For the sake of public relations, most cable and telephone companies are happily providing service credits to customers who ask after they lost service as a result of Hurricane Irene.  Denying those requests through invocation of weasel contract clauses referencing “acts of god” or “weather-related incidents” will assuredly leave customers less than pleased.  That’s a lesson some employees in Comcast’s call center still need to learn.

The fact is, most consumers shouldn’t have to pay for service undelivered.

Here is one Comcast customer’s plight:

When I contacted Comcast in the days following Irene I was initially told I’d be without service for a day and would receive credit for the loss. When I called two days later, I was told it would be two days, but I would receive credit. When I called six days later I was told they didn’t know how long it would be and that when it was restored I would not be receiving credit for the lost service.

“Wait, you’re telling me you’re going to try and bill me for service I never received,” I asked the customer service agent.

“We’re not going to try. We will be billing you,” he responded.

Another customer service representative verified the information with a supervisor, but sounded as incredulous as I felt when he came back to the phone.

The outage, he explained, is now considered an “act of god”.

“I can’t believe we’re going to do this,” he said.

He suggested I call back when the service was restored for credit.

“I can’t believe we’re not going to give credit,” he said again, before telling me to have a nice weekend.

To be fair, this is the experience of a single customer, and a search of prior storm events in Comcast service areas does show the company is usually willing to issue storm-related credits, as long as it was their service that was disrupted.  One of the issues cable providers have to deal with in weather disasters is ascertaining exactly who and what suffered the outage.  If the area’s local power company loses service, Comcast cable service could be affected directly or not at all.  A widespread outage could cause amplifiers to lose power, cutting off cable service to those with or without power.  But should Comcast credit you for lost service if the only thing keeping you from watching is a downed power line in your neighborhood that hasn’t affected cable service?

That dilemma many customer care professionals solve with courtesy credits to maintain customer goodwill.  But not every provider may automatically issue them, especially when dealing with low level employees in a customer care center.

If Comcast is refusing to provide you with service credits, there are a few quick steps to bypass “the unauthorized to give you what you want”-team and get your money back:

1. If calling by phone, ask if you are talking with a local customer care representative or one located thousands of miles away.  Ask to be transferred to a local office for assistance.  Those on the ground going through the same storm nightmares you are are likely to be more amenable towards giving you a service credit.
2. If using an e-mail form or online chat, call Comcast or visit your local Comcast cable store instead.  Again, someone sharing your misery is more likely to find a way to get you a service credit than someone who hasn’t lived through it.
3. File a complaint with the Better Business Bureau online requesting your service credit.  While Comcast is not BBB accredited, the organization has helped satisfactorily close more than 2,000 customer complaints.
4. Call your local television or newspaper “consumer reporter” and alert them.  Bad publicity is a great way to get any unyielding business to bend.

We expect a few negative stories in the media will be more than enough to inspire Comcast to provide service credits, gracefully.

Besides, if Comcast gives you a hard time about “acts of god,” you can always tell them the same thing when they ask to be compensated for cable equipment that succumbed in the storm.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC Hassling LIPA 9-2-11.mp4[/flv]

Storm-weary Long Island residents are getting fed up with extended service outages.  One went as far as to allegedly threaten a “Columbine-style attack” on a Long Island power facility.  Repair crews are also being hassled.  WABC in New York reports.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCBS Anger in LI 9-1-11.mp4[/flv]

WCBS found the same kind of anger in Suffolk County, aggravated by self-congratulating press conferences by utility companies even as hundreds of thousands of customers remained in the dark with no end in sight.  One Connecticut man even threatened a repair crew with a gun for trespassing.  (2 minutes)

This AT&T customer was billed $12.95 in cramming charges. (Click image for more information)

AT&T and Verizon are among the top recipients of ill-gotten gains from so-called “cramming” incidents — customers who find unauthorized charges on their phone bill placed there by third party companies that maintain a cozy billing relationship with the two phone companies.

Boston-area resident Mike Cunningham paid $567 in phone charges billed “conveniently” to his Verizon Wireless phone bill.  Only he didn’t authorize them.

