Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) are incensed about efforts by CenturyLink to win waivers from the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America rural broadband funding program that could leave WISPs facing new competition from CenturyLink made possible by surcharges paid by phone customers nationwide.

At issue is a filing from CenturyLink before the FCC that would allow the phone company to “change the rules,” according to critics. One of CenturyLink’s most prominent arguments is that WISPs have data caps that inconvenience customers. But CenturyLink buries the fact it has usage caps of its own in a footnote.

“The waiver application we filed … would allow CenturyLink to spend tens of millions of dollars to bring more broadband services to more rural and high-cost customers who do not have reasonable access to broadband service today,” CenturyLink said in a media release. “These funds would be provided by the FCC’s Connect America Fund, as well as additional investment dollars would be provided by CenturyLink. If the waiver application is approved, CenturyLink will build needed broadband services to thousands of homes in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon and several other states.”

CenturyLink claims WISPs charge considerably more for service, suffer from line-of-sight restrictions which could leave many rural customers without service, have limited spectrum which keeps broadband speeds to a bare minimum and often forces customers to endure stringent data usage caps.

The waiver request would allow CenturyLink to receive and use federal Connect America funds to deploy its DSL service to rural customers already served by WISPs if two conditions are met:

• The state where CenturyLink would spend the money has not independently verified the coverage area of the wireless ISP and objective data opens the door to an argument that a WISP cannot adequately service areas where they claim coverage;
• The WISP imposes unusually high prices ($720/yr or more) or severe usage caps (25GB per month or less).

Chuck Siefert, CEO of the Montana Internet Corporation (MIC), a WISP, argues CenturyLink has no case, and is attempting to modify the rules to accomplish its own objectives rather than adhering to the original goals of the program — to deliver broadband to the rural unserved:

CenturyLink is simply raising an old protest in a new venue. Having been designated as eligible for almost ninety million dollars of the Connect America Program (CAP), it wishes to have the opportunity to use more than a third of that as it chooses, rather than as the Commission designated after input and analysis from all parties. The Rubicon has been crossed with respect to this issue: unserved areas are those that are not served by fixed wireless providers.  Regardless of CenturyLink’s opinion of the quality of service provided, these areas have been deemed served by the Commission and CAP incremental support may not be used to build out broadband in these areas. CenturyLink is certainly capable of using other funding to build out in these areas; the Commission has not precluded that.

CenturyLink’s complaints that WISPs often come with data usage caps is ironic because CenturyLink is now imposing usage caps on its own broadband service. CenturyLink argues data caps expose the limitations inherent in wireless broadband in their filing with the FCC:

Satellite broadband also often comes encumbered with restrictive data caps. The same is true of many of the WISPs subject to this waiver request. They impose on their users highly restrictive data caps of less than 25 GB per month. Indeed, two of the WISPs impose a cap of just 5 GB per month.

It is no surprise that these WISPs would impose such unusually low caps; like satellite providers, they must ration out their highly constrained capacity among the various end users who compete for it. WISP broadband capacity—unlike the customer-specific links in DSL-based broadband—is shared by all customers within a given wireless cell or sector.

This means that the more customers a WISP persuades to sign up, the worse the average service quality gets for all customers unless the WISP sharply limits how much customers may consume.

That imperative may be an unavoidable consequence of the WISPs’ technology, but it further underscores the need to give the affected consumers a robust broadband alternative.

Siefert claims CenturyLink’s assertions about the quality of its DSL service, pricing, and performance simply fall short of the truth, and MIC does better by its customers.

Pricing

CenturyLink charges a $134.89 non-recurring charge plus $29.99/mo for “up to 1.5Mbps” DSL service, plus “up to” $99.95 for professional installation. CenturyLink’s DSL modem costs $99 and has a one-year warranty.

Siefert claims MIC charges $30/mo for “bursting speeds up to 10Mbps” and $250 for technician installation, but the company offers regular installation promotions that cost $99. MIC warrants its equipment for the life of the service and charges no fee for service calls as long as the customer is current on their bill.

