Frontier Communications is hoping to capitalize on cable operators alienating customers with extra modem fees and the increasing cost of cable broadband with a new offer it claims is free from hidden charges and other gotcha’s.

Frontier’s “Simple Choice” offers DSL broadband at speeds up to 6Mbps for $19.99 a month with the promise of an “end to confusing Internet bills” loaded with modem rental fees, contracts, or other “plan-cuffs” that “require a law degree to understand.” Frontier also offers to double your speeds for $10 more per month.

“It gives consumers an awesome amount of flexibility and choice,” said Cecilia K. McKenney, executive vice president of administrative services at Frontier. “By offering new broadband speed tiers to residential and commercial customers and eliminating contracts and early termination fees on our residential offers, we are truly simplifying the broadband experience.”

The offer includes a three-year price lock on voice and broadband, a free wireless router, no contract and no early termination fees. There is no Internet activation fee where a free self-installation kit is available.

But despite the promises of no tricks or traps, Frontier couldn’t help themselves in the fine print accompanying the offer:

1. The offer is only available to customers subscribing to a “qualifying package of Frontier residential local service with calling features and long distance.” This means you must keep a Frontier voice landline with an added-cost long distance and feature package (eg. Caller ID, Call Waiting, voicemail, etc.) In Rochester, N.Y., a landline with qualifying features starts at $31 a month before taxes and fees.
2. A $49.99 “Internet installation fee” is payable if a self-install kit is not available.
3. A $9.99 “broadband processing fee” applies if/when you disconnect your broadband service.
4. Taxes, governmental, and “other Frontier-imposed surcharges” that go unspecified also apply.
5. Frontier does not guarantee you will actually receive 6Mbps service. Speeds will vary depending on local line conditions.

Netflix continues to step up its attacks on providers who implement Internet Overcharging schemes on their wired broadband customers.

That concern is understandable as Netflix increasingly transitions to broadband streaming instead of mailing DVD’s to customers.

Getting in the way are five of the nation’s seven largest broadband providers, all imposing limits on customers just as they discover they might be able to do without cable television.

Netflix’s streamed HD shows now consume around 2GB per hour, according to Netflix general counsel David Hyman.  That can eat through usage allowances quickly.  Hyman penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last year blasting the practices of usage caps and consumption billing.

Hyman

“Wireline bandwidth is an almost unlimited resource due to advances in Internet architecture,” Hyman wrote. “The marginal cost of providing an extra gigabyte of data—enough to deliver one episode of 30 Rock from Netflix—is less than one cent, and falling.”

That doesn’t seem to matter much to Comcast, CenturyLink, Charter Communications, and Cox.  All four providers have introduced hard usage limits on customers — a usage cap.  Exceeding it gives any of those providers the right to cut off your broadband service.  AT&T, always one to see a financial angle, charges for excess use of their DSL and U-verse service — $10 for every 50GB. Time Warner Cable recently announced its own experimental “optional” usage pricing package for very light users who consume fewer than 5GB per month.  It will slap overlimit fees on those participating customers who break through the 5GB ceiling at a rate of $1/GB, an enormous markup.

Providers with strict caps usually argue they come as a result of their own network’s capacity problems.  Cable operators who do not consistently manage their network traffic can experience traffic clogs by overselling service without upgrading capacity to sustain user demand.  But providers like Comcast, Cox, and Charter resolved those capacity problems with upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology, which offer operators an exponentially bigger pipeline for Internet traffic.

Although Comcast promised to regularly review and adjust usage caps since implementing them four years ago, the nation’s largest cable operator has thus far seen no need to raise them.

“We feel that that is an extraordinarily large amount of data,” says Comcast’s Charlie Davis. “That limit is there to make sure we provide a great online experience for every single paying customer.”

Wall Street bankers have closely monitored the industry’s early results from Internet Overcharging, and have been encouraged, so long as operators implement it carefully.

Credit Suisse in a 2011 report to its investor clients suggested the key for successful usage-based pricing is to introduce it slowly and keep “sticker shock to a minimum in the early days” to reduce backlash by consumers and lawmakers.

Once established, the sky is the limit.

Netflix itself is also battling an Internet Overcharging scheme it faces — double-dipping by cable operators like Comcast.  In addition to the fees Comcast collects from customers for its broadband service, the cable operator also wants to be paid directly by Netflix to allow the movie service’s traffic on its network.

That’s an Internet toll booth, charges Netflix and consumer groups.  It’s also uncompetitive, says Hyman.

This month Comcast unveiled its own movie and TV show streaming service — Xfinity Streampix — from which, unsurprisingly, the cable company has not sought extra traffic payments from itself.

Opposed to Internet Overcharging

Three providers which don’t cap customers don’t see a reason to try.

