West Virginia residents are assured of an indefinite future with 1-3Mbps usage-capped “broadband” as Frontier won conditional approval of its plan to assume control of the majority of the state’s landlines.

Frontier Communications, the phone company with the 5 gigabyte monthly acceptable usage allowance, won approval from West Virginia’s Public Service Commission after nearly a year of opposition from several unions and consumer advocacy groups.  The opposition, led by the Communications Workers of America, charged that Frontier’s balance sheet made it impossible for the company to fulfill promises to deliver quality phone and broadband service to the majority of the state’s residents.  Consumer groups, including Stop the Cap!, argued Frontier’s DSL broadband service is inadequate for the state’s needs, because it typically only provides 1-3Mbps speed and is usage-limited for residential customers.

Verizon’s history of bad service in the state helped drive some to believe Frontier can do better

Verizon’s West Virginia division has frequently achieved a poor rating among many West Virginians upset with the company’s service record and broadband deployment.  Last Monday, the PSC announced that Verizon’s service in the state was so poor, it ordered the company to place $72.4 million in an irrevocable escrow account to be used to improve the quality of service.  The PSC found Verizon’s disinterest in delivering service in West Virginia had resulted in the deterioration of Verizon’s essential infrastructure.

The PSC-ordered escrow account will be used to maintain and improve everything from restoring copper wiring to vegetation control and pole replacement.

With a history of complaints like that, it comes as no surprise West Virginians are ready to wave goodbye to Verizon, hoping for better times with Frontier Communications.

Bray Cary

Bray Cary, a TV station owner in West Virginia, has hosted editorials on his network of local stations across the state promoting the transaction, believing it will bring a better future for the state’s telecommunications needs.  Just two weeks ago, he demanded the PSC make a decision on the proposed merger, claiming the state needs a “modern, cutting edge communication system that will bring high-speed Internet to every corner of this state.”  Unfortunately for Cary, there is nothing from Frontier that comes close to “cutting edge,” with the exception of the company’s brazen Internet Overcharging scheme now being tested in Minnesota that threatens to bring $250 monthly broadband bills to some residents.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston State Must Act on Verizon-Frontier Deal 5-4-10.flv[/flv]

WOWK-TV’s Bray Cary criticized the West Virginia Public Service Commission for stalling on a decision to move forward the Verizon-Frontier landline transfer in the state.  Just about ten days later, the PSC conditionally approved the deal.  [Video problems were a part of the original clip] (Aired: May 4, 2010 — 1 minute)

Frontier specializes in delivering slow-speed DSL service to most of its rural service areas, usually less than 3Mbps in speed.  Even in its largest service area, Rochester, N.Y., the company’s broadband options are an also-ran against the far faster and more reliable cable modem service from Time Warner Cable, which also beats Frontier’s out-the-door price.

Unfortunately, West Virginian media has never given important details to residents about the specific services Frontier is willing and able to offer residential customers.  It also never informed customers about the important limitations the company attaches to its “high speed Internet” Cary hopes to see available in every corner of the state.

Sometimes change for change’s sake is not an improvement.

The PSC attaches conditions to its approval

The Commission did not grant blanket approval to the transaction.  The PSC is requiring that Frontier:

• Honors all existing obligations of Verizon following the close of the sale, including the currently effective Retail Quality Service Plan approved by the Commission to continue through at least July 2, 2011.
• Makes capital investments in Verizon of $30 million during the second half of 2010, $75 million in 2011 (including $12 million targeted at service quality), $63 million in 2012 and $63 million in 2013.
• Makes additional capital investments of at least $48 million to increase broadband deployment and subscription in the Verizon service territory.
• Expands broadband availability in Verizon service areas so that by no later than the end of the fourth year following the close of the sale, access to broadband service will be available to no less than 85 percent of the households within Verizon service areas.
• Locates its Southeast regional headquarters in Charleston, WV, after closing the sale. Charleston will be Frontier’s Southeastern regional headquarters, and will be a major employment center for Frontier in the region. It will be the hub for engineering, technical, operation and executive personnel for Frontier’s operations in West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
• Adopts all of Verizon’s tariffs, price lists and contracts, including long distance, under the same terms and conditions at closing.
• Caps all regulated rates subject to jurisdiction of the Commission for one year after close of the transaction.
• Provides E-911 functionality provided by Verizon prior to close.
• Waives early termination fees for current Verizon customers participating in a Verizon bundled service package for the first 90 days after closing.

