Frontier Communications customers may be owed refunds for their Internet service because, a new lawsuit alleges, the company deceptively billed customers fees the company is not entitled to receive.

Four Frontier customers — three in Minnesota and one in New York — are suing the company for add-on charges the company claims are required by the government, but in fact are pocketed by the phone company.

The lawsuit claims Frontier is guilty of fraud, breach of contract, deceptive practices, false advertising and violations of the Federal Communications Act and the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

The plaintiffs claim broadband customers are being billed for certain state and federal taxes, 911 surcharges, and Universal Service Fund fees, even though they don’t apply to broadband service.

“It is merely a junk fee that Frontier imposes on customers,” the lawsuit says.  “The fee bears no relationship to any governmentally-imposed fee or regulation, and is nothing other than an effort by Frontier to increase prices above the advertised price.”

Adding fuel to the fire, Frontier recently imposed a new “HSI Surcharge” on broadband customers, and as Stop the Cap! reported earlier, some company representatives have claimed that fee is government mandated as well.

In fact, federal law bans most taxes on Internet service under the Internet Tax Freedom Act.  Since broadband customers cannot dial 911 from a DSL modem, 911 surcharges should not apply either.  USF fees only apply to voice telephone service.  Frontier, the suit alleges, levies all of these fees on the broadband portion of customer bills.

Frontier has more than 7 million customers nationwide, although the company does not disclose how many of them purchase broadband service.  If the lawsuit achieves class action status, Frontier could be required to return the ill-gotten gains to customers if a judge agrees they were wrongly collected.  That could cost the company millions in retroactive refunds.

Fiber optic cable spool

For the most populated provinces in Canada, questions about when fiber-to-the-home service will become a reality are easy to answer:  Never, indefinitely.

Some of Canada’s largest telecommunications providers have their minds made up — fiber isn’t for consumers, it’s for their backbone and business networks.  For citizens of Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, and Vancouver coping with bandwidth shortages, providers have a much better answer: pay more, use less Internet.

Fiber broadband projects in Canada are hard to find, because providers refuse to invest in broadband upgrades to deliver the kinds of speeds and capacity Canadians increasingly demand.  Instead, companies like Bell, Shaw, and Rogers continue to hand out pithy upload speeds, throttled downloads, and often stingy usage caps.  Much of the country still relies on basic DSL service from Bell or Telus, and the most-promoted broadband expansion project in the country — Bell’s Fibe, is phoney baloney because it relies on existing copper telephone wires to deliver the last mile of service to customers.

Much like in the United States, the move to replace outdated copper phone lines and coaxial cable in favor of near-limitless capacity fiber remains stalled in most areas.  The reasons are simple: lack of competition to drive providers to invest in upgrades and the unwillingness to spend $1000 per home to install fiber when a 100GB usage cap and slower speeds will suffice.

The Toronto Globe & Mail reports that while 30-50 percent of homes in South Korea and Japan have fiber broadband, only 18 percent of Americans and less than 2 percent of Canadians have access to the networks that routinely deliver 100Mbps affordable broadband without rationed broadband usage plans.

In fact, the biggest fiber projects underway in Canada are being built in unexpected places that run contrary to the conventional wisdom that suggest fiber installs only make sense in large, population-dense, urban areas.

Manitoba’s MTS plans to spend $125-million over the next five years to launch its fiber to the home service, FiON.  By the end of 2015, MTS expects to deploy fiber to about 120,000 homes in close to 20 Manitoba communities.  In Saskatchewan, SaskTel is investing $199 million in its network in 2011 and approximately $670 million in a seven-year Next Generation Broadband Access Program (2011 – 2017). This program will deploy Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) and upgrade the broadband network in the nine largest urban centers in the province – Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, Estevan, Swift Current, Yorkton, North Battleford and Prince Albert.

“Saskatchewan continues to be a growing and dynamic place,” Minister responsible for SaskTel Bill Boyd said. “The deployment of FTTP will create the bandwidth capacity to allow SaskTel to deploy exciting new next generation technologies to better serve the people of Saskatchewan.”

But the largest fiber project of all will serve the unlikely provinces of Atlantic Canada, among the most economically challenged in the country.  Bell Aliant is targeting its FibreOP fiber to the home network to over 600,000 homes by the end of next year.  On that network, Bell Aliant plans to sell speeds up to 170/30Mbps to start.

In comparison, residents in larger provinces are making due with 3-10Mbps DSL service from Bell or Telus, or expensive usage-limited, speed-throttled cable broadband service from companies like Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron.

Bell Canada is trying to convince its customers it has the fiber optic network they want.  Its Fibe Internet service sure sounds like fiber, but the product fails truth-in-advertising because it isn’t an all-fiber-network at all. It’s similar to AT&T’s U-verse — relying on fiber to the neighborhood, using existing copper phone wires to finish the job.  Technically, that isn’t much different from today’s cable systems, which also use fiber to reach into individual neighborhoods.  Traditional coaxial cable handles the signal for the rest of the journey into subscriber homes.

