HughesNet customers unjustly cut off from their Internet service for violating the company’s “Fair Access Policy,” or who paid an early termination fee when they realized satellite Internet was not for them may qualify for a settlement payment ranging from $5-40, or “tokens” that can provide a temporary free pass from the company’s usage caps as part of a class action lawsuit settlement.

Broadband Reports‘ readers who subscribe to the satellite provider first mentioned receipt of the settlement paperwork, which provides cash payments for ex-HughesNet customers who subscribed to any of the following Hughes Consumer Service Plans between May 15, 2005 – March 2, 2012:

Home, Pro, Pro Plus, Small Office, Business Internet, Elite, ElitePlus, ElitePremium, Basic, Power 150 and Power 200

Customers who canceled service are qualified to receive the cash payments. Those who paid an early termination fee prior to Dec. 6, 2010 will receive $40. Those who canceled as of March 2, 2012 and did not pay an early termination fee will receive $5. HughesNet also promised to implement a new sliding scale for their early termination fee. Each month you remain a customer under a service contract will reduce the amount of the fee by a proportional amount.

Current customers do not receive a cash settlement. Instead, they will be provided with a minimum of one “Restore token” per calendar month for the next 18 months. That may be nothing special — HughesNet already provides one token per month to every customer.

The HughesNet Fair Access Policy includes a download allowance. Users who exceed their allowance will have their service speeds reduced during the “Recovery Zone” for about 24 hours, after which speeds return to normal. Customers can apply their Restore token as a “get out of jail free” card, instantly restoring normal speeds.

HughesNet was sued for misleading customers about the company’s onerous usage limits and expensive early termination fee policy.

The lawyers bringing the case will receive fees, costs and expenses of up to $630,000. Up to $5,000 will be paid to each of the three Class Representatives that were part of the original lawsuit. Those seeking relief under the settlement have until September 28, 2012 to apply.

Complete information on the settlement and how to apply is available at: Satelliteinternetsettlement.com

Maggie Wilderotter's "High Speed" Fantasies

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter wrote this week the company’s network improvements and expanded broadband has moved West Virginia from the bottom five states in the country to the top five.

In an Op-Ed editorial published in the Charleston Gazette Tuesday, Wilderotter likened Frontier’s broadband improvement to the 1960s moon program.  Customers in West Virginia living with Frontier broadband can relate — to the 1960s anyway.

Where did Wilderotter get her information?  Perhaps from Frontier’s own Dan Waldo, who made the same claim last summer in an interview with MetroNews Talkline.  At the time he said it, West Virginia was ranked 47th in the country for broadband access.  It now ranks even lower today — 53rd by the federal government’s national broadband map (the federal government also ranks U.S. territories and possessions.)  In fact, West Virginia is in dead last place among U.S. states.  Only Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are worse.

This chart ranks the percentage of customers within a state receiving a minimum of 3Mbps download speeds and upload rates of at least 768kbps. (Source: National Broadband Speed Map/National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission )

The Center for Public Integrity is slightly more generous.  It ranked West Virginia 46th in broadband subscriptions.

Even Ookla, which analyzes millions of speed tests, tanked West Virginia, noting the average download speed is among the lowest of all 50 states at just 8Mbps, and that number seems high because it includes the state’s largest cable operators — the providers that actually deliver substantial broadband speeds.

Frontier’s contribution to West Virginia’s broadband improvement effort is measurable and noteworthy, at least for rural residents who can’t get broadband service any other way.  But many customers living with Frontier sure wish they could.

The company is expanding slow speed DSL service (1-3Mbps) to an increasing number of rural homes, but it does not come cheap.  On a megabit by megabit basis, all of the state’s cable providers deliver better value — more speed for the buck, when examining the actual “out the door price” that includes taxes, modem rental fees, and surcharges.  Frontier charges all of the above.

While Frontier delivers an average speed of 2.41Mbps in West Virginia, Comcast delivers more than 13Mbps.  Among wired providers, Frontier remains in last place.  Ookla shows some minor improvements in broadband speed, perhaps attributable to the network upgrades Wilderotter wrote about, but every other wired provider in the state performs better than Frontier’s DSL.  Who did worse?  Sprint’s 3G/4G wireless network and Wildblue, a satellite Internet Service Provider.