Reactions from all over

“We’re pleased the commission has approved the transaction. The record developed in this case provides comprehensive evidence and assurances that the transaction with Frontier Communications is in the public interest and will provide many benefits to West Virginia residents, including increased investment and broadband availability in the state, while protecting jobs and promoting employment.”

— Verizon-West Virginia President B. Keith Fulton

“We’re in the process of evaluating the order. After full review we’ll look at what we can do that will best serve West Virginia consumers and CWA members. Of course, we’re disappointed but we’re heartened by the fact that at least one person on the three-member commission agreed with us and more than 80 legislators, several county commissions and a broad coalition of consumer, union and first responder organizations that this deal is too risky and not in the public’s interest. The split decision shows our arguments about the deal had validity.”

— Communications Workers of America, District 2 Vice President Ron Collins

Byron L. Harris heads the Consumer Advocate Division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission

“There are many areas of West Virginia that will always be dependent on landlines, absent some sea of change in technology. Those are the people I’m most concerned about. They’re the truly captive customers of now Verizon and, in the future, Frontier.”

— West Virginia Public Service Commission’s consumer advocate Byron Harris

“We’ve seen how Wall Street’s investments can backfire. Like Frontier today, Wall Street once put its confidence in Global Crossing and that led to a disastrous bankruptcy. We’re concerned that the Rochester-area and other existing Frontier properties may be starved to fund this expansion.”

— John Pusloskie, President of CWA Local 1170 in Rochester, N.Y.

“Today’s approval is a welcome and important step. Our goal is to gain the approval of the FCC so that we can close the transaction and begin bringing its benefits to consumers and businesses.”

— Maggie Wilderotter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Frontier

West Virginian media covers the conditional approval

A handful of television stations covered the conditional approval, most without much depth.  West Virginian newspapers covered the fight between Verizon and Frontier and the unions and consumer groups, but no paper really provided in-depth coverage into the challenges of West Virginia broadband and what precisely Frontier is capable of providing to solve it.  Consumers will discover soon enough that West Virginia has yet again gotten the short end of the online stick.  Only this time, they better not wave it around too much — it might exceed your monthly stick-waving allowance.

[flv width=”500″ height=”395″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOWK Charleston Union – Verizon-Frontier Deal Bad for W.Va., Verizon Responds 5-14-10.flv[/flv]

WOWK-TV in Charleston delivered the most substantial report on the sale, including this brief interview with PSC spokeswoman Sarah Robertson.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTAP Parkersburg Verizon-Frontier Deal Approved 5-14-10.flv[/flv]

WTAP-TV in Parkersburg ran this brief in-studio report about the Verizon-Frontier approval.  (1 minute)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDTV Bridgeport Verizon Sells Land Lines to Frontier 5-14-10.mp4[/flv]

WDTV-TV in Bridgeport explained the requirements of the conditional approval.  This was the only report on the approval that included the opposition’s perspective.  (1 minute)

That's not all that expanded in Reno... customer's broadband bills faced $1/GB overlimit penalties as part of an Internet Overcharging experiment

AT&T’s experiment with usage caps appears to have lost them loyal customers, and generated numerous complaints against AT&T with the Better Business Bureau regional offices in Nevada and Texas for false advertising.  Now there are indications AT&T will wrap up the entire experiment by this April and “study the results.”  Stop the Cap! reader John wrote to say the nightmare may be ending… for now.  At least one of our readers arguing with intransigent AT&T executives heard likewise.

AT&T last year subjected Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada to a trial forcing a usage allowance between 20-150 gigabytes per month on customers, depending on the type of broadband plan selected.  The proposed overlimit fee?  $1.00 per gigabyte, although problems with their usage meter often kept overlimit fees off customer bills.