A half-fiber network can do better than none at all.  In Ontario, Bell sells Fibe Internet packages at speeds up to 25Mbps, but even those speeds cannot compare to what true fiber networks can deliver.

Globe & Mail readers seemed to understand today’s broadband realities in the barely competitive broadband market. One reader’s take:

“The problem in Canada (and elsewhere) preventing wide scale deployment of FTTH isn’t the technology, nor the cost. It’s a lack of political vision and will, coupled with incumbent service providers doing whatever they can to hold on to a dysfunctional model that serves their interests at the expense of consumers.”

Another:

“The problem with incumbents is they only think in 2-3 year terms. If they can’t make their money back in that period of time, they’re not interested. Thinking 20, heck even 10 years ahead is not in their vocabulary.”

Frontier Communications has announced the availability of Metro Ethernet service to a total of 55 cities in 11 states, with one Frontier representative describing it as perfect for individuals “who are serious gamers, people who download videos and those who watch TV and movies on their computers.”  Apparently Diana Anderson, technical supervisor for Frontier in Kennewick, Wash., has not read Frontier’s Washington State service tariff (5.7.7b) to understand the cost implications of signing up for the service.

Metro Ethernet falls between DSL and fiber optic connectivity, and delivers service at speeds that can approach 100Mbps or more, depending on telephone company facilities and the distance of copper between your home or business and the central switching office.  There are Metro Ethernet services that work over fiber networks, fiber-copper hybrid networks, and even traditional copper landlines — the ones Frontier uses to deliver its MetroE service.

Frontier is pitching Metro Ethernet primarily to medium and large-sized businesses who need more speed than the phone company can offer over its traditional DSL products.  The reason it’s not marketed to consumers is the cost.  Frontier’s Metro Ethernet service is included in Frontier’s tariff for Washington with an installation fee of $320 and a Metro Ethernet-Special Transport fee of $75 a month per DS1 (1.544Mbps).  Customers can get additional speed above 1.544Mbps by paying for additional DS1’s.

We called Frontier’s customer service and asked about service pricing in the Rochester area.  A residential customer service representative had to transfer us to the business products office — they do not sell “residential” Metro Ethernet.  A representative there said the service was available in several parts of Rochester, but was “completely unfeasible” for residential customers because of its cost.  Frontier DSL is the recommended solution for all residential customers in western New York, despite the fact the service does not exceed 3Mbps in our neighborhood (although it is marketed at speeds up to 10Mbps locally).

The following communities now have access to Frontier MetroE service:

• Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
• Bloomington, Carbondale, DeKalb, Freeport, Jacksonville, Lincoln, Marion and Olney, Illinois
• Elkhart, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, Richmond, Terra Haute and Valparaiso, Indiana
• Adrian, Coldwater, Mount Pleasant, Muskegon and Sturgis, Michigan
• Bryson City, Burnsville, Cherokee, Creedmoor, Durham , Hayesville, Marion and Murphy, North Carolina
• Gardnerville, Nevada
• Athens, Bowling Green, Delaware, Jackson, Marion, Medina, Troy and Wilmington, Ohio
• Beaverton, Coos Bay, Gresham and Hillsboro, Oregon
• Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
• Everett and Kennewick, Washington
• Merrill, Sun Prairie and Wausau, Wisconsin

Let us know what kind of pricing and promotions you can get from Frontier for Metro Ethernet in your area in our comments section.

The primary backers of the ABC Plan

Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is scheduled to deliver a major announcement on reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF) — a federal program designed to subsidize the costs of delivering telecommunications services to rural America.

The reform, long overdue, would transition a significant percentage of USF fees every telephone customer pays towards broadband deployment — a noble endeavor.  For years, Americans have paid more than $5 billion annually to phone companies large and small to maintain rural landline service.  Small co-op phone companies depend on the income to deliver affordable service in places like rural Iowa, Kansas, and Alaska.  But large companies like AT&T and Verizon also collect a significant share (around $800 million annually) to reduce their costs of service in the rural communities they serve.

That’s particularly ironic for AT&T, which time and time again has sought the right to abandon universal rural landline service altogether.

Genachowski’s idea would divert USF funding towards broadband construction projects.  The argument goes that even low speed DSL requires a well-maintained landline network, so phone companies that want to deploy rural broadband will have to spend the money on necessary upgrades to provide just enough service to earn their USF subsidies.  The lower the speed, the lower the cost to upgrade networks and provide the service.  Some may choose wireless technology instead.  Since the telephone companies have fought long and hard to define “broadband” as anything approaching 3-4Mbps, that will likely be the kind of speed rural Americans will receive.