Cunningham recently sat down and reviewed nearly two years’ worth of dozen-page phone bills scrutinizing them for unauthorized charges.  Speaking to the Boston Globe, Cunningham didn’t initially notice the “enhanced voice mail’’ charges of $14.95 and $13.22 buried on pages five and six.  That’s not surprising, since many Verizon Wireless customers are now billed online and most customers don’t wade through multi-page online billing statements.

After Cunningham added several years of these monthly charges up, totaling $567, that got his attention.

Cunningham was billed by ILD Teleservices Inc., which said Cunningham’s grandson — then 10 years old — ordered its services while on a website that offers free video games. Cunningham said his grandson, who doesn’t have a cellphone, did not intentionally order voice mail — and knew nothing about it.

ILD generates an enormous number of complaints about unauthorized charges placed on consumer phone bills.  The company describes itself as a leading payment processor of online transactions between merchants and consumers, processing more than 120 million billing transactions per year totaling $500 million of third party charges placed on telephone bills.  Although the company claims to put its potential clients through a rigorous screening process, the avalanche of customer complaints, including the fact a 10-year old was able to be victimized by one of ILD’s clients, suggests otherwise.

Even worse, companies like AT&T and Verizon profit handsomely from fees paid by payment processors like ILD to gain the lucrative ability to charge customers’ phone bills for services, ordered or otherwise.  With a profit incentive to protect, consumers are getting the short end of the stick when calling Verizon or AT&T to complain.  More often than not they pass the buck (while keeping the change for themselves) back to the third party billing agency to try and secure refunds.

Only a staggering amount of potential earnings from such billing practices would seem enough to make risking the customer’s relationship with their phone company worthwhile.  After customers spend hours dealing with unruly and hostile customer service representatives working for such billing agencies, there is little chance that customer will be endeared to the phone company that put them through the nightmare in the first place.

Susan from Ambler, Pennsylvania is an excellent example:

“ILD Teleservices placed a charge on my Verizon phone bill for a service that was not requested, authorized or that would even work (ringtones for a land line!) on Feb 22, 2010. When I called Verizon to question the bill, they informed me the charge was not a Verizon charge but from a third party company,” she told Consumer Affairs.

David in Galt, California was billed by ILD on his AT&T phone bill for ordering a service over his home computer, an amazing feat considering he doesn’t have one.

“I received a charge of 14.95 on my AT&T phone bill from ILD Teleservices. They claimed that someone in the household went online and ordered the service. We did not have the capability to do that with no computer at the house,” he writes.

More than 3,000 complaints have been logged against ILD by Consumer Affairs, with customers highly annoyed that their phone companies refuse to stand by them when illegitimate charges show up on their phone bills. John from Wisconsin got no help from AT&T when identify theft allowed someone to add unwanted services to his phone bill under his wife’s name.

It turns out someone signed him up for TotalContactSolutions, a Florida-based company that charges $14.95 a month to alert up to 10 people with text or voice messages “during catastrophic events such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters.”  Perhaps the service will come in handy to contact those 10 friends and family members when you discover the charges on your phone bill and pass out on the floor.

John reports his credit rating is being terrorized by a company that refuses to refund the unauthorized charges unless he can prove, with an e-mail from AT&T no less, that nobody could have signed up for the service from John’s home.  Unfortunately for John, AT&T’s surveillance of its customers doesn’t extend that far, and the company refused to forgive the charges, instead threatening him with collections.

Unfortunately, your tax dollars are hard at work paying for state utility commissions, the Federal Communications Commission, and consumer service agencies to assist consumers who are victimized twice by cramming charges — once by Verizon or AT&T for allowing them on their bills in the first place, and a second time trying to deal with a third party company to reverse them.

A Boston Globe review of more than 200 cramming-related complaints from consumers — filed with the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable and the attorney general since 2007 — found that state workers reviewing complaints sometimes spent hours trying to resolve a single one.

The case of Soren Jensen, a retired engineer who lives in Duxbury, is typical. Jensen said he spotted four charges of $9.99 apiece for text messages on his wife and son’s cellphone bills starting in 2008. There was a common thread: Jensen’s wife and son said they had both taken IQ tests online, entering their cellphone numbers to receive the results. He suspected they mistakenly signed up for text messaging in the process.

After reviewing the fine print on his bill and doing some online sleuthing, he found Verizon Wireless had an agreement with Solow, a computer gaming website that contacts players using a text message service that charges $9.99 per message.

