Verizon Wireless became the Bank of America of late 2011 when it attempted to impose a $2 “convenience fee” on select customers who prefer to pay their monthly phone bills online or through an automated telephone attendant.  It’s just the latest experiment in customer gouging — the same kind of toe-in-the-water strategic experimenting that unleashed ubiquitous baggage fees on airlines, low balance fees on checking accounts, and the increasingly-common practice of charging customers extra to mail them their monthly bill.

An entire industry of consultants pitch their creative talents to companies like Verizon who want “a little extra” from captive customers.  These specialists sell their expertise identifying the most vulnerable (and least likely to leave), who will grin and bear just about any kind of abuse heaped on them. Many income and resource-challenged consumers are left feeling powerless to protest and reverse unwarranted extra charges.

The consultant gougers-for-hire made millions for large banks when they figured out how to score the biggest bounced check and overdraft fees (simply pay the biggest check first, opening the door to $39 bounced check fees for all the little checks that follow).  Verizon’s $2 fee targeted customers who couldn’t afford to let the company automatically withdraw their monthly payment, or didn’t trust the company to do it correctly.  Even more, Verizon’s fee would target more desperate past-due customers who needed to make a fast payment to avoid service interruption.  Consumer advocates wondered if Verizon was successful charging these customers more, would they expand the fees to cover all online or pay-by-phone payments?

We’ll never know because the public outcry and intensive media coverage during a slow holiday week combined to force Verizon into a fourth quarter revenue retreat, rescinding the fee 24 hours after announcing it.  But Verizon may be pardoned if they feel they were unfairly singled out.  That is because other telecommunications companies have been charging certain customers bill payment fees of their own for years:

Verizon's evolved position on the $2 convenience fee (Courtesy: WTVT)

• Stop the Cap! reader Larry writes to share TDS Telecom, an independent phone company, charges a $2.95 “third party processing fee” when accepting payments by phone.  “In its place you either have to revert to U.S. Postal Service, or agree to electronic billing for on-line payment access.”
• AT&T charges a $5 bill payment fee for “certain customers.”
• Sprint/Nextel not only has its own $5 bill payment fee for those paying at the last minute,  it also forces customers with spotty credit to sign up for auto-pay to avoid a mandatory surcharge.  Want a paper bill?  That’s $2 extra a month.
• Comcast charges a $5.99 payment fee, but only in certain states.
• Time Warner Cable charges fees ranging from an “agent assisted payment” fee ($4.99) to a statement copy fee ($4.99) in some locations.

While Verizon has agreed to drop its latest new charge, the company’s carefully-named bill-padding extra fees attached to monthly bills remain.  In addition to breaking out and passing along all government fees and surcharges, Verizon also bills customers administrative and regulatory recovery fees that, for other companies, would represent the cost of doing business.  These latter two go straight into Verizon’s pocket, despite the implication they are third party-imposed mandatory surcharges.

Had Verizon called their new $2 “convenience” fee a “business efficiency accounting recovery fee,” would they have snookered enough consumers to get away with it?

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTVT Tampa Verizon cancels planned 2 bill-pay fee 12-30-11.mp4[/flv]

WTVT in Tampa says Verizon did a complete 180 on its $2 bill payment “convenience fee.”  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Verizon Dumps Fee 12-30-11.flv[/flv]

CNN hints the FCC’s potential involvement in Verizon’s business may have had something to do with the quick shelving of the $2 fee.  (2 minutes)

Ebenezer Scrooge could successfully serve as the CEO of any large telecommunications company these days, and the New York Times knows a Christmas tale of woe when it sees one.  That is why the venerable newspaper printed a Christmas Eve editorial blasting Verizon’s new “non-aggression treaty” with America’s largest cable companies that puts coal in the stocking for any Verizon customer waiting for FiOS fiber-to-the-home service.  The newspaper believes the days of FiOS are numbered:

Verizon — Verizon Wireless’s main shareholder — relieved itself of the need to expand FiOS, its high-speed, fiber optic network, beyond the 18 million homes it set out to reach six years ago, a rollout that cost $23 billion. For the other 114 million homes in the country, it can simply bundle its wireless service with the cable and wireline broadband services of its partners. The agreement between Verizon and the cable carriers includes a joint venture to develop technology to integrate the wireline and wireless platforms.

Verizon’s cable deals squashed hopes that cable carriers’ purchases of wireless spectrum would lead to more competition against the dominant players, AT&T and Verizon Wireless. And it puts in doubt whether FiOS will ever be a serious competitor to cable, reducing the likelihood that video transmitted over broadband could break up cable’s regional oligopolies.

