[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Swinburne Sees Most TV Revenue from Subs by 2015 6-2-11.mp4[/flv]

With the advent of high speed broadband and streamed online video, an analyst at Morgan Stanley is predicting that by 2015, more than half of all television revenue will come from subscription fees charged to access it.  Ben Swinburne says the entire television model is being turned on its head by broadband video, with cable, phone and satellite companies scrambling to protect the average $85 Americans spend every month for broadband Internet and television service.

Among Swinburne’s predictions:

• Cable and telephone broadband will increasingly be the delivery platform for television programming with at least 50% of all televisions connected directly to the Internet by 2015;
• Advertising revenue will continue to lose prominence, with networks and programmers seeking direct payments from consumers in the form of monthly subscriptions or pay-per-view to access even traditional over-the-air programming;
• Satellite television is at a distinct disadvantage not offering broadband Internet access, something satellite companies are trying to change;
• Cable companies will face the potential of “online cable” competitors delivering multichannel video packages over broadband connections;
• Content producers, networks, and the cable industry will continue to maintain a united front against a-la-carte television, which could dramatically reduce the revenue the entertainment industry earns from selling multi-hundred channel cable and satellite video packages.

Swinburne speaks with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.”  (4 minutes)

Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) is coming under increasing scrutiny across North Carolina as her cable lobbyist-written, anti-community broadband bill — H.129 — faces negative reviews in the media across the state.

Avila’s bill would set conditions under which community-owned broadband networks could operate, while specifically exempting existing cable and phone companies.  Most observers on the ground predict Avila’s bill would kill any further expansion of public broadband networks in the state and tie the hands of those already in operation, which would inevitably drive them out of business.  Avila’s bill, ghost-written by the state’s cable companies, even has the prescience to allow the fiber systems to be sold off to cable and phone companies at fire-sale prices for as little as pennies on the dollar, without a public vote.

Last week, the state legislature’s Finance Committee put Avila’s bill on a temporary hold “to allow public input” on the bill, but also to permit scrambling by lobbyists to deal with several surprise amendments that attempt to exempt existing community networks.

That time-out has given the press a chance to examine the proposed legislation and its impact on North Carolina’s efforts to improve its mediocre broadband rankings, now 41st in the country.  More than a few in the media do not like what they see in H.129.

The Associated Press notes the state legislature was finally allowing the public to weigh in on a matter that directly impacts their Internet experience:

North Carolina lawmakers aiming to stop cities from building their own broadband networks decided Thursday to allow public comments the next time they consider the latest effort by telecom companies to keep local governments out of the business.

The House Finance Committee will hear from the public next Wednesday as it reviews legislation that would sharply restrict the chances for municipalities to step in when cable and phone companies decide not to build high-speed Internet systems in lightly populated areas. Opponents say telecom companies aren’t extending super-fast Internet at reasonable prices, and that keeps smaller communities behind in the wired world of commerce.

“They don’t want to provide these services in a lot of areas because it’s expensive, and they don’t want municipalities to offer these services. That’s an unlevel playing field for our citizens,” said Rep. Deborah Ross, D-Wake.

Legislation unveiled Thursday was changed to ease the rules for communities in which at least half the households have no access to high-speed Internet except through a satellite provider. Another change ensures the new rules don’t affect the municipal networks already established in Wilson, Salisbury, Morganton and Iredell County, which have borrowed to build their systems.

Cable and phone companies have been urging the General Assembly to restrict municipal broadband services since a 2005 state appeals court ruling upheld the right of towns and cities to offer their residents broadband. Companies argue that local governments have an unfair advantage because they don’t have to pay taxes and can subsidize their rates by shifting profits from their electricity or gas customers, undercutting the corporate competitors.

Except community broadband providers in North Carolina are not doing any of those things.

In fact, smaller providers start at a competitive disadvantage because they cannot enjoy the savings larger providers get from their extensive buying power — winning lower costs on everything from programming to equipment and services.

Community providers are not winning most of their customers from “underpricing” their service — they are earning them by delivering better service, which was precisely the point.

The original argument communities like Wilson and Salisbury had with state cable and phone companies was with the quality and level of service offered in their communities.  They solved the problem themselves with the development of fiber optic service that provides ultra-fast broadband connections that residents and small businesses simply could not get from other providers.