Verizon Communications says its fiber network FiOS has plenty of capacity and has no plans to restrict customers’ enjoyment of the service.  In 2009, Cablevision’s Jim Blackley told one panel discussion usage caps are not in the cards.

“We don’t want customers to think about byte caps so that’s not on our horizon,” Blackley said. “We literally don’t want consumers to think about how they’re consuming high-speed services. It’s a pretty powerful drug and we want people to use more and more of it.”

California’s Sonic.net Inc., goes even further.  Its CEO, Dane Jasper, believes the Federal Communications Commission needs to be more assertive about protecting America’s broadband revolution and the customers that depend on the service.

The fact different operators can take radically different positions on the subject, despite running similar networks, suggests technical necessity is not the reason providers are implementing usage restrictions and extra fees on customers.

As Hyman writes:

Bandwidth caps with fees piled on top are a lousy way to manage traffic. All of the costs of supplying residential broadband are for supporting peak usage. Bandwidth consumed off-peak is completely free. If Internet service providers really wanted to manage traffic efficiently, they would limit speeds at peak times. If their goal is instead to increase revenues or lessen competition, getting consumers to pay per gigabyte is an excellent strategy.

Consumer access to unlimited bandwidth is good for society. It fosters innovation, drives commerce, and advances political and social discourse. Given that bandwidth is cheap and plentiful and will only grow more so with time, there is no good reason for bandwidth caps and fees to take root.

Consumers and regulators need to take heed of what is happening and avoid winding up like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water. It’s time to jump before it’s too late.

Verizon Communications has agreed to full restitution, as part of a class action settlement, for unauthorized third party charges on their customers’ phone bills.

Known in the industry as “cramming,” extra unauthorized fees pop up on phone bills for voicemail, dating lines, ringtones, or 800 numbers many customers have no idea they even had.  Almost all of the charges come from independent companies unaffiliated with Verizon.  But critics charge phone companies have been ignoring abusive cramming practices, in part because they share a percentage of money billed and collected from customers.

Deceptive cramming charges are often hard to spot on phone bills replete with cleverly-named-to-be-obscure surcharges, taxes and fees.  Many crammers deliberately keep descriptions about the services they are billing as vague as possible, sometimes appearing as “special services charge,” “voicemail access,” or even “monthly charge.”  Many ratepayers assume it is all just a part of the cost of having phone service.

A class action lawsuit against Verizon accused the company of doing little to stop unauthorized third party fees, and many customers afflicted by them report getting them off their bills is not as easy at it should be.

“When I had a mysterious $14.95 monthly fee for ‘voicemail,’ a service I knew I didn’t have, Verizon required me to fight with some Bermuda-based company to get the charges reversed, and they just kept repeating I must have authorized the service because it was on my bill,” reports Stop the Cap! reader Kevin Sessly. “They wear you down until you just pay the bill.”

Sessly eventually won refunds after contacting his state’s public utility regulator.

As part of the settlement, Verizon customers will be entitled to full refunds of all unauthorized third party charges from April 27, 2005 through Feb. 28, 2012.

“Some settlement class members may have a claim for hundreds or thousands of dollars in refunds under the settlement,” class counsel Bryan Kolton said.

Verizon has also agreed to adopt an “opt in” system where customers must first allow third party charges on their phone bills before a company can bill your account.  Currently, customers are subject to third party billing unless they specifically block it with their telephone company.

“It is difficult to overstate the credit that is due Verizon for its commitment to fixing the third-party billing system as it relates to Verizon customers,” said John Jacobs, one of the lead attorneys for the class. “By this settlement, Verizon has committed to extensive and unprecedented changes that we believe will go a long way toward eliminating cramming and will change the industry.”

Crammers have used a variety of tricks to bill phone customers for services they never ordered.  Completing sweepstakes or contest forms with a phone number is one common method, asking for a cell phone number as part of a “free ringtone offer” is another.  Many services also trick customers into signing up with free offers or discounts on other products or services.  Many customers forget to cancel before the trial ends, resulting in recurring charges.

Customers will be able to recover the full amount of the unauthorized charges, if they have copies of their past phone bills, or obtain a quick $40 flat-rate refund by submitting claims at www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com or calling toll-free 1-877-772-6219.  Both services should be up and running by March 9.

Non-Verizon customers can still take steps to protect themselves from unauthorized charges by calling their provider and requesting a block on all third-party charges.  This service is provided at no charge.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC News Phone Cramming How to Get Money From Verizon Settlement 3-5-12.mp4[/flv]

ABC News reports on the Verizon settlement and steps consumers can take to identify cramming and obtain refunds for unauthorized charges.  (2 minutes)

Motorola cable modem

A California federal judge has thrown out most of a class action lawsuit that charged Comcast with marketing broadband service plans without disclosing extra fees for cable modem equipment.