But Stop the Cap! found speeds and pricing less advantageous than Siefert might have the FCC believe. For instance, MIC’s $30 tier only guarantees 384kbps with speed “bursts” up to 10Mbps. Getting committed 2Mbps service runs $55 a month with the same “bursting” speed of 10Mbps. We also found CenturyLink willing to negotiate installation charges, and the company frequently discounts or even waives them if a customer signs up for a multi-service package.

Data Caps

CenturyLink now imposes a 150GB usage cap on customers with 1.5Mbps service or slower, 250GB for customers at higher speeds.

MIC claims it does not even monitor individual customer usage. Siefert says data use limitations are found in the terms and conditions of its service and are imposed only when a customer creates a problem for other users on the network.

“Rather than strictly applying data caps, MIC’s policy is to contact its customers and explain the impact their usage has on other customers,” Siefert explains. “As a small provider in a local community, MIC is able to do this in a way that a carrier like CenturyLink cannot. CenturyLink’s representations regarding transfer caps imply that WISPs arbitrarily and automatically shut a customer down once the cap is reached. This assertion is not based on evidence and is not an accurate statement of MIC’s approach to the caps. CenturyLink’s argument that WISPs operate like satellite and therefore WISPs service areas should be categorized as unserved areas based on how transfer caps are used fails.”

Stop the Cap! found different information on MIC’s website, however, including a 20GB monthly data cap and a $15/GB overage charge. Siefert’s submission to the FCC may suggest the published cap is a guideline more than a rule.

Performance

CenturyLink still uses T1-level circuits (1.5Mbps) to connect at least some of their remote D-SLAMs, according to Siefert, which helps the phone company extend DSL service to homes and businesses far away from the company’s central office. The net result is that customers fight for the bandwidth on an insufficient backhaul, which dramatically reduces speeds during peak usage times. In Helena, Montana CenturyLink “daisy-chains” D-SLAMs to support customers over a single T3 line, creating latency problems, packet loss, and further reductions in speed and performance.

MIC is capable of providing a total of 252Mbps per distribution site. The incoming next generation of wireless technology will increase that to 1.4Gbps. Additional distribution sites can divide the traffic load similar to how new cell towers can reduce demand on other nearby towers.

Speeds

CenturyLink sells speeds “up to” a certain level without guaranteeing customers will actually get the speed they are paying to receive. Siefert says CenturyLink customers in Montana currently can manage up to 7Mbps in some areas.

MIC says it can commit to its customers they can receive 10-40Mbps (and 80Mbps by the end of 2012) over its wireless network.

Independent Netindex.com suggests MIC does offers faster service on average than CenturyLink provides in Montana:

• Montana (statewide average): MIC 5.04Mbps vs. CenturyLink 3.8Mbps
• Helena: MIC 5.08Mbps vs. CenturyLink 2.73Mbps

The Wireless Internet Service Provider Association says their members are not eligible for federal Connect America subsidies, and most wireless providers are privately financed operations built with the support of their rural customers.

Said Richard Harnish, WISPA’s executive director, “We find it hard to believe that a company like CenturyLink that gets millions of dollars in federal support now wants more free money to overbuild unsubsidized rural broadband networks that WISPs already successfully operate. To do this, CenturyLink has attempted to discredit the taxpayer-funded National Broadband Map and invent its own standards in an effort to show that they should receive more than $30 million in additional subsidies.  Our strong opposition reflects WISPA’s view that CenturyLink’s arguments are factually and technically flawed.  We thank the other associations, state agencies and WISPs that support our views.”

Four of the nation’s largest phone companies — two former Baby Bells, two independents — have very different ideas about solving the rural broadband problem in the country. Which company serves your area could make all the difference between having basic DSL service or nothing at all.

Some blame Wall Street for the problem, others criticize the leadership at companies that only see dollars, not solutions. Some attack the federal government for interfering in the natural order of the private market, and some even hold rural residents at fault for expecting too much while choosing to live out in the country.

This four-part series will examine the attitudes of the four largest phone companies you may be doing business with in your small town.