Some lawmakers believe community networks get in the way of cable jobs and phone company investment, and they want to “clear the playing field for business.”  But for many communities in the state, the playing field is empty and will remain so indefinitely.

Broadband: Utility or Convenience

For some lawmakers, the debate is both generational and philosophical.  Ruth Samuelson (R-Mecklenburg), told the AP she doesn’t believe providing broadband is a core part of government.

Among the older population who have not grown up with the Internet, broadband can be seen more as a luxury and less of a utility.  A few generations earlier, a similar debate erupted over telephone and electric service, which faced identical controversy in regions underserved by private utilities.

A reminder of these earlier challenges was part of the Winston-Salem Journal’s argument against H.129’s adoption:

“The broadband battle is not being waged in the heavily populated portions of the state such as the Triad. Here, the for-profit companies moved in a long time ago. They can make a very nice profit here because the population density is adequate to provide a good return on the infrastructure needed for high-speed Internet service.

“Over the past decade, however, North Carolina’s smaller municipalities, such as Wilson, Salisbury and Morganton, have built their own systems because their leaders recognized that broadband Internet is now an essential utility, just as electricity and natural gas are. The Internet-service providers did not step up to provide that essential service, so the municipalities did. In doing so, the cities followed a path they took nearly a century ago when the biggest electrical power companies did not provide service to these areas.”

North Carolina blogger-activist Mark Turner wrote in the News & Observer broadband has the capacity to transform North Carolina’s economic future in much the same way power and phone service did a century earlier:

While farm life has never been easy, at one time it was significantly harder. In the mid-1930s, over 97 percent of North Carolina farms had no electricity, many because private electric companies couldn’t make enough money from them to justify running the lines.

Aware of the transformational effect of electrification and recognizing the need to do something, visionary North Carolina leaders created rural electric cooperatives, beating passage of FDR’s Rural Electrification Act by one month. Through the state’s granting local communities the power to provide for their own needs where others would not, over 98 percent of farms had electricity by 1963, and our state has prospered.

The Internet is no less transformational than electricity. Through this world-changing technology, lives are being shared, distance learning taking place and innovative new businesses springing up. Sadly just as in the days before electrification, many North Carolina communities (particularly rural ones) are being left behind, stuck in the Internet slow lane.

The Journal argues Internet Service Providers essentially want to keep these communities in the slow lane, with a powerful cartel that doesn’t deliver service, and does not want cities to provide it either.  The cable and phone companies can’t have it both ways, the paper says. “They can’t delay bringing high-speed service to North Carolina communities but then turn around and lobby the legislature to deny local governments the authority to establish municipal service if their residents want it,” the paper editorializes.

“The private providers are trying to make a big-government argument here, one that includes clichés about unfairness and Big Brother. But that is not the case. In this situation, residents and businesses are tired of waiting for Internet-service providers to arrive, so they’ve exercised their democratic rights to seek an alternative solution through their local governments.

“Had the private companies tried to make their argument 15 years ago, they might have deserved some sympathy. But not in 2011. The Internet and high-speed access to it have now been available in North Carolina homes for well more than a decade.

“They ignored a market, and local governments stepped in to provide a critical service. The legislature should kill this bill.”

Mark Turner in the News & Observer argues nothing about H.129 is really an ideological right or left-wing debate.  He reminds readers the Internet itself was a government invention delivered through public rights-of-way established by local and state government, or over airwaves that are literally owned by the public.

“Like the electric lines that were once strung by hand to all corners of our state, our cities should retain the right to bring Internet service to their communities – especially where the private providers will not,” Turner wrote.

The Rural-Urban Disconnect: Choices in Raleigh, Sneaking Onto Wi-Fi in Spruce Pine

The Journal points out North Carolina’s broadband debate is taking place in the state capital – Raleigh, a city much like the Triad region, served by both cable and phone companies.  Against that backdrop, legislators may assume ubiquitous urban and suburban broadband leaves local governments with few excuses for getting into the business in the first place — an argument the cable lobby is using to its advantage with some legislators.  But as soon as one ventures off Interstates 40, 77, or 95 — it does not take too long to find oneself in a broadband backwater.