Jensen said he called Verizon Wireless to complain, and the company agreed to remove one of the $9.99 charges.

“I just don’t get why Verizon doesn’t want to protect us, as the customer,’’ Jensen said. “Verizon should not allow this kind of stuff. It raises a lot of questions.’’

The answers aren’t difficult to find when you follow the money.  Both AT&T and Verizon collect plenty from fees charged to cramming companies and billing agencies for the right to bill their services directly on your phone bill.  Neither company will disclose exactly how much they profit from such arrangements, but they are clear about who is responsible when mystery fees turn up on your phone bill:  you are.

Both companies told the Boston Globe they “encourage customers to scrutinize their bills to make sure they are not improperly charged for services.”

And they make that very easy by labeling mystery fees with such helpful billing descriptions as “enhanced calling service” or “enhanced voicemail.”  One of Stop the Cap!‘s readers was billed for services described as an “enhanced recovery fee” and another for “customer support and assistance.”

Verizon claims complaints about third-party charges are “infrequent” and says customers can contact the company and block all third-party charges from their bills, something we strongly recommend you consider doing before being victimized.

AT&T won’t go that far.  It told the Globe:

AT&T, which also allows third-party billing, advises customers to direct their complaints to the company assessing the fee. Names of third-party vendors are disclosed on AT&T bills, the company said. “AT&T’s third-party billing contracts require service providers to address cramming complaints appropriately, including issuing credits if customers have been crammed,’’ an AT&T spokeswoman said in an e-mail.

But AT&T is still in the business of scaring its customers.  TotalContactSolutions maintains a required AT&T customer disclaimer on their website, which includes several states where AT&T can disconnect your phone line over billing disputes:

You have the right to dispute the Employee Notification Services charges billed on your local telephone bill. You are not legally responsible for Employee Notification Services charges incurred by minors or vulnerable adults without your consent. Your local telephone service will not be disconnected because you fail to pay a charge by Employee Notification Services, except that nonpayment of certain regulated telecommunications charges may result in disconnection of service in AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, SC, and TN.

And we know what phone company lobbied their way into obtaining the right to cut your service off if you don’t pay, don’t we?

In the end, Cunningham got refunds for the unauthorized fees on his Verizon Wireless bill, after the companies discovered a minor child was involved.

ILD claims to have sent Cunningham $1,000 in coupons as part of a settlement, something Cunningham claims is a lie.  Cunningham is better off without them.  The $1,000 in coupons ILD offered is suspiciously similar to an offer from another ILD client that promises that amount in grocery coupons you can print on your computer… if you sign-up for enhanced voicemail service for $12.95 a month.

Was this the $1,000 in "free coupons" offered to Mike Cunningham? If so, it comes with some very expensive strings attached.

Cunningham is so disgusted with Verizon Wireless for putting him through this ordeal, he wanted to cancel his service and move on.  But Verizon knows how to hold customers captive.  Instead of sending him a refund check for $567, they applied it as a credit that can only be redeemed by remaining a Verizon Wireless customer until the credit is exhausted.

“It’s like salt in the wound,’’ he told the Globe. “I can’t leave. I’m a captive audience.’’

Stop the Cap! notes the Federal Communications Commission is overwhelmed with cramming complaints that number well into the thousands every year.  Since telephone companies refuse to stand up for their customers, it is imperative that the FCC order phone companies to stop allowing all third-party billing unless and until a customer “opts-in” to such billing, in writing.  No third party “opt-in” requests should be permitted, and customers should not have to chase their phone companies to opt-out of a service that has a built-in profit incentive for funny business, fraud, and costly scams that cost customers enormous time and money to resolve.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBS News Cramming Charges 2-23-08.flv[/flv]

The CBS Evening News ran this item about cramming charges and the problems they cause customers more than two years ago, interviewing a representative from Verizon Wireless.  Very little has changed as the money, and complaints, keep pouring in.  (3 minutes)

Despite hundreds of consumer complaints from residents in and around Baton Rouge, the Louisiana Public Service Commission has refused to vote itself the authority to threaten AT&T with a fine up to $175,000 for poor service.

