Keyser, West Virginia

Frontier Communications’ West Virginia roadshow continued this week as company officials continue to sell the company’s plan to take over telephone service from Verizon across much of the state.  But have they stretched the truth to sell state officials on the deal?

Paul Espinosa, general manager of Frontier, told a West Virginia newspaper the company “prides ourselves in taking good care of our customers,” claiming 95 percent of their current residential customers have broadband Internet.

“In some areas it’s DSL. In other markets we do offer fiber,” he told the Mineral Daily News-Tribune in Keyser.

Keyser, a community of just over 5,000, considers broadband high on its list of concerns.  They want it, but they also want to know it is the kind of broadband that will keep Mineral County competitive, particularly for small businesses that depend on it to reach customers.  The county created a Communications Infrastructure Council (CIC) to review broadband communications options considered vital to the community’s economic development.

Rick Welch, who serves on the CIC,  said the economic future of Mineral County depends upon high speed or fiber-optic Internet and not DSL, or Internet service which utilizes existing telephone lines.

Verizon West Virginia has bypassed the state for FiOS development, which provides a fiber-optic connection to the home, claiming the infrastructure costs are too high at today’s prices to satisfy Return On Investment requirements.  Frontier has never had an ambitious broadband agenda centered on fiber optics.

Frontier traditionally offers 1-3Mbps DSL service in most of the smaller communities they serve.  Frontier’s claim that they are currently providing customers in “other markets” with fiber broadband brings these questions:

• Exactly where?
• Under what terms?
• Is this true fiber-to-the-home service, or simply fiber connected central offices?
• Are advanced levels of service are provided to these fiber customers, or are the plans, terms, and speeds identical to traditional DSL plans?

If the deal goes through, Frontier would assume ownership of pre-existing Verizon FiOS deployments, but those were proposed and planned by Verizon, not Frontier.

“DSL will not bring anything to Mineral County as far as economic development is concerned,” he said, noting that high technology businesses require far faster speeds than DSL traditionally provides.

A Verizon representative tasked with trying to sell the deal that gets the company out of the West Virginia’s phone business said that something is better than nothing.

“To hear you say that DSL is not the future is troubling,” Verizon’s John Golden said. “If you are without broadband, DSL would be the future.”

The Mineral County Commission was unimpressed with Golden’s statement.  Commission president Wayne Spiggle told the News-Tribune a lot of businesses and those who work from home would not consider coming to Mineral County when they discovered only low speed DSL service available, commonplace more than a decade ago in other areas. Spiggle said real broadband service was essential to attract the kind of businesses Mineral County needs to succeed.

“Our mission and responsibility to Mineral County is to create an entrepreneurial garden, and high-speed broadband is essential to that,” he said.

The Communications Workers of America are also been fighting to warn state and local officials about the gamble West Virginia will take with Frontier Communications.  Considering the last three deals resulted in bankruptcy for all three, it’s a risk the CWA doesn’t think is worth taking.

“Frontier will wind up taking on at least $3.4 billion in debt from Verizon,” said John Johnston, speaking on behalf of the CWA. “Frontier has said they’ll expand broadband, but will they? With $3.4 billion in debt, that’s a lot of money,” he said.

Chuck Fouts, who serves as local CWA president said bankruptcy brings job losses.  “If you go bankrupt, the first thing that goes is people,” he said.

The union says the state should join their efforts to force Verizon to “do what they said they were going to do” and provide a plan to upgrade the state’s telecommunications system to fiber optics.

As it stands, Verizon sees higher returns from cherry-picking more urban areas for its FiOS service, and isn’t willing to provide the kind of universal service throughout its service areas that phone companies have traditionally provided for decades.

“How can Frontier provide the fiber they claim to offer in “other markets” when Verizon’s deeper pockets have thus far been turned out empty for residents in West Virginia?” asks Stop the Cap! reader Hyatt.

Investment firm D.A. Davidson downgraded Frontier’s stock last week, reporting they felt the deal would be bad for Frontier shareholders.

Moving the stock rating back to “underperform,” the firm was skeptical Frontier would be able to pull off the cost-savings it promised as part of the deal.  They also anticipated Frontier will have to finance as much as $3.3 billion of the debt (at 8-9%) it will take on as part of the transaction.  Perhaps more revealing is their prediction that Verizon shareholders who receive distributed shares of Frontier stock will likely dump them as fast as possible, remembering earlier Verizon deals that quickly led to falling stock prices and eventual bankruptcy.  D.A. Davidson warned potential Frontier investors to “at least move to the sidelines” during the anticipated grand sell-off, moving back into the stock only when it bottoms-out.