We’ve documented the howls of complaints from customers who were falsely sold an “unlimited” plan from AT&T and were never notified, or notified after signing up, of the existence of the Internet Overcharging scheme.  Some customers received express mail letters officially notifying them of the scheme, others received robocalls.  Complaints to the Better Business Bureau usually got any excess charges refunded, and some managed to secure a complete exemption from the usage cap trial, under threat of canceling their accounts.

Stop the Cap! reader Robin is a typical example of a customer who was sold a bill of goods by AT&T’s marketing, only to be punished with the fine print after signing on the dotted line.

“I just got my Express letter in the mail today. My internet was hooked up yesterday – no one ever said anything about any cap! I was in shock when I received the letter in the mail, I have never heard of anything like this. I live about 30 minutes out of Reno. Needless to say I am very very upset and trying to figure out what I am going to do now as I know I will go over the cap every month, I can’t afford that and I can’t afford cable internet at this time either. AT&T sucks and so does their customer service.”

Robin joins many other customers in both communities stuck in a trial that even some AT&T customer service representatives don’t understand.  Robin’s calls to customer service met with claims the account could not be found, and transfers to four different AT&T departments before being able to address the usage cap surprise.

Albert, another reader, was similarly surprised.

“They are fraudulent in every respect. The state attorney should look into this. They say “unlimited” and when you sign up, they send you a little email saying you are screwed [with the trial],” he writes.

AT&T’s response to Albert was essentially “tough cookies” and if he didn’t like it, he could cancel.

Our readers in Beaumont went through the same AT&T Confusion Circus, transferred between departments until someone recognized the caller was a lucky winner of an Internet Overcharging experiment.

In both cities, delivering an effective message of customer contempt with AT&T’s usage cap scheme means filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.  As an accredited member, AT&T values its rating very highly, and targeting complaints to the Bureau forces them to spend time and money to respond.  Better yet, AT&T executives don’t like it one bit, as Albert writes:

“Go to the Southern Nevada Better Business Bureau and file a complaint. I just had the VP of Regional West of AT&T call.  She was pissed that I filed a complaint, and now she has to personally reply. She hung up on me.”

Being an active consumer willing to make your voice heard is an effective way to deliver the message pricing and usage tricks and traps are unacceptable.  Better yet, it annoys providers with dollar signs in their eyes, especially when canceling your service.

Albert was told the nightmare ends April 1st, when the trial wraps up, but now is the time to deliver the final protest AT&T cannot ignore.

April 1st is an ironic date — the first anniversary of  Time Warner Cable sharing word of its own Internet Overcharging experiment in Austin, San Antonio, Greensboro, NC and Rochester, NY. After two weeks of protest, Time Warner Cable shelved their experiment.

If you’re a resident of Reno or Beaumont, it’s critically important to deliver AT&T a message they can understand:

1. Contact the local media and request they publicize the ongoing controversy over Internet Overcharging schemes;
2. Contact your local and federal elected officials and let them know AT&T’s schemes are unacceptable.  See our “Take Action” section regarding support for legislation that would outlaw such schemes;
3. File a detailed complaint with the Better Business Bureau, particularly emphasizing any lack of disclosure about the experiment, bait and switch advertising, ripoff pricing, etc.  Demand an immediate and full refund for any overage charges and a free pass to cancel AT&T services without any early termination fees.
4. Reno residents — contact Barbara DiCianno at 775-334-3112. She is the mayor’s assistant. Call her and ask to have an investigation launched regarding AT&T’s discrimination against Reno with overcharging schemes that put the city at a distinct broadband disadvantage.  Local elected officials can deliver a strong political message to AT&T that such overcharging schemes will lead to robust support for re-regulation of AT&T’s broadband business to protect consumers.
5. Tell AT&T you will never remain a customer of a provider that has Internet Overcharging pricing schemes.  Tell them in no uncertain terms usage limits and usage based billing are unacceptable, and you will cancel service the moment they attempt to implement either.