“Here in Spruce Pine, broadband is a fabled, magical thing we read about, but don’t have — a big reason why my 17 year old son cannot wait to move out of here,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Morgan.  “Everything you see on television shows with people using the Internet for practically everything just does not happen here.”

Morgan shares one of the community’s broadband secrets: local hotels and other business establishments have parking lots filled with cars with people still in them sneaking online.

“They are hopping on board business and motel Wi-Fi connections to pay their bills, apply for jobs, or just complete homework assignments that require an Internet connection,” Morgan shares.  “Some businesses have locked down their Wi-Fi with passwords to stop the traffic, so there is an active underground trade of passwords of different wireless connections around the area.”

Morgan called the phone company wondering when DSL service might reach her house.

“Never, came the eventual reply — and the guy was laughing about it,” Morgan says.  “He told me if I want something better, I should probably move.”

“What burns me up is these state legislators on the other end of the state are spending their time and energy defending the companies in the broadband shortage business.  If they spent half as much time working for better broadband in western North Carolina, we would not be in this position today,” Morgan writes.  “I mean we’re at the point where people take Internet access for granted in this society and they treat places like Spruce Pine as an escape from that technology ‘to get away from it all,’ all while we live in that world perpetually.”

Morgan is hardly alone living a life without broadband.  In communities from Mars Hill to Marshall, large sections of the state simply go without.  Avila’s bill does nothing to help — it actually hurts.

The Public-Private Partnership: A Solution for North Carolina’s Unserved?

In some areas of the state, public-private partnerships (PPP’s) — also rejected in Avila’s bill — are making a difference getting broadband into rural North Carolina, reports Craig Settles, a broadband activist.

“Last year, North Carolina broadband advocates began formulating policy recommendations to make PPPs something of a standard in business models for communities that want better broadband,” Settles writes in a piece for Government Technology. “When legislation was introduced earlier this year that would effectively end further development of municipal networks in the state, this seemed like the right time to promote PPPs. Unfortunately the legislators pushing the bill effectively shut out these muni-network proponents from offering a compromise in separate negotiations.”

PPPs over some creative solutions to rural broadband challenges — especially in addressing return-on-investment concerns that keep private providers from building out networks to reach rural populations.  A community or non-profit collaborative finances and builds the infrastructure to supply the service with a much longer payback period.  While many commercial companies want a return within five years, co-ops have been comfortable paying off infrastructure projects over 10, 20, or even 25 years.  Then, the private company can hop on board the constructed network at a wholesale price that helps pay off construction costs, and allows the provider to market its services and run its own business.  The only requirement, and the one some private companies hate, is that the network is operated in the public interest and good, meaning -any- competitor can compete over the same facilities.

In the Finger Lakes Region of western New York, a hallmark PPP project has brought Ontario County a fiber network that can deliver faster broadband than anything available in nearby Rochester.  And it has the support of TW Telecom, Verizon, Frontier Communications and other companies who can use it as part of their business plans.

“This is a winning scenario,” said Ed Hemminger, CIO of Ontario County, N.Y., and CEO of Axcess Ontario, the county’s 180-mile fiber network project. “It’s the only way some communities may be able to get fiber broadband. They can finance the buildout with bond financing with a 25-year payback term. If a muni is going to partner in this manner, be extremely cautious and ensure that it’s a true open access model that not only benefits providers in the area, but also allows others to come in and compete.”

“The beauty of this scenario is that it enables private-sector companies to overcome one of their biggest hurdles to deploying networks in rural and low-income areas: the cost of laying fiber or building wireless infrastructure,” Settles writes. “Municipalities, if they’re able to swing the financing, can take up to 25 years to pay off the debt. Providers, on the other hand, have to make their money back in three to five years.”

Rebuilding America’s Economy: Investing in Infrastructure

Providing suitable broadband infrastructure is increasingly important in small cities that are afterthoughts for many cable and telephone company providers.  For Wilson, N.C.,  creating the infrastructure of a 21st century broadband network is part of an investment to attract future jobs for a city reinventing itself.

“The city council realized that it would be a very competitive world to attract and retain the best jobs in the future,” Grant Goings, Wilson city manager told The Sun News. “Well, you can’t talk about jobs without talking about the infrastructure that brings them and keeps them. Short and simple advanced broadband is critical infrastructure.”