At first glance, USF reform seems like a good idea, but as with everything at the FCC these days, the devil is always in the details.

Dampier: Another day, another self-serving plan from the phone companies that will cost you more.

While headline skimmers are likely to walk away with the idea that the FCC is doing something good for rural broadband, in fact, the Commission may simply end up rubber stamping an industry-written and supported plan that will substantially raise phone bills and divert your money into projects and services the industry was planning to sell you anyway.

Stop the Cap! wrote about the ABC Plan a few weeks ago when we discovered almost all of the support for the phone-company-written proposal comes from the phone companies who back it, as well as various third party organizations that receive substantial financial support from those companies.  It’s a dollar-a-holler astroturf movement in the making, and if the ABC Plan is enacted, you will pay for it.

[Read Universal Service Reform Proposal from Big Telcos Would Rocket Phone Bills Higher and Astroturf and Industry-Backed, Dollar-a-Holler Friends Support Telco’s USF Reform Plan.]

Here is what you probably won’t hear at today’s event.

At the core of the ABC Plan is a proposal to slash the per-minute rates rural phone companies can charge big city phone companies like AT&T and Verizon to connect calls to rural areas.  You win a gold star if you correctly guessed this proposal originated with AT&T and Verizon, who together will save literally billions in call connection costs under their plan.

With a proposal like this, you would assume most rural phone companies are howling in protest.  It turns out some are, especially some of the smallest, family-run and co-op based providers.  But a bunch of phone companies that consider rural America their target area — Frontier, CenturyLink, FairPoint and Windstream, are all on board with AT&T and Verizon.  Why?

Because these phone companies have a way to cover that lost revenue — by jacking up your phone bill’s USF surcharge to as much as $11 a month per line to make up the difference.  In the first year of implementation, your rates could increase up to $4.50 per line (and that fee also extends to cell phones).  Critics have been widely publicizing the increased phone bills guaranteed under the ABC Plan.  In response, advocates for the industry are rushing out the results of a new study released yesterday from the Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George S. Ford that claims the exact opposite.  Dr. Ford claims each customer could pay approximately $14 less per year in access charges if the industry’s ABC Plan is fully implemented.

Genachowski

Who is right?  State regulators suggest rate increases, not decreases, will result.  The “Phoenix Center,” unsurprisingly, has not disclosed who paid for the study, but there is a long record of a close working relationship between that research group and both AT&T and Verizon.

But it gets even worse.

This shell game allows your local phone company to raise rates and blame it on the government, despite the fact those companies will directly benefit from that revenue in many cases.  It’s a real win-win for AT&T and Verizon, who watch their costs plummet while also sticking you with a higher phone bill.

The USF program was designed to provide for the neediest rural phone companies, but under the new industry-written rules being considered by the FCC, just about everyone can get a piece, as long as “everyone” is defined as “the phone company.”  There is a reason this plan does not win the hearts and minds of the cable industry, independent Wireless ISPs, municipalities, or other competing upstarts.  As written, the USF reform plan guarantees virtually all of the financial support stays in the Bell family.  Under the arcane rules of participation, only telephone companies are a natural fit to receive USF money.

Genachowski will likely suggest this plan will provide for rural broadband in areas where it is unavailable today.  He just won’t say what kind of broadband rural America will get.  He can’t, because the industry wrote their own rules in their plan to keep accountability and oversight as far away as possible.

For example, let’s assume you are a frustrated customer of Frontier Communications in West Virginia who lives three blocks away from the nearest neighbor who pays $50 a month for 3Mbps DSL broadband.  You can’t buy the service at any price because Frontier doesn’t offer it.  You have called them a dozen times and they keep promising it’s on the way, but they cannot say when.  You may have even seen them running new cable in the neighborhood.

Frontier has made it clear they intend to wire a significantly greater percentage of the Mountain State than Verizon ever did when it ran things.  Let’s take them at their word for this example.

The telephone companies have helpfully written their own rules for the FCC to adopt.

Frontier’s decision to provide broadband service in West Virginia does not come out of the goodness of their heart.  At a time when landline customers are increasingly disconnecting service, Frontier’s long-term business plan is to keep customers connected by selling packages of phone, broadband, and satellite TV in rural markets.  Investment in DSL broadband deployment has been underway with or without the assistance of the Universal Service Fund because it makes financial sense.  Our customer in West Virginia might disconnect his landline and use a cell phone instead, costing Frontier any potential broadband, TV and telephone service revenue.

Under the ABC Plan, Frontier can be subsidized by ratepayers nationwide to deliver the service they were planning to provide anyway.  And what kind of service?  The same 3Mbps DSL the neighbors have.