Ignoring an agreement by AT&T to adhere to minimum service standards in return for permission to acquire BellSouth Corporation in 2006, the Commission oddly decided not to enforce those conditions for the protection of AT&T customers.  On Wednesday, in a 3-2 vote, the PSC instead decided to “study” the matter and to further consider whether or not it should impose the same minimum service standards on all of Louisiana’s phone companies.

Commissioner Foster Campbell, of Bossier Parish in northern Louisiana, was stunned by the vote’s results.

“You’re telling AT&T that no matter what they do, no matter how bad their service, we’re not going to do anything?” he asked.

Campbell told his fellow Commissioners he’s worn out after taking large numbers of calls from upset residents in northern Louisiana.

Field also voted for the measure. He serves District 2 in southern-central Louisiana

This is the second time the PSC refused to fine AT&T and instead “study” the matter.  Meanwhile, customer complaints from the Baton Rouge area continue to pour into the PSC offices.

Commissioner Jimmy Field, who represents the Baton Rouge area, told AP his office had been swarmed with consumers complaining about the length of time to get service installed and outages lasting more than 24 hours. Field wanted the PSC to hang the fine over AT&T’s head again.

Complaints against AT&T in Louisiana also involve lengthy waits for repair call appointments, delays in getting new lines installed, missed appointments, and extended service outages.

In just four months last summer, the Commission confirmed 435 of the 778 complaints lodged across the state against AT&T.

Apparently if the problems don’t impact the residents you represent, there isn’t a problem.

The three commissioners that voted against the proposal to potentially fine AT&T said as much.

Skrmetta was the ringleader of the three opposed to potentially fining AT&T. He serves District 1 in east Louisiana

PSC Commissioners Eric Skrmetta, of Metairie, Lambert Boissiere III, of New Orleans, and Clyde Holloway, of Forest Hill said it wasn’t fair to single out just one company.

Skrmetta went further and said he hadn’t seen many complaints in his district, north of Lake Pontchartrain.  But he had received complaints about some of AT&T’s competitors.

Boissiere voted against the measure. He represents District 3 in central Louisiana

Boissiere, despite voting against the proposal, delivered a verbal spanking to the AT&T representative on hand.

“I don’t like your methods. I don’t like your style. I understand where my fellow commissioners are coming from,” Boissiere said.

Debbie Canale, the executive director for regulation for AT&T Louisiana, wasn’t much impressed with Boissiere’s comments.

“Our customers vote with their money and would do business with competitors, if they were unhappy with AT&T,” Canale offered.

Our Take

The three commissioners who voted against giving themselves the power to make their regulatory authority count don’t belong on any Public Service Commission.  Any member of a review board should be concerned first and foremost with the interests of the residents they represent.  The three Louisiana commissioners who voted against the proposal failed to do that.  They should be removed immediately.

The only way to impress telecommunications companies under your review is to have the power to make them pay attention to your rulings.  Stiff fines for repeated violations (and 435 in just four months is an incredible number) will make any company sit up, take notice and fix problems.

Without it, verbal scoldings are little more than lip service to a provider that can afford to be arrogant, especially in rural Louisiana where competitive choice is hardly bountiful.

Canale’s response to the Commission boils down to, “if you don’t like our service, leave.”  If only every Louisiana resident could choose another landline provider if they wanted.

Holloway, the third "no" vote, represents District 4 in western Louisiana

Ignoring a company’s problems in one region of the state virtually guarantees those problems will eventually visit another.  It is short-sighted and inexcusable to ignore hundreds of valid complaints,  condemning residents to more of the same in the future.  Voting (for a second time) to “study” the issue is an insult to residents and little more than a stall tactic.

The Commission’s suggestion it wants to impose regulatory fairness comes despite a clear agreement, less than four years old, that AT&T signed onto as part of its buyout of BellSouth.  It says AT&T will commit to certain standards of service in return for regulatory approval of the merger.  AT&T already sought to renege on that agreement in mid-2009 when it asked the Commission to suspend fines as part of their “study” about regulatory policies across the state.

So much for that hard-fought consumer protection deal.  Evidently, what AT&T agrees to one year is fodder for their lobbyists the next.  If AT&T wants changes, can consumers demand some changes of their own that assure this company will provide quality service?

As usual, AT&T’s regulatory affairs never give consumers a good deal.  For 435 residents of Louisiana, it also gave them no dial tone and a lengthy wait to get it back.

