A unknown number of Verizon Wireless customers were treated to some welcome news just days before the latest iPhone arrived for sale: early upgrades worth up to $300 in return for a two-year contract extension.  The offer arrived in an e-mail message the company sent to customers like Leslie Harsh of Omaha, Neb.

“Congratulations,” it read. “You’ve earned a new phone.”

Wireless carriers often waive two year waiting periods for good customers who are itching to get their hands on a new phone, and the Harsh family jumped in the car and headed on down to several local Verizon Wireless stores in search of a new iPhone 4S.

But high demand and the pesky fine print got in the way.

The offer turned out to only be valid on phones already in-stock in local stores, and with the unprecedented demand for the latest iPhone, Harsh was initially disappointed as the Omaha World-Herald reports:

Verizon representatives at the store told Harsh that the offer worked only with phones that the store had in stock. And since Apple and its cellular partners — AT&T, Verizon and Sprint — sold more than 4 million iPhone 4S handsets combined over the weekend, it was no surprise that the store didn’t have any of her chosen phone in stock.

Harsh then asked if she could preorder the phone. No dice, Verizon representatives said. The company’s computer system wouldn’t allow it because of an agreement with Apple.

So Harsh left without a new phone, hoping to use the offer next time one of Verizon’s Omaha-area stores had an iPhone 4S in stock.

That disappointment turned to frustration when Verizon sent out another e-mail days later rescinding the offer:

“Our sincere apologies. We got a bit ahead of ourselves,” began the message, which then withdrew the offer and threw in a consolation price — 30 percent off in-store accessories some customers think are overpriced to begin with.  To add salt to the wound, Apple and Bose products were excluded from the discount.

Verizon’s apology and coupon didn’t satisfy Harsh, who spend time and gas money scouring Omaha for the newest Apple phone.  She wants Verizon to uphold the original deal, but so far, the company hasn’t agreed.

Stop the Cap! recommends customers who find themselves in such situations escalate the matter to the executive customer service level and move beyond in-store and front line employees, who are unlikely to be empowered to grant special requests.  Harsh’s upgrade request is not uncommon, and carriers often grant them to good customers.  Harsh spends over $100 a month on her Verizon plan, which puts her in good favor with the phone company.

Filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau will automatically escalate her plight to executive level customer service at Verizon.  If she indicates this situation is serious enough to end her relationship with Verizon if they do not make amends, it’s likely the company will bend if Harsh signs a two-year contract extension, especially because they gave her the idea in the first place.

Stop the Cap! received this unsolicited letter from an employee working at Frontier Communications about how the company has been running the business and treating their customers.  We’ve been able to independently verify enough of this letter, by talking with other Frontier employees, to highlight it for our readers. 

Frontier Communications is a long way from its progenitor (and namesake) — Rochester Telephone Corporation, which operated locally with excellence for 100 years.  Rochester Tel changed its name to Frontier Communications as it sought to abandon its image as a basic phone company.  It was later sold to Global Crossings, which later sold it to Citizens Communications, which decided to adopt the Frontier name itself.

Even after the financial meltdown and the Great Recession, Americans still trust their cable and telephone companies even less than bailed-out financial institutions, mortgage brokers, credit card issuers, insurance companies, and airlines.

Those are the findings of the Temkin Group, which polled 6,000 U.S. consumers who recently contacted the surveyed companies to obtain customer service, support, or to ask a question or resolve a billing issue.

Temkin asked, “to what degree do you trust that these companies will take care of your needs?”  Responses were scored on a scale of 1-7 — from “do not trust at all” to “completely trust.”

The results show there is plenty of room for improvement for phone, wireless, and Internet providers.

The top-10 scoring companies don’t sell Internet service:

1. USAA (insurance)
2. Amazon.com (retail)
3. Costco (retail)
4. Edward Jones (investment firm)
4. Hyatt (hotel chain)
4. Sam’s Club (retail)
4. TriCare (health plan)
8. Kohl’s (retail)
9. Walgreens (retail)
10. Vanguard (investments)

Lower-rated companies do.  Here’s a sampling of where many telecom companies ended up (from better to worse) with respect to Internet and wireless service:

54. MSN
60. Cox Communications
89. Verizon Wireless (wireless)
90. T-Mobile
93. Sprint
100. AT&T (wireless)
104. AOL
106. AT&T (Internet service)
109. Cablevision
113. Time Warner Cable/Road Runner (Internet service)
120. Qwest
122. Virgin Mobile
140. Comcast
142. Charter Communications

Charter scored dead last out of 143-rated companies.  Customers trashed both Charter’s Internet service (142) and their cable-TV service (143).

Temkin shows telecom companies rate dead last.

Bell’s Fibe customers in Ontario noticed something unusual in the company’s latest newspaper ads luring potential new signups for the company’s fiber-to-the-neighborhood service.