A year ago, it was the residents of Beaumont and the other cities impacted by Time Warner Cable’s overcharging scheme that fought on the front line to protect every Time Warner Cable customer from facing a tripling of their price for broadband service.  Today it’s Reno and Beaumont fighting for AT&T customers, both inside their own communities and those nationwide.  As Albert reminds us:

“We will be the ones that determine if this continues or stops here and now.”

Rogers Wireless has withdrawn a proposal placed before Canadian regulators to force its competitors to pay up ex-customers’ unpaid cell phone bills.

In mid-January, Rogers filed a request with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) requesting the agency force other cell phone companies to make good on any past due balances left when customers switched providers.

When other providers didn’t get on board, the company withdrew the proposal.

Rogers’ proposal would have left a customer’s new cell phone provider on the hook for any past due charges left on that customer’s final bill.  With early termination fees running well over $100, that’s a big tab to drop on Canadian cell phone companies, particularly for new entrants in the marketplace.

Providers would have had to require verification of a “clean break” from a previous provider before taking on new customers, creating bureaucratic red tape, and a built-in incentive to hold customers in place.  But the company first advocated the proposal as a solution to the problem of past due balances.

“Customers porting out mid-contract with unpaid balances are costing Rogers, and most probably other wireless carriers as well, millions of dollars each year,” the company said. “The task of collecting these unpaid balances is made much more difficult once a customer ports their number to a new carrier as the relationship has been terminated.”

Rogers claims the problem of unpaid balances on canceled service became a problem after the advent of number portability in 2007.  Customers switching providers can keep their existing cell phone number.  With even greater competition in the Canadian wireless marketplace, customers are more willing than ever to take their business elsewhere, occasionally not paying their last bill.

Critics accused Rogers of trying to throw roadblocks up to make switching a hassle.

Michael Janigan, executive director at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a consumer watchdog, told CBC News Rogers’ move is an attempt to slow down the loss of Rogers’ market share.  Rogers’ new competitors, including Wind Mobile, and better prices from Telus and Bell are prompting customers to switch.

“This is the clear downside of long-term contracts for a supplier and now they want regulation to solve a problem brought about by market forces,” he said.

The provision would have benefited Rogers in at least two ways:

1. It would give Rogers advance warning a customer was prepared to switch, as soon as a new provider inquired as to that customer’s final balance.  That would allow Rogers to reach out to the customer with special incentives like retention deals, which could persuade a customer to stay;
2. Competitors would have had to build in a delay before they agreed to finalize a provider change, so they didn’t expose themselves to past due penalties from the former provider.  That inconveniences customers who would have to wait for their old provider to send a balance verification.

When asked why Rogers simply didn’t turn over past due balances to collection agencies, the company claims that method is not particularly effective.

“Collections and risk management systems are in place to mitigate the impact, but … the effectiveness of these measures is limited, especially in cases where the unpaid balance is significant,” the company said.

Some other Canadian providers weren’t impressed with Rogers’ proposal.

“Telus couldn’t disagree more with Rogers on their proposal,” said spokesman Jim Johannsson. “It’s not consumer focused, it’s not transparent, doesn’t promote consumer choice and runs counter to everything we are striving for as an industry.”

The blowback from customers was far worse.  A sampling:

“Canada has diversified its wireless market from Robbers and Bhell to allow for companies like Wind to offer much better prices/services & “CUSTOMER SERVICE”. What exactly is Robbers going to do? Send Jack Bauer? Their sub-par overpriced service deserves this. As Canadians we need to start a revolution against these monopoly giants who just leech off vulnerable middle-class Canadians. Even after we wash our hands of them, they still reach for our wallets.”

“Burn your bridges Rogers, keep tickin’ off your customers, and have the gall to expect their competitors to help them. It’s a tough world when you are not a monopoly, eh?”

“Rogers, they’re leaving you high and dry after you sucked the life out of your customers.  You expect respect when none is given. How the tides have turned.”

A few days after comments like that, Rogers flip-flopped and caved:

“We decided to withdraw it as it just didn’t seem appropriate,” said Jan Innes, a Rogers spokesperson.