AT&T’s real priorities are to satisfy Wall Street demands for regular revenue growth. Rural wired broadband just cannot compete with the margins the company earns on its enormously profitable wireless and ARPU-raising U-verse services. (Graphic adapted from original work of Mark Fiore)

Today: AT&T — More Rural Broadband? Don’t Call Us, We’ll Call You

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson earlier this year declared expansion of its U-verse fiber to the neighborhood service “largely complete,” despite the fact almost half of AT&T’s customers only have access to much slower DSL service, or cannot receive any broadband service at all.

For those living in AT&T’s service areas, which include a large portion of the midwest, southern states east of the Mississippi, Connecticut, and parts of California and Texas, Stephenson has not inspired confidence the company is rethinking what is possible in rural broadband.

“We have been apprehensive on moving, doing anything on rural access lines because the issue here is, do you have a broadband product for rural America?,” Stephenson told investors earlier this year. “And we’ve all been trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America and we’re not finding one to be quite candid.”

AT&T’s lack of confidence this year is in contrast with their bombastic rural broadband lobbying campaign of 2011, launched as part of an effort to win approval for its aborted merger with T-Mobile USA. The company sent slick talking points promoting the deal to community groups it supported with contributions, politicians it bought with contributions, and astroturf efforts it bankrolled with contributions.

The result was declarations like this from former Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who swept through Washington’s revolving door and came out on the other side working for AT&T-backed lobbyist-law firm Sidley Austin and serving as an “honorary chairman” of the industry-backed Internet Innovation Alliance:

Thousands of the smallest communities outside of urban areas either lack broadband service or have just one option that can be pricey for a relatively low connection speed, inadequate for modern business demands. The joining of AT&T’s and T-Mobile’s wireless spectrum will largely fill the gap and bring robust Internet connectivity to rural localities where wired infrastructure is cost prohibitive.

With the merger now nothing more than a bad memory, Stephenson’s interest in the innovation of Internet access quickly faded.

Last week, AT&T customers learned the company isn’t even interested in taking free money from the federal government and ratepayers to do better. Offered access to $115 million in broadband subsidies from the reform of the Universal Service Fund (USF), AT&T officials shrugged their shoulders and indicated they were not interested because they are not yet “ready” to participate.

Quinn

“AT&T is in the midst of evaluating its options for further rural broadband deployment,” said Robert Quinn, AT&T’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs wrote in a letter to the commission. “As our chairman stated last month, we are optimistic about AT&T’s ability to get more broadband into rural areas, particularly as the technology continues to advance. However, until AT&T finalizes that strategy, it cannot commit to participating in the incremental support program. ”

For communities like Orangeburg, S.C., that answer is not good enough. The community received an $18.65 million federal grant of broadband stimulus funds to develop high-speed broadband in an area where only 20-40 percent of residents have Internet service today. AT&T is the dominant phone company and offered the same non-committal response to Orangeburg’s pleas for better service that the  company gives to customers elsewhere.

While AT&T reports it is not yet ready to do better in rural South Carolina, it is very motivated to make sure nobody else does either, funding a massive lobbying effort in coordination with its friends at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to pass a virtual ban on community broadband development across South Carolina.

Christopher Mitchell at Community Broadband Networks calls it “monetizing scarcity.” Orangeburg officials call it a big headache and are working around AT&T, frustrated with the phone company’s disinterest while it also helps build barriers to impede the community’s efforts to build its own network.

“If some of these other providers had a desire to serve these rural areas, they would have already been doing it,” said county administrator Bill Clark. “We are entering the broadband business because third-party providers are reluctant to provide the service.”

AT&T’s reluctance to accept USF money may have a lot to do with the company’s focus on its wireless network which is seen as a much more lucrative investment. Profit margins for barely-competitive wireless service remain sky high, and are growing higher as AT&T raises prices and the industry works to cut costs.

