone company is selling him an “unlimited data plan” for his iPhone that is subject to being throttled to dial-up speeds after as little as 13 minutes of Netflix viewing per day over the course of a month.

Spaccarelli argued his case with several AT&T representatives, who recommended he “upgrade” his account to a tiered plan that would guarantee him at least 3GB of an unthrottled experience for the same price he was paying for an ostensibly “unlimited use” plan.

“That to me says ‘if you pay more, then you get what we promised you in the first place,’ and that is not cool,” Spaccarelli told the Associated Press.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/AP ATT Backpedals on Throttling 3-1-12.mp4[/flv]

The Associated Press talks with Matt Spaccarelli, who successfully sued AT&T over his throttled Internet connection.  (3 minutes)

The Simi Valley man did what few AT&T customers have dared — he took the company to small claims court, and won a judgment of $850.

A Ventura County judge took a dim view of AT&T’s claim that customers can enjoy an “unlimited usage” experience, as long as they understand AT&T never promised what speeds customers would receive along the way.

AT&T lost, according to the judge, because of the legal concept of “justifiable reliance,” which means because AT&T advertises itself as the “fastest wireless network,” a normal consumer with an average understanding of mobile broadband should not expect to have their speeds on an advertised “unlimited use” plan reduced to something akin to an AOL dial-up account.

After AT&T’s representative read the company’s carefully-constructed legalese in its contract and terms of usage in court, even the judge was confused, relates Spaccarelli.

“What does this mean?” Spaccarelli remembers the judge asking.

AT&T's Control Measure for "Heavy Users"

Spaccarelli said he tried it AT&T’s way — switching to a 3GB tiered usage plan to stop the throttling on his “unlimited” plan.

“For one month they switched me to a tiered plan and that month I used the smallest amount of data ever and got the highest bill,” he told KTTV in Los Angeles. “AT&T has not and cannot show that my usage has ever caused damage to their network or caused other people to slow down.”

The AT&T Usage Limbo Dance — Lowering the Bar on Customers With Continuously-Decreasing Usage Allowances

Spaccarelli explained in court his throttling experiences with AT&T have gotten worse over the last several months as part of what he calls AT&T’s “Upside Down Pyramid Scheme.”

“The problem with using the top 5% of data users [as a basis for throttling] is because [customers] are not able to use the services that we would normally use, data usage becomes less and less,” he says. That in turn makes AT&T’s “top 5% usage throttle” engage at perpetually lower and lower usage rates.  Heavy users that used to make the top 5% of data users last fall were consuming a dozen or more gigabytes per month.  Today, AT&T’s “top 5%” consume only 2GB of data.

“When this all started I was getting slowed down after around 10GB of usage, then 8GB and then 5GB,” he says. “[Now] AT&T will admit that 2GB is the average when most people get slowed down.”

“They don’t want my usage to affect other users, which I totally understand,” Spaccarelli says. “But it seems like as long as I pay more they don’t care that my usage might affect other people.”

Spaccarelli pays AT&T around $140 a month for a plan he says AT&T sold him as “unlimited everything.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTTV Los Angeles ATT Lawsuit Interview 3-1-12.flv[/flv]

KTTV talked with Spaccarelli about why he decided to sue AT&T, what the experience was like, and why consumers should be concerned about usage-limiting Internet plans.  (5 minutes)

A judge was persuaded by Spaccarelli’s argument and awarded him $850 for the value of his effectively-lost “unlimited use” plan.  But Spaccarelli isn’t waiting by his mailbox — AT&T has indicated it intends to appeal the judge’s ruling and has not sent a check.  (Perhaps he could follow in the footsteps of George Kontos, an AT&T customer in Winston-Salem, N.C. who walked into a local AT&T retail store with a Forsyth County Sheriff’s deputy, to seize the store’s merchandise to satisfy Kontos’ $2,000 judgment.)

Lowering the bar on "unlimited use" customers.

That a customer successfully sued AT&T in small claims court is a potential nightmare for the company, which has worked for years to eliminate consumer protection clauses from its contracts.  AT&T already prohibits customers from pursuing class action lawsuits and typically mandates corporate-friendly arbitration in customer-company disputes.  But AT&T has not yet prohibited customers from suing them in small claims court, where damages are limited.

“I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never done something like this before,” Spaccarelli writes on his website. “I did my own research and took my own time to put together this case against AT&T.”

A case that he has begun documenting in an effort to help consumers pursue their own actions against AT&T.  He says filing a small claims case is simple.

“You give the clerk $85 and the court will give you a court date, that’s it,” Spaccarelli told AP.

Now AT&T has backpedaled on its original plan to throttle unlimited customers who use more than 2GB per month.  Instead, they have announced the throttle will kick in after 3GB of usage, the same amount offered by AT&T’s most popular $30 tiered plan.  That gives customers two choices: a speed throttle or overlimit fees for customers who exceed AT&T’s allowance.

AT&T has at least 17 million customers grandfathered on its now-discontinued “unlimited use” plan.  Any of them face the potential of throttling by AT&T, which could lead others to small claims court, with Spaccarelli’s help.  He told the New York Times he’s willing to travel anywhere in the country to appear as an “expert witness” in future court cases, as long as someone covers his travel expenses.

Spaccarelli says he’s not really interested in the $850, he just wants his unlimited use plan to really mean “unlimited use” again.

“I’d give back the money if they stopped slowing my speed down,” he says.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Spaccarelli Calls ATT 3-12.flv[/flv]

Spaccarelli calls AT&T customer service looking for his $850.  (2 minutes)