[…] Verizon’s deals suggest a future in which cable carriers will get uncontested control of high-speed broadband into the home while AT&T and Verizon will get uncontested control over wireless. For consumers with expensive wireless plans, pricey bundles of cable channels and costly, slow broadband, this does not look like good news.

Verizon’s economic future lies in the lucrative world of wireless.  Its FiOS network was an expensive gamble to reinvent its antiquated telephone network to drive customers to keep their landlines and spent a hundred dollars more on video entertainment and super fast broadband.  Wall Street hated the price and loathed the potential for costly competition that would force earnings down through aggressive price-cutting.  In some markets, Verizon FiOS has forced Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable to be a little more generous with broadband speed and lighten up a little on the annual rate increases.

But convincing cable customers to switch remains a difficult proposition even when Verizon offers the superior service.  Verizon has not achieved the level of penetration it expected in many markets.  In short, people just don’t want to wait around for installers.  Besides, cable companies slash prices for customers threatening to depart.

Verizon’s deal with Time Warner and Comcast delivers Verizon Wireless desirable spectrum.  But the agreement to cross-market and cross-bundle product lines smacks of collusion, and is exactly the kind of turf protection that has kept cable companies from competing head-to-head with each other for more than three decades.  Is it more lucrative for Verizon to build out its FiOS network to compete or simply refer people to Time Warner or Cablevision for cable TV.  So long as cable doesn’t offer a competing wireless product, Verizon seems to think there is little harm done.

But for consumers, the absence of competition brings rate increases, reduced innovation, and declining customer service.

The one thing the telecom marketplace needs less of is the “take it or leave it” attitude that earned the scorn of cable customers everywhere.

AT&T’s fiber to the neighborhood service is not exactly winning consumers over in Chattanooga, Tenn.  As of this past spring, AT&T only managed to convince 821 local customers to sign up for U-verse service, in part because the competition delivers faster service, and one doesn’t slap broadband customers with an Internet Overcharging scheme.

While Comcast remains the dominant cable company in the city with more than 100,000 customers, community-owned EPB Fiber has made major advances, primarily against Comcast, picking up at least 33,000 customers in the city since the summer of 2010.

EPB is turning into a major success story for community-owned broadband, typically maligned as a financial failure by cable and phone company competitors.  EPB offers residential customers usage cap free gigabit broadband, television, and telephone service and is competing effectively against the nation’s largest cable operator.

EPB has been raking in more than $3.8 million a month in telecommunications revenue from residential customers alone.  In less than two years, EPB, which also delivers electricity in Chattanooga, has built a $45 million a year telecommunications business.  As a community-owned utility, most of that revenue stays in Chattanooga, benefiting the local economy and allowing EPB to reinvest in its network and improve service.

Comcast, in contrast, has seen its revenue drop by 8.4 percent during the first six months of 2011, primarily because of departing customers. That has forced the dominant cable company to become more aggressive in its efforts to retain those calling to cancel, primarily by slashing prices if wavering customers agree to stay.

Remarkably, AT&T’s U-verse has merited also-ran third place status — the victim of limited availability, the ongoing trend of customers dropping landline service, and the far-superior broadband speeds available from the competition.  AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme is also the stingiest, limiting broadband customers to just 150GB for its DSL service, 250GB for U-verse broadband, charging overlimit fees when the caps are exceeded.  Comcast has a usage cap of 250GB with no overlimit fee.  EPB has no limits.

The Chattanooga Times Free Press compares all three providers’ strengths and weaknesses:

EPB Broadband speeds are the fastest in the nation.

AT&T — Very aggressively priced introductory offers, more HD channels than its competitors, plus a “quad-play” bundle that includes AT&T wireless service.  But AT&T’s landline network is still the least equipped to compete on broadband speed, an increasing number of residents continue to turn their back on AT&T when they cut landline service, and U-verse’s usage caps come with overlimit fees.

Comcast — Has a substantial number of on-demand programs to access, can be cheaper than EPB during the initial year of service, and is testing home security and automation services.  Also offers two-hour service call windows and aggressively priced retention deals.  But Comcast’s regular prices are high, its broadband service usage-limited, and its reputation questionable after more than a decade of rate hikes and service complaints.