Even the company’s urban-focused U-verse network delivers opportunities for greater revenues from AT&T customers likely to buy additional services. Investing in DSL just does not pull in the same level of profits, and companies like AT&T will remain reluctant to expand rural broadband unless the government delivers a much larger government subsidy, according to Benjamin Lennett, a policy director at the New America Foundation.

“It underscores how flawed it is to rely on private companies to serve these rural areas where their margins are not going to be that high,” Lennett said.

Unfortunately for communities trying to work around AT&T’s roadblock, the company has made sure towns and villages building their own networks soon discover that road remains closed in more than dozen states thanks to  AT&T with the help from corporate groups like ALEC, who feed willing legislators bills often drafted by the corporations they are designed to protect.

Some 30,000 Shaw customers, mostly in Calgary, spent much of yesterday without phone service, and many more western Canadians experienced Internet problems as a result of a small electrical fire at a Shaw Communications facility in downtown Calgary.

Described by a news report as “chaos,” the fire also brought down at least three Calgary radio stations, an area bank’s ATM network, hospital communications, government offices, and Calgary’s 311 government information service.

A transformer fire on the 13th floor at Shaw’s Calgary headquarters, combined with the sprinkler system that put the fire out, proved the old adage that water and electricity don’t mix. Calgary’s power company disconnected electrical service to the building, creating additional outages for corporate customers who use Shaw’s data center, also inside the building.

As a result of the fire and its impact, Calgary officials decided to activate the city’s municipal emergency plan.

Shaw’s Internet service problems were felt as far away as Vancouver, according to news reports. As of late this afternoon, Shaw’s website is still offline.

While phone service has largely been restored, everything is not back to normal at Shaw’s headquarters, where many workers were turned away as late as this afternoon. Several streets around the building remained closed as of this morning.

Calgary Emergency Management Agency director Bruce Burrell called the incident “a major telecommunications failure,” and noted it was felt across the province and beyond.

Shaw joined local and provincial officials to assess the incident and the fire department response, as well as reviewing its impact.

It has been a difficult week for Calgary and Alberta generally. On Monday, just as the Calgary Stampede Rodeo fired into high gear, Alberta’s electricity companies began rolling blackouts after six power generators went down.

Questions are being raised about the impact of both events.

[flv width=”616″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV Shaw Service Disrupted 7-12-12.flv[/flv]

CTV Calgary covers the impact of the fire at Shaw Communications’ headquarters in Calgary, Alb. and the cleanup still ongoing.  (6 minutes)

Phillip “They Want to Save You Money By Charging You More” Dampier

The pro-Internet Overcharging forces’ meme of “pay for what you use” sounds good in theory, but no broadband provider in the country would dare switch to a true consumption-based billing system for broadband, because it would destroy predictable profits for a service large cable and phone companies hope you cannot live without.

Twenty years ago, the cable industry could raise rates on television packages with almost no fear consumers would cancel service. When I produced a weekly radio show about the cable and satellite television industry, cable companies candidly told me they expected vocal backlashes from customers every time a rate increase notice was mailed out, but only a handful would actually follow through on threats to cut the cord. Now that competition for your video dollar is at an all-time-high, providers are shocked (and some remain in denial) that customers are actually following through on their threats to cut the cord. Goodbye Comcast, Hello Netflix!

Some Wall Street analysts have begun warning their investor clients that the days of guaranteed revenue growth from video subscribers are over, risking profits as customers start to depart when the bill gets too high. Cable companies have always increased rates faster than the rate of inflation, and investors have grown to expect those reliable profits, so the pressure to make up the difference elsewhere has never been higher.

With broadband, cable and phone companies may have found a new way to bring back the Money Party, and ride the wave of broadband usage to the stratosphere, earning money at rates never thought possible from cable-TV. The ticket to OPEC-like rivers of black gold? Usage-based billing.

Since the early days of broadband, most Americans have enjoyed flat rate access through a cable or phone company at prices that remained remarkably stable for a decade — usually around $40 a month for standard speed service.

In the last five years, as cord-cutting has grown beyond a phenomena limited to Luddites and satellite dish owners, the cable industry has responded. As they learned customers’ love of broadband has now made the service indispensable in most American homes, providers have been jacking up the price.