Verizon Wireless has defended their decision to double the early cancellation fee (ETF) for consumers purchasing “smartphones” and netbooks from the wireless carrier.  In a letter from Kathleen Grillo, Senior Vice President of Federal Regulatory Affairs, Verizon claims the new $350 fee is justified and actually benefits consumers by providing them with a substantial discount on the cost of the equipment they might not otherwise be able to afford.

“The higher [cancel fee] associated with Advanced Devices (click link to see a list of impacted equipment) reflects the higher costs associated with offering those devices to consumers at attractive prices, the costs and risks of investing in the broadband network to support these devices, and other costs and risks,” Grillo wrote as part of a 77-page submission to the Federal Communications Commission, which demanded an explanation for the price increase.

Grillo claims Verizon’s fees are actually good for consumers:

Verizon Wireless’ term contracts with ETFs promote consumer choice and broadband deployment. This pricing structure enables Verizon Wireless to offer wireless devices at a substantial discount from their full retail price. By reducing up-front costs to consumers, this pricing lowers the barriers to consumers to obtaining mobile broadband devices. It thus enables many more consumers, including those of more limited means, access to a range of exciting, state of the art broadband services and capabilities. The company’s pricing structure therefore promotes the national goal of fostering the greater adoption and use of mobile broadband services. At the same time, consumers are protected by Verizon Wireless’ detailed disclosure practices described in this response, by the Worry Free Guarantee, which allows customers to terminate within 30 days of activation without an ETF, and by the monthly reduction in the ETF amount.

Grillo claims Verizon customers can also purchase a phone at the retail price and avoid a service contract.  Verizon Wireless, for example, charges contract customers $199.99 for the Motorola Droid.  But customers who do not want a contract can purchase the phone from Verizon for $559.99.

In North America, most major cell phone companies subsidize the cost of wireless handsets and make up the difference over the life of a typical two-year service contract.  Cell phone companies claim consumers benefit from the arrangement because they are able to acquire a new phone every two years at a substantial discount.  Some consumer advocates and members of Congress disagree, suggesting carriers more than earn back the cost of the subsidized phone over the life of the contract.  Although customers purchasing a retail-priced phone don’t have to worry about a two year contract, they pay artificially higher prices for service plans designed to recoup the costs from those who did take discounted phones.  The result is a strong incentive to commit to a contract and take the phone, since you will essentially be paying for it anyway.

The Government Accountability Office found early termination fees to be among the top four consumer complaints filed with the FCC about wireless carriers.  Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) re-introduced legislation December 3rd to try and limit early termination fees.

Senator Amy Klobuchar

“Changing your wireless provider shouldn’t break the bank,” Klobuchar said in a Dec. 3 statement. “Forcing consumers to pay outrageous fees bearing little to no relation to the cost of their handset devices is anti-consumer and anti-competitive.”

The Cell Phone Early Termination Fee, Transparency and Fairness Act would prevent wireless carriers from charging an ETF that is higher than the discount on the cell phone that the company offers consumers for entering into a multi-year contract. For example, if a wireless consumer enters into a two-year contract and receives a $150 discount with the contract, the ETF cannot exceed $150.

The legislation would also require wireless carriers to prorate their ETFs for consumers who leave their contracts early so that the ETF for a two-year contract would be reduced by half after one year and to zero by the end of the contract term. In addition, the bill would mandate that wireless carriers would provide “clear and conspicuous disclosure” of the ETF at the time of purchase.

Co-sponsoring the bill with Klobuchar are Sens. Russ Feingold, Jim Webb and Mark Begich.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Amy Klobuchar ETF Fees 9-13-07.mp4[/flv]

Back in 2007, Sen. Klobuchar introduced nearly identical legislation to deal with mobile phone providers charging high termination fees.  CNBC ran this debate between Klobuchar and the cell phone trade association.  Klobuchar found herself in a 2-against-1 debate when the CNBC anchor defended the wireless industry.  (9/13/07 – 5 minutes)