The Sun News reports on the state’s broadband controversies from the epicenter — Wilson is the first city in the state to deliver a fiber optic-based broadband network that beats all the others on speed.

This year, Wilson signed on its first 100 megabits per second residential customers and is the first to have residents using the highest speeds available in North Carolina, said Brian Bowman, Wilson public affairs manager.

For Wilson and other communities building out better broadband networks, using fiber optics was a natural decision because of its capacity and future ease of upgrades. The cable industry has long argued broadband is a constantly-changing business and cities have a poor track record of keeping up, but Wilson’s GreenLight service has turned the tables on that argument, leaving Time Warner Cable — the state’s largest operator — well behind the municipal provider cable interests predicted would be a failure.

Wally Bowen, founder and executive director of the nonprofit Mountain Area Information Network (MAIN), which provides broadband services in and around Asheville, says this year’s anti-broadband bill, like the others, leaves cities vulnerable to political posturing and special interest legislation. He’s tried to outmaneuver legislators who work for the interests of Time Warner and CenturyLink by building non-profit or co-op ownership into the infrastructure, if only to protect networks from being forced to play defense year after year as private companies try to pick them off in the state legislature.

“Government-owned infrastructure creates political vulnerabilities given how incumbents are behaving,” Bowen said. “Our nonprofits are comprised of representatives from private-sector companies, private colleges, hospitals and so forth, in addition to local government. So there are limited legal grounds for attacking the nonprofit via laws passed in the legislature.” Some incumbent Internet service providers still will try these tactics anyway, but the makeup of these nonprofits can give them a stronger position from which to defend themselves.”

For many voters in the state, watching certain legislators toil on behalf of billion-dollar phone and cable companies while ignoring North Carolina’s broadband problems should bring consequences.

“My friends and I continue to watch these events with interest and will vote against those legislators who obviously would feel more comfortable working inside Time Warner Cable’s headquarters, because they are effectively on their payroll already,” Morgan says.

AT&T’s announcement that it is will impose usage limits on its DSL and U-verse (wireline) customers this May is just another case of overcharging consumers for Internet access.

Stop the Cap! has been reviewing AT&T’s financial reports looking for justification for imposing usage controls on the company’s customers.  Most providers who enact these kinds of pricing schemes claim they are about controlling heavy users, reducing congestion, and covering the costs to provide the service.

But after reviewing some of AT&T’s financial reports, the only explanation apparent for these limits is a quest for additional revenue and profits from subscribers.

AT&T continues to earn billions every quarter — $7 billion in the last three months alone — from its data products division, the vast majority of which comes from selling IP — Internet access — services to customers.  At the same time, the company continues to cut operations and support expenses, reducing its operating costs, and increasingly relies on its wireless and wireline divisions for the majority of the company’s revenue.

There is no evidence AT&T broadband usage costs are significantly impacting the company’s revenue in any way.  In fact, its U-verse platform, which can deliver higher speed, premium broadband service (at a correspondingly higher price) is actually delivering higher revenue from the “heavy users” the company is now complaining about.

In short, AT&T wants to reap the financial rewards of selling more costly, higher speed broadband service, but wants to limit customers’ use of those services.

We reviewed both the quarterly and annual results for AT&T’s wireline division and discovered what we routinely find true among every provider that wants to implement an Internet Overcharging scheme: the company wants to raise prices on broadband customers even as it enjoys ongoing cost reductions to manage broadband traffic and reduces the amount of investment made to manage it.

Some interesting facts from AT&T:

• AT&T earns $5 billion (annualized revenue stream) from its U-verse platform;
• AT&T saw 30 percent revenue growth from residential broadband alone;
• 45 percent of AT&T’s revenue in wireline services comes from broadband/IP services;
• In 2011, AT&T says it has a “focus on growth” — of revenue and profit, that is.  The company seeks increases in its “operating margins,” plans capital expenditures that will be focused on a “slight increase in wireless spending,” and ongoing cost-cutting where possible.

AT&T plans to continue to invest in U-verse expansion, critical for a company that is rapidly losing revenue from departing landline customers. In the 2010 Annual Report, AT&T noted the vast majority of cash used in investing activities went towards construction costs related to improved wireless network capacity, which is dramatically different than wired broadband service, and U-verse.  This does not cover ongoing expenses from providing the service.