Time Warner Cable, for example, has increased prices for broadband annually for the last three years, especially for customers who do not subscribe to any other services.

Customers dissatisfaction with rate hikes has not led to broadband cord cutting, and in fact might prove useful on quarterly financial reports -and- for advocating changes in the way broadband service is priced:

1. Enhance revenue and profits, replacing lost ground from departing video customers and the slowing growth of new customers signing up for video and phone services (and keeping average revenue per user ((ARPU)) on the increase);
2. Using higher prices to provoke an argument about changing the way broadband service is sold.

Pouring over quarterly financial reports from most major providers shows remarkable consistency:

• The costs to provide broadband service are declining, even with broadband usage growth;
• Revenue and profits enjoy a healthy growth curve, especially as increased prices on existing customers make up for fewer new customer additions;
• Earnings from broadband are now so important, a cable company like Time Warner Cable now refers to itself as a broadband company. It is not alone.

Still, it is not enough. As usage continues to grow in the current monopoly/duopoly market, providers are drooling with anticipation over the possibility of scrapping the concept of “flat rate” broadband, which limits the endless ARPU growth Wall Street demands. If a company charges a fixed rate for a service, it cannot grow revenue from that service unless it increases the price, sells more expensive tiers of service, or innovates new products and services to sell.

Providers have enjoyed moderate success selling customers more expensive, faster service, also on a flat rate basis. But that still leaves money on the table, according to Wall Street-based “usage billing” advocates like Craig Moffett, who see major ARPU growth charging customers more and more money for service as their usage grows.

Moffett has a few accidental allies in the blogger world who seem to share his belief in “usage-based” billing. Lou Mazzucchelli, reading the recent New York Times piece on Time Warner’s gradual move towards usage pricing, frames his support for consumption billing around the issue of affordability. In his view, usage pricing is better for consumers and the industry:

It costs real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand, and those costs are ultimately borne by the subscriber. So in the US, we have carriers trying to raise their rates to offset increases in capital and operating expenses to the point where consumers are beginning to push back, and the shoving has come to the attention of the Federal Communications Commission, which has raised the possibility of treating Internet network providers as common communications carriers subject to regulation.

I believe that flat-rate pricing is a major source of problems for network carriers and consumers. In the carrier world, the economics are known but ignored because marketers believe that flat rates are the only plans consumers will accept. But in the consumer world, flat rates are rising to incomprehensible levels for indecipherable reasons, with little recourse except disconnection. Consumer dissatisfaction is rising, in part because consumers feel they have no control over the price they have to pay. This is driven by their sense of pricing inequity that is hard to visualize but comes from implicit subsidies in the current environment. The irony is that pay-per-use pricing solves the problem for carriers and consumers.

Mazzucchelli reposted his blog piece originally written in 2010 for the benefit of Times readers. Two years ago, he measured his usage at 11GB a month. His provider Verizon Communications was charging him $64.99 a month for 25Mbps service, which identifies him as a FiOS fiber to the home customer.  Mazzucchelli argues the effective price he was paying for Internet access was $5.85 for each of the 11GB he consumed, which seemed steep at the time. (Not anymore, if you look at wireless company penalty rates which range from $10-15/GB or more.)

Mazzucchelli theorized that if he paid on a per-packet basis, instead of flat rate service based on Internet speed, he could pay something like $0.0000025 per packet, which would result in a bill of $31.91 for his 11GB instead of $65. For him, that’s money saved with usage billing.

On its face, it might seem to make sense, especially for light users who could pay less under a true usage-based pricing scenario like the one he proposes.

Verizon Communications is earning more average revenue per customer than ever with its fiber to the home network. That’s about the only bright spot Wall Street recognizes from Verizon’s fiber network, which some analysts deride as “too expensive.”