EPB — The fastest broadband speeds anywhere, EPB runs an advanced fiber to the home network, and maintains a very aggressive attitude about expanding and improving service.  EPB is a formidable competitor.  Community-0wned, its service benefits local residents with a locally-staffed call center, revenues that stay in Chattanooga, and management that answers to customers, not Wall Street.  No caps either.  But EPB can be a harder initial sell for price-sensitive customers because it doesn’t offer heavily discounted service to attract new customers.  But EPB prices don’t rise dramatically after the first year, either.  EPB’s television lineup is less robust than others, in part because it lacks a nationwide presence that brings the kind of volume discounts AT&T and Comcast receive.

Cablevision's top executives head on out. Tom Rutledge (left) and John Bickham (right) left within weeks of each other.

The unexpected and sudden departure of two senior executives at Bethpage, N.Y.-based Cablevision has pushed the rumor mill into overdrive the cable company is about to be sold or taken private.

John Bickham, president of cable communications and chief operating officer Tom Rutledge will both be spending more quality time with their respective families after departing Cablevision.  Last Thursday’s announcement that Rutledge would resign caused Cablevision’s stock price to drop by nearly 14% during trading Friday.

The inevitable conclusion on Wall Street: Cablevision is about to be sold or taken private.

Major shareholders and investment firms have criticized Cablevision over the years for being “too successful” signing customers to fixed price double or triple-play packages that provide a full suite of products and services, but deliver few growth opportunities shareholders demand. With heavy competition from Verizon FiOS in most of their service areas, Cablevision’s ability to simply raise rates is limited, especially when customers bounce between promotional offers from the phone and cable companies.

Rutledge’s departure, in particular, has been seen as a major negative on Wall Street because he was responsible for many of Cablevision’s most innovative products, including streamed video, his advocacy for boosting broadband speeds, and the company’s aggressive move into home security.

Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst from Sanford Bernstein, thinks Comcast and Time Warner Cable are set to divide the spoils in a shared buyout — Comcast grabbing northern New Jersey and Connecticut and Time Warner Cable assuming control of Cablevision’s systems in New York.  But other analysts don’t think that scenario is so likely, especially when considering the Dolan family’s long history in the cable business.

ISI Group Inc. analyst Vijay Jayant told Light Reading Cable he believes the more likely scenario would have the Dolan family buying out shareholders and taking the cable company private.

Time Warner Cable has repeatedly informed shareholders the company will not engage in bidding wars or overpay to win new acquisitions, and the Dolan family’s selling price for Cablevision is likely far higher than Time Warner would be willing to pay.  Comcast might have a political problem assuming control of more cable systems after its recent merger with NBC-Universal.  Shareholders may also rebel, as they did in a 2007 effort to take Cablevision private.  Investors felt they were offered too low a price to compensate them for their shares.

Moffett believes Cablevision’s days of high earnings and rapid growth are behind them, because just about everyone who wants cable service already has it, either from Verizon FiOS or Cablevision.

“No, we don’t think [Cablevision] can grow. And, no, we don’t think the rest of cable is doomed to the same fate,” Bernstein’s Moffett wrote in a report in late November. “The cause of [Cablevision’s] growth decline is straightforward: it has been so successful in achieving high product penetrations that growing further is quite challenging.”

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Joyce Says Cablevision May Be a Takeover Target 12-16-11.mp4[/flv]

David Joyce, media analyst at Miller Tabak & Co., talks about Cablevision Systems Corp. Chief Operating Officer Tom Rutledge’s resignation and the outlook for the company.  Bloomberg News.  (5 minutes)

A Fox affiliate in Green Bay, Wisc. has some trouble drawing distinctions between informational programming and infomercials after it repackaged a four minute ad for AT&T U-verse into a feature story on “Living With Amy,” its morning show targeting women viewers.

As well as failing to disclose to viewers the four minute “segment” was actually a paid commercial, AT&T doesn’t appear anywhere on the show’s sponsor page, potentially confusing viewers into believing the positive U-verse feature was produced by WLUK-TV as an unbiased news story.

It’s just the latest example of a series of “news reports” we’ve found (here and here) that highlight the blurring of the line between journalism and paid advertising.  In most cases, cable companies like Comcast and phone companies like AT&T are “invited guests” of the show’s host, who proceeds to gush over the products and service on offer without informing viewers those companies paid to be there.

This time, the Fox affiliate didn’t even bother with a “sit down” and ran a short infomercial for AT&T’s U-verse instead.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLUK Green Bay ATT U-verse 12-14-11.mp4[/flv]

This “story” appeared on WLUK’s “Living With Amy” show earlier this week.  It’s little more than a four minute commercial for AT&T U-verse, but viewers couldn’t tell because the station never disclosed it was paid advertising. (4 minutes)