It’s an important strategy for AT&T, which needs to replace revenue from lost landline customers:

We continue to lose access lines due to competitors (e.g., wireless, cable and VoIP providers) who can provide comparable services at lower prices because they are not subject to traditional telephone industry regulation (or the extent of regulation is in dispute), utilize different technologies, or promote a different business model (such as advertising based) and consequently have lower cost structures.

In response to these competitive pressures, for several years we have utilized a bundling strategy that rewards customers who consolidate their services (e.g., local and long-distance telephone, high-speed Internet, wireless and video) with us. We continue to focus on bundling wireline and wireless services, including combined packages of minutes and video service through our U-verse service and our relationships with satellite television providers. We will continue to develop innovative products that capitalize on our expanding fiber network.

Unfortunately, the benefits U-verse provides broadband users will be tempered by usage limits on it.

Considering AT&T’s U-verse pipeline is one giant broadband connection, the disturbing fact the company will not implement these overcharging schemes on its voice or video services cannot be ignored.  Only the broadband service, on which customers could entirely bypass AT&T’s TV and phone products for a competitor, is impacted.  The risk of that happening with the company’s usage cap is now diminished.

As Stop the Cap! has warned for nearly three years — this is the ultimate end run around Net Neutrality. Instead of actively blocking or throttling competing services, AT&T simply uses a usage limit to discourage customers from using the competitor, relying on unlimited AT&T TV and phone services instead.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration unveiled America’s broadband map early this morning, showing broadband availability, speeds, and coverage areas across all 50 states.

“A state-of-the-art communications infrastructure is essential to America’s competitiveness in the global digital economy,” said Acting Commerce Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank. “But as Congress recognized, we need better data on America’s broadband Internet capabilities in order to improve them. The National Broadband Map, along with today’s broadband Internet usage study, will inform efforts to enhance broadband Internet access and adoption — spurring greater innovation, economic opportunities, and advancements in health care, education, and public safety.”

The map, searchable by street address or zip code, delivers data largely volunteered by service providers themselves.  Some of the data, particularly for broadband speeds, represent best-case scenarios, not actual results.  Regardless, looking at the nation as a whole, there are some dramatic gaps in coverage.  Large areas west of the Mississippi are without broadband, which can be understandable in the sparsely populated region.  To the east, the biggest problem by far as in the Appalachians, especially in West Virginia, western Virginia, and the western Carolinas.  West Virginia in particular stands out as the state with the least amount of coverage in the east, perhaps only rivaled by Maine.  In the southern U.S., Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and northern Florida are problem areas.  East Texas outside of major cities is as well.  In rural areas, the coverage map fills in the most when rural wireless mobile providers are introduced, but their broadband plans are hardly suitable as a replacement for wired, unlimited access service.

“The National Broadband Map shows there are still too many people and community institutions lacking the level of broadband service needed to fully participate in the Internet economy. We are pleased to see the increase in broadband adoption last year, particularly in light of the difficult economic environment, but a digital divide remains,” said Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling. “Through NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, digital literacy activities, and other initiatives, including the tools we are releasing today, the Obama Administration is working to address these challenges.”

Reviewing the map for Stop the Cap!‘s headquarters — Rochester, N.Y., shows a correct list of providers, but the data about their products is more fantasy than reality:

• Time Warner Cable does not deliver 25/1.5Mbps service to residential customers in Rochester at this time, but its PowerBoost temporary speed gimmick might, for around 30 seconds.  Currently, Time Warner Cable maxes out at 15/1Mbps in the Rochester area;
• Frontier’s claim of 10Mbps is a theoretical maximum.  Most DSL customers don’t come close.  In our area (Brighton, N.Y.) Frontier couldn’t deliver more than 3.1Mbps.
• Wireless carrier data is simply wrong.  Sprint-Nextel is beaten down to a maximum 1.5Mbps, despite the arrival of its 4G network, which can manage better than that.  Verizon’s 3-6Mbps service is in their dreams, considering this data came from last June — before the introduction of LTE service in Rochester.  Clearwire is also guilty of boasting speeds they will never deliver on their increasingly throttled network.