At for Commissioners Skrmetta, Boissiere and Holloway, the only question that should be on the table is whether they represent residents or AT&T Louisiana.

That is something worthy of careful study.

Louisiana's Public Service Commission is made up of five commissioners, each with their own district to represent.

Your Bill from MTN - Internet Overcharging Gift Wrapped

South Africans using the wireless services of MTN may be in for quite a shock in the coming weeks as the company attempts to collect for customer data usage charges it forgot to bill last fall.  Some customers have discovered the company automatically debited their checking accounts for thousands of dollars of “back usage” customers deny using.  Once again, when choosing whether to believe a faulty usage meter and billing system or the customer, Internet Overchargers believe the meter that fills their pockets with customer cash.

Benzi Kornizer is one customer impacted by the data discrepancy.  Despite using MTN’s data service for several months without incident, the company is trying to withdraw R10000 ($1,321 US Dollars) from Benzi’s checking account.  Kornizer pays R600 ($79) per month for 3GB of wireless data usage.  MTN’s usage meter, after the installation of a new billing system, claims he used more – more than $1,000 more.

“I received a letter from MTN, with no reference number, no date, no details of the problem and now I am having trouble getting my problem resolved,” Kornizer told ITWeb.

MTN believes in their usage meter, which it is using as justification to back-bill customers, despite admissions of ongoing billing problems.  Affected customers are receiving letters signed by customer relations executive Eddie Moyce admitting prior under-billing.

“MTN is in the process of re-processing the used data and customer call data records and will debit the affected customers’ accounts accordingly,” the letter states.

MTN’s billing practices, now a story in the South African media, resulted in a statement released by the company.

“We are extremely sensitive to the fact that billing errors have had an impact on the pockets of our subscribers. We will not suspend any voice or data contracts as a result of this error, and MTN will credit the accounts where double-billing errors occurred. MTN subscribers will also retain their loyalty points accrued over this period. MTN will investigate and evaluate every query on a case-by-case basis,” says Moyce.

He explains that the trouble stems from an upgrade of the billing system the company is using. “We have invested millions in a new billing system, which went live at the end of 2009 and is proving to be successful. However, we are still working hard to rectify the fallout from the previous system.”

The company admits the complete transition to the new billing system may take years to complete.  That leaves customers like Kornizer playing broadband usage roulette, never certain what the company’s meter will finally read, even months after the billing cycle ends.  Although MTN claims their meter is “proving to be successful,” customer complaints are pouring into consumer protection agencies and websites.

Kornizer is threatening to sue MTN in court.

Eddie Moyce, customer relations executive, spoke with MoneyWeb about the billing problems experienced by MTN. (5 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

A sampling of the complaints from just the last 48 hours about MTN’s Usage Meter on consumer site HelloPeter, which has logged more than 9,000 customer complaints thus far against MTN:

“My December bill for my MTN Data Contract suddenly hits R3000 despite an normal usage of +-R320. I call the Autopage Accounts only to be told that there is a billing problem. However, any reply from MTN that this is a backbilling issue can be refuted. On my itemised billing, it shows that on Christmas day I used 1.2GB of data in 2 sessions a few minutes apart! Now, my modem is a 1.8Mbps but downloading 600MB in seconds is absolutely incredible!”

“Last month I received a data usage bill for R1901 which I thought was insane as it has always been R249 per month.  I queried it and a itemised bill was sent though, which showed the ‘usage’, so I could not argue, then on the 23rd I received an SMS saying MTN incorrectly billed customers for that period and we would get a full credit for the incorrect amount. Then I check my account and another R2693 was debited from my account.”

“My average monthly MTN bill for internet access via a modem is R271.27 which was boosted by a November bill for R521.20. I paid this amount even though it looked very high. I was astounded by my December bill for R 5395.48! I spoke to [customer service] who tells me that I must wait 25 working days for my query to be assessed! In the meantime I must pay the R5394.48 or else my [service] will be suspended! MTN insists I must pay before they audit my account.”

“I migrated my internet from a 500 meg to a 3 gig package, completed the paperwork and was assured that everything is in place and will be faxed through for the migration. After receiving an account for over R11000,  I was informed that the migration was never made. I do not have the forms, but the personnel remembered the transaction and called the accounts department. Answer, ‘Sorry, we made a mistake and did not do the migration for you, but you did use the data so you must pay the account’.”