The head plaintiff, Athanassios Diacakis, claimed Comcast sold Triple Play promotions over the phone and in the media without mentioning customers would also have to pay additional fees to lease a cable modem.  Diacakis accused the cable operator of violating California’s tough false-advertising laws by not fully disclosing all fees and surcharges while explaining the promotion.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong disagreed, however, dismissing most of the plaintiffs claims.  The judge didn’t declare Diacakis’ claims untrue, but ruled they were insufficiently documented to proceed to trial.

“The [amended complaint] fails to specify when or where Comcast advertisements were viewed, the content of those advertisements, or which of them in particular Plaintiff relied upon,” Armstrong wrote.

Diacakis is free to submit an amended complaint if he wishes to proceed with his class action case.

Comcast charges customers $7 a month to lease cable modem equipment, but invites customers to purchase their own cable modems to avoid rental fees.  Many customers do just that, choosing from several dozen approved models Comcast will provision for broadband customers.  The cost to purchase cable modem equipment ranges from $50-125 on average, depending on the cable modem selected.  It takes less than two years for purchased cable modems to effectively pay for themselves at Comcast’s current rental rate.

Verizon Wireless became the Bank of America of late 2011 when it attempted to impose a $2 “convenience fee” on select customers who prefer to pay their monthly phone bills online or through an automated telephone attendant.  It’s just the latest experiment in customer gouging — the same kind of toe-in-the-water strategic experimenting that unleashed ubiquitous baggage fees on airlines, low balance fees on checking accounts, and the increasingly-common practice of charging customers extra to mail them their monthly bill.

An entire industry of consultants pitch their creative talents to companies like Verizon who want “a little extra” from captive customers.  These specialists sell their expertise identifying the most vulnerable (and least likely to leave), who will grin and bear just about any kind of abuse heaped on them. Many income and resource-challenged consumers are left feeling powerless to protest and reverse unwarranted extra charges.

The consultant gougers-for-hire made millions for large banks when they figured out how to score the biggest bounced check and overdraft fees (simply pay the biggest check first, opening the door to $39 bounced check fees for all the little checks that follow).  Verizon’s $2 fee targeted customers who couldn’t afford to let the company automatically withdraw their monthly payment, or didn’t trust the company to do it correctly.  Even more, Verizon’s fee would target more desperate past-due customers who needed to make a fast payment to avoid service interruption.  Consumer advocates wondered if Verizon was successful charging these customers more, would they expand the fees to cover all online or pay-by-phone payments?

We’ll never know because the public outcry and intensive media coverage during a slow holiday week combined to force Verizon into a fourth quarter revenue retreat, rescinding the fee 24 hours after announcing it.  But Verizon may be pardoned if they feel they were unfairly singled out.  That is because other telecommunications companies have been charging certain customers bill payment fees of their own for years:

Verizon's evolved position on the $2 convenience fee (Courtesy: WTVT)

• Stop the Cap! reader Larry writes to share TDS Telecom, an independent phone company, charges a $2.95 “third party processing fee” when accepting payments by phone.  “In its place you either have to revert to U.S. Postal Service, or agree to electronic billing for on-line payment access.”
• AT&T charges a $5 bill payment fee for “certain customers.”
• Sprint/Nextel not only has its own $5 bill payment fee for those paying at the last minute,  it also forces customers with spotty credit to sign up for auto-pay to avoid a mandatory surcharge.  Want a paper bill?  That’s $2 extra a month.
• Comcast charges a $5.99 payment fee, but only in certain states.
• Time Warner Cable charges fees ranging from an “agent assisted payment” fee ($4.99) to a statement copy fee ($4.99) in some locations.

While Verizon has agreed to drop its latest new charge, the company’s carefully-named bill-padding extra fees attached to monthly bills remain.  In addition to breaking out and passing along all government fees and surcharges, Verizon also bills customers administrative and regulatory recovery fees that, for other companies, would represent the cost of doing business.  These latter two go straight into Verizon’s pocket, despite the implication they are third party-imposed mandatory surcharges.

Had Verizon called their new $2 “convenience” fee a “business efficiency accounting recovery fee,” would they have snookered enough consumers to get away with it?

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTVT Tampa Verizon cancels planned 2 bill-pay fee 12-30-11.mp4[/flv]

WTVT in Tampa says Verizon did a complete 180 on its $2 bill payment “convenience fee.”  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Verizon Dumps Fee 12-30-11.flv[/flv]

CNN hints the FCC’s potential involvement in Verizon’s business may have had something to do with the quick shelving of the $2 fee.  (2 minutes)