The NTIA touts their map will be verifiable using “crowdsourcing,” but we found visitors are only able to confirm if a provider serves an area, but not how well and at what speeds.

Price data is also missing.  Strickling blames that on fast-changing industry practices.  We blame it on the fact providers refused to disclose that information, along with more specific details about their broadband networks.  Large providers claimed releasing proprietary, confidential business information could harm them competitively.

Another glaring example of questionable accuracy is the compelled-to-report top and bottom 10 cities in the country for service.  According to the NTIA, America’s number one city for broadband availability at speeds greater than 3Mbps is… Cleveland, Ohio.

Cleveland?

The worst?  Terre Haute, Indiana.

Really?

Elk Grove, Calif. residents receiving letters from Frontier Communications claiming they are using the company’s Internet service too much are getting confusing responses from the phone company when calling to register complaints about the Internet Overcharging scheme.  Even worse, one company official told a subscriber they have to keep the new usage limits secret “for legal reasons in case we have to change it again.”  But no worries, Frontier explained to one customer: if you exceed the secret cap again, you’ll be notified future overages will be conveniently billed on a future Frontier bill.

Stop the Cap! has been receiving dozens of e-mailed complaints from customers upset that the company’s bait-and-switch broadband also comes with uninformed customer service representatives who can’t deliver straightforward answers to customers trying to understand how they can avoid up to $250 a month for 3Mbps DSL broadband service.

“When I signed up for Frontier DSL, nobody said a thing about usage limits,” writes our reader Trina who lives near Camden Park.  “My small business has DSL from Frontier as well and we were horrified when we received a letter telling us we were over-using their service.”

Trina and her husband have four teenage boys living at home, all sharing their Frontier DSL account.  When she called the company in response to the letter she received, the confusion began.

“The first representative didn’t understand what I was talking about and denied there were any limits and said the letter must have been a mistake,” Trina says. “But my husband noticed others in our area were talking about the letter on area message boards so when he called, he got a representative that confirmed the limits were real.”

Trina was told her home would need to upgrade to Frontier’s $249 monthly DSL service plan, the same one Frontier held over the heads of some customers in Mound, Minn. last year.

“I told them they must be smoking crack — are they serious?  There is no way I am going to pay $250 a month for DSL that gives us 1.5Mbps service — not in this world,” Trina says.  “My husband laughed when I told him, saying Frontier is going to drive themselves out of business from this stupidity.”

Elk Grove reader Stephen also called Frontier after he received a letter stating he used over 100GB in a month.

“Yeah, I used 104GB according to my router’s logs and Frontier deemed me a bandwidth abuser,” Stephen writes.  “Of course the company tried to sell me a plan priced at $100 a month for their lousy DSL service we got suckered into on one of their term contracts.”

Stephen said he’d manage to find a way to shave 5GB off his monthly usage and forego Frontier’s $99 offer until he signs up with a competitor and tells Frontier to take a hike.

“It’s one thing to be abused by a lackluster phone company like Frontier who never did a thing for Elk Grove — it’s another to pay them more for their abuse,” he writes.

Stop the Cap! reader Pete, also in Elk Grove, says he can’t get a straight answer over exactly what the monthly limit is.

“When I called, I was told 5GB by one representative, 100GB by another, but get this — when I logged into the ‘Flexnet’ Usage Meter the company tells you to review, it showed I had a 20GB limit,” Pete says.  “I called Frontier on the phone and told them I was so through with them — I can’t stand their nonsense.”

Pete wasn’t alone.  Our regular reader Mike figures his cap was actually 20GB a month if the company’s usage meter was to be believed, and he sent pictures.

“I got their nastygram last month over my usage and now my Flexnet meter shows me over the limit,” Pete says.  “I have been vocal on a local Elk Grove message board so I’m feeling like this is retaliation.”

In fact, Mike’s usage meter depicts him as well over the arbitrary 100GB limit Frontier suggests in their letter, despite not coming close to 100GB of usage.  Ditto for our reader Michelle who lives in Palo Cedro, a community Frontier can largely hold captive thanks to limited competition.

Benjamin, also in Palo Cedro, says Frontier’s move will hurt small businesses in the northern California Shasta County community of 1,200.