“Since October 2009 I’ve been billed R 16000 mostly for data use. My account was suspended three times without notice….  [The company won’t send me] proof of the amount used.”

“My bill from MTN ranges between R1200 and R1400 a month – In October, November and December 2009, I received bills between R11 000 and R14 000 a month! When I queried these bills the answer was always the same: These are amounts that were not billed ‘forgot’ to bill me this amount and ‘there was an error’ on their system and this usage was not billed for. When asked for proof of some kind – seeing as I have not been using the account in December 2009, they told us they could not provide this. Nor would the call centre agent put me through to a Manager to discuss or sort it out. The last time we spoke to someone, they told us to ‘just pay it’ or make a payment plan to pay it off. I have no intention on paying any amounts due to their system faults and without proof of how I could use between R11 000 to R14 000 a month. Inconsistent billing, no service, no response to messages left, no responses to emails and faxes. I had no choice but to change service providers.”

“I am presently on the 500MB package for internet service, cost; R239/Mth. Yet my bill arrives stating just over R1400. I know I have not exceeded my allowance as I check it before and after each session and I only use it to Skype family back home, plus some VERY minor surfing on the odd occasion. This has been raised twice now with MTN, both times I have been greeted by a ‘it happens often’ mentality, told they can not find a reason why the bill is so high and the billing dept will get back to me in 21 days. This is going to be AFTER the money is taken out of my account. Evidence on this website indicates that grossly overcharging their clients is hardly an isolated occurrence here and there, but a standard procedure. This they seem to find an acceptable way to treat their customers. I wonder how they would feel if their clients all decided to settle bills in 21 days or at their leisure, through no fault of their own. To the present time this problem remains unresolved and not taken seriously by MTN.  TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.”

Telecom New Zealand

Telecom New Zealand, Ltd. (TNZ) has been fined $352,600US for claiming one of their broadband plans offered “unlimited data usage and all the internet you can handle,” and then promptly throttled speeds to just above dial-up for some users.  The company pled guilty in Auckland District Court to 17 charges brought against it for misleading customers. Under the New Zealand Fair Trading Act, companies must be honest with customers about what their products and services deliver, and may not engage in “gotcha” fine print that radically departs from the marketing campaign for the service on offer.

The case stems from claims made in 2006 that TNZ’s Go Large broadband plan included “unlimited data usage and all the internet you can handle.”  Customers who flocked to the Go Large plan soon discovered “unlimited” meant “limited.”  Customer complaints rolled in when subscribers discovered the plan’s broadband speed was heavily throttled by “traffic management” which dramatically reduced speeds for file sharing networks and other downloading during peak usage times.  Many complained Go Large’s throttled speeds were slower than those on their usage-capped former Telecom plans.

Customers wading through the fine print finally discovered the reason for the terrible speeds.  The company disclosed it used “traffic management” technology to artificially lower speeds during peak usage times and for certain applications that used a lot of bandwidth.  In December 2006 the company quietly expanded that fine-print to broaden the use of traffic management on certain Internet applications to lower speeds at all times of the day and night for every customer.  This for a plan that promised unconstrained speeds.

New Zealand’s Commerce Commission was not impressed and accused the company of not disclosing relevant information to customers, and failed to make sure their service lived up to its marketing hype.

Telecom stopped offering the now-infamous Go Large plan in February 2007, and rebranded it Big Time.  The latter plan continues to offer “unlimited usage” but more clearly discloses the traffic management policies that limit customer speeds.

The company has already paid $8.4 million in refunds to nearly 97,000 customers, and has agreed to an additional $44,000 in reparations to nearly 2,000 additional customers.

Company officials apologized for the misleading advertising, stating “we failed to adequately disclose various qualifications for our plans and we apologize for this.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/nzbroadband.flv[/flv]

Telecom New Zealand’s Big Time plan ($43US per month – add $7US per month if you do not use TNZ for home phone service) doesn’t promise any particular speed, just unlimited use. New Zealand gets two choices: usage capped or speed throttled broadband.  Watch this video and ponder what it would be like to get stuck with this kind of service from your broadband provider. (3 minutes)