Unfortunately for Mazzucchelli, and others who claim usage-based pricing will prove a money-saver, the broadband industry has some bad news for you. Usage pricing simply cannot be allowed to save you, and other current customers money. Why? Because Wall Street will never tolerate pricing that threatens the all-important ARPU. In the monopoly/duopoly home broadband marketplace most Americans endure, it would be the equivalent of unilaterally disarming in the war for revenue and profits.

That is why broadband providers will never adopt a true usage-based billing system for customers. It would cannibalize earnings for a service that already enjoys massive markups above true cost. In 2009, Comcast was spending under $10 a month to sell broadband service priced above $40.

Mazzucchelli

Instead, providers design “usage-based” billing around rates comparable to today’s flat rate pricing, only they slap arbitrary maximum usage allowances on each tier of service, above which consumers pay an overlimit fee penalty. That would leave Mazzucchelli choosing a lower speed, lower usage allowance plan to maximize his savings, if his use of the Internet didn’t grow much. On a typical light use plan suitable for his usage, he would subscribe to 1-3Mbps service with a 10GB allowance, and pay the overlimit fee for one extra gigabyte if he wanted to maximize his broadband dollar.

But his usage experience would be dramatically different, both because he would be encouraged to use less, fearing he might exceed his usage allowance, and he would be “enjoying” the Internet at vastly slower speeds. If Mazzucchelli went with higher speed service, he would still pay prices comparable for flat rate service, and receive a usage allowance he personally would find unnecessarily large. The result for him would be little to no savings and a usage allowance he did not need.

Mazzucchelli’s usage pattern is probably different today than it was in 2010. Is he still using 11GB a month? If he uses double the amount he did two years ago, under his own pricing formula, the savings he sought would now be virtually wiped out, with a broadband bill for 22GB of consumption running $63.82. By the following year, usage-based pricing would cost even more than Verizon’s unlimited pricing, as average use of the Internet continues to grow.

That helps the broadband industry plenty but does nothing for consumers. Mazzucchelli might be surprised to learn that the “real money to upgrade networks to keep pace with this demand,” is actually more than covered under today’s profit margins for flat-rate broadband. In fact, if he examines financial reports over the last five years and the statements company executives make to shareholders, virtually all of them speak in terms of reducing capital investments and the declining costs to deliver broadband, even as usage grows.

Verizon’s fiber network, while expensive to construct, is already earning the company enormous boosts in ARPU over traditional copper wire phone service. While Wall Street howled about short term capital costs to construct the network, then-CEO Ivan Seidenberg said fiber optics was the vehicle that will drive Verizon earnings for decades selling new products and services that its old network could never deliver.

Still, is Mazzucchelli paying too much for his broadband at both 2010 and 2012 prices? Yes he is. But that is not a function of the cost to deliver broadband service. It is the result of a barely competitive marketplace that has an absence of price-moderating competitors. Usage-based pricing in today’s broadband market assures lower costs for providers by retarding usage. It also brings even higher profits from bigger broadband bills as Internet usage grows, with no real relationship to the actual costs to provide the service. It also protects companies from video package cord-cutting, as customers will find online viewing prohibitively expensive.

One need only look at pricing abroad to see how much Americans are gouged for Internet service. Unlimited high speed Internet is available in a growing number of countries for $20-40 a month.

Usage-based billing is a dead end that might deliver temporary savings now, but considerably higher broadband bills soon after. It is not too late to turn the car around and join us in the fight to keep unlimited broadband, enhance competition, and win the lower prices users like Mazzucchelli crave.

Your modem needs an expensive upgrade, even if you own your own.

Frontier Communications customers may get less than they bargained for when calling the company about a malfunctioning modem or problem with service. Andrew, a Stop the Cap! reader from Tennessee discovered a simple service call left him stuck with two separate contracts for phone and Internet service, a major broadband speed reduction, and a sense that Frontier is willing to sign up customers without fully disclosing what they are selling.

Andrew reports he originally called Frontier to discuss a possibly damaged DSL modem. Upon hearing the model number, a Frontier customer service representative needed to hear no more — the modem “needed to be upgraded.” In fact, Frontier has been mailing postcards to customers with older modems not subject to monthly rental fees telling them their existing modem was “no longer supported” and needed to be replaced with a new model. In the fine print, the customer learns if they proceed, they will end up paying a monthly modem rental fee starting at $6.99… forever.