“I need high speed Internet to help start my business, which will largely involve uploading and downloading multimedia, (which is hard enough to do on a 1.5 connection) but to increase the cost is absolute insanity,” he says.

Benjamin’s alternatives barely qualify.

“I can either try Clearwire, which works terribly locally and is known for its speed throttles when congested, or HughesNet satellite-delivered Internet, which is overpriced,” Ben adds.

As our readers already know, satellite fraudband is no replacement for real broadband service, because it comes with a “fair access” policy that isn’t fair and doesn’t deliver much access.

“I will fight this any way I have to,” Benjamin says.

John in Elk Grove writes in to say the entire affair is a Frontier shell game.

“It’s pure bait and switch to sell us broadband without limits and then suddenly impose them while we are supposed to be on ‘price protection agreements’ that the company says will keep our prices stable,” John says. “Now we learn it’s all a shell game — they can say we used too much and that doesn’t count with their price protection scam.”

John adds Frontier can change the limits at will, and customers who choose to depart could still face enormous cancellation penalties.

“The Frontier representative I talked to when I called to cancel service told me I owed $300 for ending my contract early,” he said. “I told them to go to hell and that if they tried to collect, I’d personally make it my life’s work to cost them far more than that in lost business.”

Customer anger only increases after speaking with Frontier’s own representatives.

“Mr. Brown” shares his experience:

I am an Elk Grove resident and a Frontier DSL internet customer. I received the same letter from Frontier about exceeding the 100gb of bandwidth within a 30 day period. It said that I must reduce the amount of use or bump my account up to the next tier of service, a $99/mo business account.

I called the number on the letter to talk to a customer service representative so that they would not disconnect me for not responding within 20 days. I asked him if there is a maximum bandwidth cap. He told me that there is no cap, but that their terms of service says that they can disconnect you if you are exceeding reasonable usage and that Frontier will determine what is reasonable usage. The representative could not help me any further so he connected me with his supervisor.

The supervisor said that Frontier sent this letter out to about 1,000 customers in Elk Grove and that most of the customers who have called after receiving the letter have not questioned them and said they they will reduce their usage.

He also said that there is no longer any $99/mo plan, the only option is to reduce usage. He said they sent the letters out to the costumers who are using more than a reasonable about of bandwidth telling them to use less Internet. Then if they did not, Frontier will send another letter saying that if they use more than a reasonable amount that they will charge the customer for anything over.

He went on to say that Frontier had to remove the statement about the previous 5GB bandwidth cap in their terms and conditions and that for legal reasons they are not going to tell us what the new limit is, in case they have to change it again in the future.

I tried to get him to admit that there is a cap and to tell me what that limit was, but he would not.  He would only say that I would be okay if I did not go over 100gb/mo and that if I do, to expect to receive another letter with the new terms that would allow them to charge my account for excess bandwidth.

The one thing is common with readers we’ve heard from is their urgent search for a new provider.

Trina canceled all of her Frontier services at home and at her business and switched to SureWest, a fiber to the home provider.  Joining her includes Mike, Stephen, Pete and John.  Together, their combined disconnects will cost Frontier more than $500 a month in lost revenue, all because of broadband traffic that costs Frontier far less than 5 percent of that amount.  If each customer shares their horror story with friends, family, and neighbors, the loss in revenue could cost far more.

For customers like Mike, he can’t wait to get his SureWest service installed.  The company offers to buy out current contracts with companies like Frontier valued at up to $200, and their fiber-delivered broadband service leaves Frontier’s speeds in the dust.  Mike says if Frontier gives departing customers a hard time about early cancellation fees, file a complaint with the California Public Utilities Commission Consumer Affairs Branch.

SureWest offers 3/3Mbps service for $36.99 per month, 25/25Mbps service for $51.99 a month, and 50/50Mbps service for $181.99 a month.  A $3.99 High Speed Internet features and services charge applies.  There are no limits on SureWest’s Internet service.

Frontier offers 3Mbps service with a slower upload speed for $32.99 per month or 10Mbps service for $44.99, both with a required price protection plan and $6.99 monthly modem rental fee.

“Why in the world would you pay Frontier more for less service,” asks Pete.  “Once they pile on the administrative fees, surcharges and taxes, it’s well north of $40 a month, and you don’t even get the speed they advertise, much less the usage limits they don’t.”