If your county government, a cable operator, or wireless competitor decided they could deliver 10-20Mbps broadband for the same $50 a month, could they receive the USF subsidy to build a better network instead?  Under the phone company plan, the answer would be almost certainly no.

Simon Fitch, the consumer advocate of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, which advises the FCC on universal service matters, says the ABC Plan is a consumer disaster.

“Although a stated goal of the FCC’s reform effort is to refocus universal-service funding to support broadband, the industry’s ABC plan requires no real commitment to make broadband available to unserved and underserved communities,” Fitch writes. “Companies would receive funds to provide broadband with upload and download speeds that are already obsolete. States would be given no real enforcement power.”

Fitch is certain companies like AT&T and Verizon will receive enormous ratepayer-financed subsidies they don’t actually need to provide service.

Back to AT&T.

In several states, AT&T is seeking the right to terminate its universal service obligation altogether, which would allow the same company fiercely backing the ABC Plan to entirely walk away from its landline network.  Why?  Because AT&T sees its future profits in wireless.  Under the ABC Plan, AT&T could build rural cell towers with your money to provide “replacement service” over a wireless network with or without great coverage, and with a 2GB usage cap.

At the press conference, Genachowski could still declare victory because rural America would, in fact, get broadband.  Somehow, the parts about who is actually paying for it, the fact it comes with no speed, coverage, or quality guarantees, and starts with a 2GB usage cap on the wireless side will all be left out.

Fortunately, not everyone is as enamored with the ABC Plan as the groups cashing checks written by AT&T.

In addition to state regulators, Consumers Union, the AARP, Free Press, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates are all opposed to the plan, which delivers all of the benefits to giant phone companies while sticking you with the bill.

There is a better way.  State regulators and consumer groups have their own plans which accomplish the same noble goal of delivering subsidies to broadband providers of all kinds without increasing your telephone bill.  It’s up to the FCC to demonstrate it’s not simply a rubber stamp for the schemes being pushed by AT&T and Verizon.

South Africa’s largest Internet Service Provider, the former state-owned telephone company Telkom, has introduced uncapped broadband service across the country.

Telkom’s Do Uncapped offering removes usage limits after “intensive market research” and “data usage trials” concluded South African consumers absolutely despise usage limits on their Internet access.

In fact, in overwhelming numbers, consumers preferred unlimited access over faster broadband speed packages.  Even throttled “fair use” policies which slightly reduce speeds during peak usage periods are more tolerable than restricted usage allowances, overlimit fees, and punishing “dial-up” speeds when customers exceed their usage limit.

“To feed the hunger for data, Telkom has tailored its Do Uncapped range according to consumer usage patterns derived from findings of the Company’s broadband trials on higher cap trials conducted earlier this year,” the company said in a statement.

Inexpensive, lower speed offerings are available at 384kbps and 1Mbps, but do come with certain daytime speed restrictions, especially on peer to peer traffic.  The premium 4Mbps package is truly unlimited.

South Africa’s challenged telephone network has resulted in relatively low broadband speeds when compared against Asia, North America, and Europe, but the unlimited offerings are being welcomed by Telkom customers across the country.

Because DSL service from the phone company has traditionally been slow and, until recently, expensive, many South Africans rely primarily on wireless mobile services, which can be more reliable in some parts of the country.  Some purchase wireless broadband service from providers like MTN instead of DSL from the phone company.

As a home broadband replacement, wireless mobile broadband has always meant compromising on usage, because most plans are heavily capped and some block access to certain web content.  But MTN is responding to Telkom’s move away from usage caps by removing them from its own wireless network, at least during a promotion.

MTN is kicking off the South African summer with its newest promotion, unlimited speed and uncapped wireless data access on the company’s HSPA+ network, effective Oct. 1.

The limits stay off until the end of summer — Jan 2012.

“We have seen a significant number of our customers taking up latest smartphones, tablet PCs, wireless routers and laptop deals that MTN is offering,” said Serame Taukobong, MTN South Africa Chief Marketing Officer. “This promotion is a response to the increased data appetite that comes with the usage of these devices.”

That’s an attitude foreign to North American mobile operators, who see those devices as enemies of their wireless network (or the basis for future profits).  In South Africa, consumers adopting new wireless devices and increased usage has triggered a marketplace response that eases or ends usage caps.  In North America, the opposite is happening.

MTN has slashed its mobile broadband prices over the course of 2011 for the highest speed, unlimited access package from a budget-busting $248 a month to $111 a month.  A slower speed unlimited package now sells for $37 a month.  That becomes very affordable for Internet users who use their mobile devices exclusively for access.  Even a package selling over $100 a month may be comparably affordable to an American who is required to maintain a home broadband and mobile broadband account.

MTN even allows wireless peer to peer traffic, but the company asks subscribers to be reasonable and not leave it running 24/7.