Sometimes the marketing hype associated with broadband products goes just a tad too far.

Michael is a Verizon DSL customer living with Verizon’s $34.99 3Mbps DSL service.  He reported to The Consumerist that a nearby friend in the same zip code was able to get Verizon’s 7Mbps service for $42.99 a month, so he called Verizon to see if he could obtain the same service.

I was told that it wasn’t available at my address, which is in the same zip code, but they sure can offer me 5MB for $49.99. After the run around, I politely declined and left everything be.

[Upon further checking their website] 7MB is available for my address, and for $42.99 with contract! Call #1 ended up me being told that I can in fact get 7MB but for $49.99. I declined and said no thank you. Call #2 told me that 7MB was not available, only 5MB, and it also was $49.99. I declined and called back a third time. Call #3 told me I can upgrade to 7MB but only online as “they have different specials we don’t honor over the phone.” The problem? My address states it has 7MB available… as a NEW account. If I log in my account and choose to upgrade, I can only order 5MB. I call back again, and a couple calls routed me to either the Philippines or India, and I politely hung up in frustration even before I started a conversation.

[…]

At this point I was livid and called to cancel my service.  The woman told me 7MB is absolutely 100% definitely not available for my address. She couldn’t explain why I could order it as a new account but not as an existing customer. The next part takes the cake from every reply I’ve ever heard. I directly asked “why is it I can open a new account with 7MB but I cannot order it as an existing customer?” Her response: “Your home cannot handle the 7MB speed. If I put in the order for 7MB, it will burn your house down.”

Michael was, of course, flabbergasted.  Besides, it’s usually cable installers that set your house on fire.

Verizon’s rate plan shell game guarantees they are always the winner:

“Last night surprisingly I get an email about my Verizon account. My rates are being raised to $36.99 for my current 3MB service.”  Presumably Verizon needs to purchase fire insurance to protect customers from the blazing fast speeds.  Or is that red hot glow coming from customers?

The Consumerist recommends an e-mail carpet bombing of Verizon executives’ e-mail accounts to get someone to resolve his problems.  Here’s a better answer for unresolved complaints regarding Verizon: Call the Verizon Executive Customer Relations office at 1-800-483-7988 and press 3.

AT&T’s DSL customers are promised high speed service that can never be delivered thanks to speed caps and dishonest marketing.  That is the premise of a lawsuit filed against AT&T way back in 2005 in St. Louis County Circuit Court.  After years of languishing, the lawsuit has recently been certified a “class action,” which means it could eventually expose AT&T to thousands of settlements with DSL customers all the way back to 2000 in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas.

An attorney with Gray, Ritter & Graham in St. Louis, which is handling the case, accused AT&T of making speed claims for its DSL service it knew it could never actually deliver to consumers.  The suit describes several instances where customers’ modems were artificially locked at speeds far lower than promised in company advertising, often making it impossible to reach even the minimum promised speeds.

“They were being charged for these high speeds that could not be delivered,” said Don Downing, an attorney with the firm.

AT&T admits it does cap DSL speeds, but calls the process “optimization.”  That usually refers to the process of identifying the maximum supportable speed a telephone line can handle with minimal errors, and then configuring the modem not to exceed that speed.  As DSL speeds will decrease the further away a customer lives from the phone company’s facilities, typically advertised speeds are often achieved only by a select few who live very close to the phone company’s exchange office.

The fine print in AT&T's DSL service terms and conditions

AT&T maintains records of every customer capped, and at what rate.  The legal firm handling the case considers that a potential road map of identifying impacted consumers.

AT&T has notified the court it may seek to appeal the class certification, but otherwise does not comment on pending litigation.

Many customers have not been impressed with AT&T’s DSL service.

“We recently left AT&T because our DSL, which worked fine, suddenly stopped working completely and when it was brought back up, it was almost as slow as dial-up. The service guy told me that was as fast as we would ever get with DSL, which was odd because two weeks earlier the speed had been fine,” Anne writes.  “Needless to say, we’ve switched to Charter (Cable).”

Another AT&T customer noted getting out of bad AT&T DSL service can be difficult, unless you are willing to pay.

Dano notes, “When you sign up, there’s a one year contract and termination fee on the lowest speed you’d have to deal with if you close your account early. They will get you either way.”

Frontier's latest promotion promotes one price, but you'll pay considerably more thanks to profit-padding fees, surcharges, and taxes.