But things got much worse for this Frontier customer after he contacted the company to say he’d be keeping his current DSL modem, which turned out to be working just fine:

I was then told there would be about a $20 price drop on my next bill (for July). I asked the agent why and her response was, “oh, our prices are going down.” I said okay, thanked her and hung up the phone.

The next morning, I got an email from Frontier thanking me for my ”recent purchase or renewal of services,” further asking me to click and view the Terms of Service agreement for High Speed Internet (and to submit the PIN number associated with my account).

I then called Customer Service about the email. I was told that I had upgraded my phone service the previous day. It turned out that the agent upgraded my phone service to include their ”Digital Essentials” phone features package and had locked me into two price protection plans for both services. There was a one-year plan regarding the phone service and a two-year plan for the High Speed Internet.

I was shocked and informed the agent that I had made no such changes to my phone/Internet services and that I had simply called about cancelling a support ticket on my account regarding the modem.

He later tried to claim that I had given the previous agent authorization when I said okay after she had informed me about the price drop. I told him that was absolutely ridiculous, especially since she never discussed any upgrades to my phone service or any changes regarding my Internet. I asked him how it could be an authorization when what was done to my account was never fully explained (or asked for).

We’ve got a deal too good to refuse.

The Frontier agent then proceeded to hard-sell Andrew the same plan the former agent already applied to his account. The Frontier representative did not bother to mention the “upgrade” and “savings” he was getting included a drastic speed reduction. Frontier sold Andrew a package that included just 1.2Mbps broadband.   That is less than half the speed of his original 3Mbps service, for which he paid $40 a month with no modem rental fee.

Now Andrew is stuck with two contracts, both which carry early termination fees that will total well in excess of $100, the likelihood of a modem rental fee for a new modem he has never received and does not want, and less than half the broadband speed he used to get.

“I was never told by either agent I spoke with that my Internet speed would be [reduced] once the ‘upgrade’ was performed,” Andrew writes. “This, in my opinion, is fraud. Had I known a slower speed would be the end result of their price drop, I would have never [signed up].”

Now Andrew wants his old plan back and Frontier is stalling.

Frontier has a track record of retiring older service plans and packages, but leaving existing customers grandfathered on them until a representative can convince a customer to switch to something else. Unfortunately, newer plans often come with higher prices and more surcharges than older ones, which is part of the company’s effort to increase average revenue earned from each customer. Once off a discontinued plan, low level customer service representatives typically cannot re-enroll a customer.

But those who complain the loudest can get back the service they used to have, just by becoming a nuisance. Start by calling Frontier and asking to speak to a supervisor or manager. If that fails, ask to be transferred to the department that handles disconnections and threaten to drop all Frontier services if the company does not relent and put you back on the plan you started with.

Customers can also file complaints with their state utility regulators. In Tennessee, that is the Tenessee Regulatory Authority. Their online complaint form is here. Unfortunately, many states have succumbed to deregulation rhetoric and state regulators lack significant enforcement powers. But utilities that routinely filibuster state officials risk generating enough legislative energy to support a “re-regulation” effort, so most utilities will connect complainers to an executive level customer service department that can cut through red tape.

Customers can also file complaints with the Better Business Bureau and their state’s Attorney General. The more noise you generate, the more likely Frontier will satisfy your request.

Frontier customers are advised that anytime a customer service representative asks you to complete an online agreement using your PIN number, it signals you are about to commit yourself to a term contract or other major change in service that could prove costly to undo.

Always ask the Frontier representative to e-mail you a copy of the terms of the plan you are enrolling in, including broadband speeds, phone features, contract length and early termination fees.

Always read the agreement you are being asked to complete online.

If you have any questions, call Frontier before you sign. Some plans include a 14 or 30 day penalty-free cancellation provision. While this alone may not restore your old service, it can prove an important negotiating tool to win back the service you had before.