Subscribe to Bell Fibe™ Internet and get way more than the cable company for a lot less.

Get super-fast download speeds of up to 25 Mbps – more than double the 12 Mbps on cable.
Watch way more stuff online with 125 GB of usage – more than double the 60 GB on cable.
Plus, share pics and videos more than 12x faster than cable, with upload speeds of up to 7 Mbps.
All this for less than the regular rate you’re paying with cable’s 12 Mbps service.¹

See full offer details.¹²

Offer ends October 31, 2011. Available to residential customers in select areas of Rogers’ footprint in Ontario where technology permits. Modem rental required; one-time modem rental fee waived for new customers. Usage 125 GB/month; $1.00/additional GB. Subject to change without notice and not combinable with any other offers. Taxes extra. Other conditions apply.

¹Current as of Sept 29, 2011. Based on customer’s subscription to Rogers’ Express Internet package at the regular rate of $46.99/mo., prior to August 4, 2011.

²Available to new customers who subscribe to Fibe 25 Internet and at least one other select service in the Bundle; see bell.ca/bellbundle. Promotional $33.48 monthly price: $76.95 monthly price, less the $5 Bundle discount, less the monthly credit of $38.47 applicable for months 1-12. Total monthly price after 12 months is $71.95 in the Bundle.

75GB for existing customers, 125GB for new ones.

Setting aside the fact Bell’s package costs $71.95 a month after the first year, compared with Rogers’ regular everyday price of $46.99, existing customers were surprised to learn Bell’s usage cap for new customers (located in select areas of Rogers’ competing footprint in Ontario) was 125GB per month.  That stood out, because existing customers currently live with a monthly cap of just 75GB per month.

That means new Bell customers, who happen to also have the choice of being served by Rogers Cable, evidently have a considerably less “congested” network that allows a more generous 125GB usage cap over nearby neighborhoods not served by Rogers, where things must be “much worse” to justify the current usage limit of 75GB per month.

Customers call it another example of providers subjectively setting usage limits not according to technical need, but competitive reality.

“If having separate rates by province wasn’t enough, now we have different rates based on the neighborhood,” shared one Toronto Bell customer. “I will need to call them to adjust this.”

Bell’s website provides conflicting information to existing customers over exactly what their usage cap is.  Despite the advertised 125GB cap promoted online, many existing customers are still finding 75GB to be their monthly limit.  Customers are getting some satisfaction calling Bell and threatening to cancel service over the discrepancy.  Don’t bother with the regular customer service representatives — readers report they can do nothing for you.  Instead, tell Bell you are canceling service, get transferred to the Customer Retentions Department, and then tell them you will stay if you get the new customer promotion that comes with the 125GB usage cap.  If you ask, Bell will often configure your account with the promotion noted above, which comes with the automatically more generous usage cap.

Stop the Cap! has always believed usage caps have nothing to do with the network congestion and “fair use” excuses providers like Bell have repeatedly argued.  They exist because market forces allow them to, and when competitors arrive with more generous allowances (or none at all), incumbent providers suddenly find enough capacity to be more generous with their customers.  At least some of them.

A Comcast customer in San Carlos, Calif., wanted to change her Comcast account so she need not be reminded of the recent passing of her husband, under whose name the account was listed.  A simple call to Comcast to request a change met with resistance from a representative, who told her to get in her car, drive to Redwood City, and go stand in line with an original copy of his death certificate.

Judy did as she was told, and Comcast didn’t.  The following month, another bill in his name arrived.  Judy ended up telling the whole story to the San Jose Mercury News:

I again called customer service and was told, “Don’t worry, the change is in the system and will show on your next bill.”

Well, I received the bill dated Aug. 28, and it is still in his name.

On Sept. 1, I mailed a letter to the customer service manager at the Redwood City service center and to this date have had no response.

On Sept. 6, I emailed to the “We Want to Hear from You” address telling them about this, and I received an automatic response: “Thank you for your comments,” but nothing since.

In my letter I told them I will not pay that bill until I receive the bill in my name accompanied by a written apology for this gross insensitivity and complete lack of “customer service.”

A Comcast representative eventually called her back and told her the company doesn’t do written apologies, but did apologize over the phone.

After the newspaper intervened, attitudes changed dramatically.

“On Monday morning Debbie called me and after much apologizing on her part, we agreed on a month of our service deducted from my current bill,” Judy reports.

Cable companies who have earned the scorn of their customers could go a long way towards correcting their dismal record of customer service by using some common sense and sensitivity.  A family tragedy should never force someone to hike down to the local cable office with an original death certificate just to change a name on an account.  It also should not take media intervention to get someone to do the right thing.  Stop the Cap! has covered at least a dozen cases of customers running into brick walls with front line service representatives who are not authorized to do what needs to be done.  When that changes, consumers will be grateful.