Frontier Communications is mass-mailing its latest DSL promotion to customers — a year of their fastest tier DSL service for just $20.10 per month.

Labeled “FrontierFast,” the promotion claims you will get a “groundbreaking value” on their fastest Internet service for $20.10 per month, with a Price Protection Plan and a $4.50 monthly modem fee.  Frontier says you will enjoy:

• Breakthrough speeds at an unbeatable price
• Dedicated, unshared connection that won’t bog down during peak hours
• Safe, secure Frontier Mail and a personal online portal powered by Yahoo!
• Free professional installation
• A three month free-trial of Peace of Mind Hard Drive Backup and unlimited technical support.

Sounds reasonable… until you explore the terms and conditions that are attached to it.  Frontier has created a minefield of tricks and traps designed to maximize their profits and make you jump through hoops to minimize your exposure to them.

Let’s explore:

1. The $4.50 monthly modem fee makes it $24.60 for 2010.  The modem fee is nothing more than profit-padding.
2. That “Price Protection Plan” is really a nice way of saying “contract term” committing you to sticking with Frontier broadband for one year, or face a $200 early cancellation penalty.
3. That “Peace of Mind” trial is anything but if you forget to cancel before the three free months are up.  If you don’t they’ll charge you an extra $9.99 a month for the service.  Forgot to cancel during the trial?  Then pony up a $50 cancellation fee if you want out.  At least the free trial is optional.  Do yourself a favor and opt out before Frontier opts-in your wallet.
4. The promotion is available to new customers only, and you are required to bundle it with phone service -and- pay installation fees for that phone line, if you don’t have one already.
5. Service is subject to availability, speeds are not guaranteed, and your credit will be checked before you get service.
6. Taxes and surcharges apply, and they do add up fast.  You can easily add an additional $10 when combining the modem rental fee with the other fees Frontier collects for various taxing authorities.
7. Don’t forget Frontier defines an appropriate amount of usage at just 5GB per month in their Acceptable Use Policy.

Broadband service shouldn’t have to come with a minefield of fine print and profit-padding fees and surcharges.  The out-the-door price should be published so customers can truly understand what they are getting into, before exposing themselves to those steep cancellation fees.  They should also not have to worry about a ridiculous 5GB limit in Frontier’s Acceptable Use Policy.

Sir Michael Rake

Hambleden residents who have fought for years to obtain broadband service from British Telecom are boiling mad over their discovery one comparatively recent arrival to the Oxfordshire village near Henley-on-Thames managed to get service shortly after moving in a year ago.  It turns out the “lucky” resident chosen to participate in a very limited trial of so-called “broadband enabling technology” is none other than the chairman of the company providing the service.

Sir Michael Rake managed to obtain the only broadband connection in the rural community as part of what the company called a pilot trial to test out the commercial feasibility of new technology to extend broadband service to more rural locations across Great Britain.

Of course, the “new technology” is reportedly little more than an extender for DSL service that is capable of delivering 1Mbps service on Britain’s aging copper telephone wiring.

The neighbors are furious anyway.

Some have been trying to get broadband service installed for at least five years to no avail.  Hambleden is just one of many rural communities bypassed by BT broadband.

Hambleden is just 35 miles northwest of London

Gary Ashworth, head of Abacus Recruitment told the Daily Telegraph: “It stinks of corruption. The chairman of BT is given preferential treatment over long-serving customers. I run a business and we probably have 1,000 BT lines. Clearly there is preferential treatment if you happen to be the chairman. I think it is a disgrace.”

Ashworth inquired if he could participate in the “BT trial.”  BT promptly said no, saying he’d have to wait until 2010 at the earliest.

“Sir Michael Rake is the only person allowed to participate in the trial in our area. He moved into the village a year ago and surprise, surprise, he has got broadband,” Ashworth complains.

Although Rake can enjoy the benefits of broadband as a trial participant, BT was willing to extend Ashworth broadband service, if he ponied up £68,000 for the installation.

While the chairman of BT browses the web today at his Hambleden estate, the company admits wiring the entire community would not be profitable.

The Daily Mail interviewed Paul Goodman, the Tory MP for Wycombe, who said “the lack of broadband in the Hambleden Valley is a very serious problem for my constituents.”

“Unless all BT staff members are entitled to participate in the trial on exactly the same terms, I think some of my constituents will find this very strange,” he told the Daily Mail.

The government has promised to underwrite broadband expansion into rural areas by 2012 with revenue earned from a 50p surcharge on phone bills.