Average download speed performance of ISPs within West Virginia. (Source: Ookla; Graph Period: October 2009 - April 2012)

Wilderotter:

Broadband connectivity throughout all of America can be the thread that unites us all and helps pull our nation up again. Over the past two years in West Virginia, Frontier has worked with the state to bring broadband to thousands of residents and businesses. We have invested in a fiber backbone infrastructure that connects cities, libraries, schools, hospitals and government service facilities. The network improvements and the access to broadband have moved West Virginia from the bottom five states in the country to the top five. Economic development has picked up, and entrepreneurship is alive and well. Frontier is focused on taking this model to the other rural areas we serve throughout the United States.

Frontier’s efforts to expand broadband in a state its predecessor Verizon underserved for years is admirable and the company has indeed expanded service to areas that never had access before.  But as broadband rankings illustrate, Frontier’s incremental efforts are being overshadowed by more dramatic service and technology improvements in other states — the primary reason West Virginia is actually ranking worse than ever.  Frontier is not fooling anyone promoting its institutional fiber broadband networks ordinary West Virginians cannot access from their homes or businesses.  Our own readers tell us the company has repeatedly missed deployment schedules, broken promises, reduced speeds, and suffers from a woefully oversold network that slows to an intolerable crawl during peak usage periods.

Getting West Virginia among the top-five broadband states will require:

• Major investments in fiber optics into neighborhoods and homes.  All of the highest ranked states receive fiber to the home and/or fiber to the neighborhood service in larger cities, and faster DSL than what Frontier routinely sells West Virginians;
• An upgrade of the state’s broadband backbone to better manage increasing Internet usage during peak usage periods;
• Additional penetration of competing technologies into more rural areas.  Cable and fiber broadband deliver the fastest speeds, but most rural areas are bypassed.  Frontier will need to deploy faster and better service to dramatically improve the state’s broadband ranking.

Comcast’s national low-income Internet service, Internet Essentials, is getting an upgrade.

Out of more than 14 million Comcast broadband customers, fewer than 50,000 families managed to qualify and successfully obtain the $9.95/mo low-speed Internet service. On Tuesday, Comcast announced it was relaxing some of the program’s requirements to include more families and has also doubled the service’s speeds to 3Mbps for downloads and 768kbps for uploads.

Susan Jin Davis, vice president of Comcast’s Strategic Services explained the changes on the company’s blog:

[…] When we first started out, Internet Essentials was offered to families with children eligible to receive “free” school lunches under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Today, we have officially extended the program to include families with children eligible to receive “reduced” price lunches too. This change adds about 300,000 households in our service area who can now apply for the program — bringing our estimated total to about 2.3 million eligible families.

[…] Second, we doubled the speed of the broadband connection provided with Internet Essentials. It now comes with up to 3 Mbps downstream and up to 768 Kbps upstream, which makes the online experience even better than it was before. The increase is available now and we notified customers by email that the only thing they need to do is reboot their modems in order to immediately get the new speeds.

Third, as we announced in January, we have streamlined the application process by providing an instant approval process for all students attending schools with the highest percentage of NSLP participation, including Provision 2 schools.

Comcast’s Internet Essentials program was launched as part of an agreement with the Federal Communications Commission to win approval of the cable operator’s merger with NBC-Universal.  Comcast also committed to an expansion of its broadband service in rural areas.  The company says it expanded its service area by 199,876 additional homes in 33 rural communities.

A California woman is suing Verizon Communications for selling her faster Internet service, at a higher price, the company cannot actually deliver.

Patricia Allen of Santa Monica filed suit in Los Angeles after Verizon sold her an upgrade to her current DSL plan that turned out to be anything but.  Allen was paying $23.99 a month for 768kbps service, but in March, 2011 Verizon promised they could give her a speed upgrade to 1.5Mbps for $11 more per month.

Exactly one year later, Allen learned her “upgraded service” performed no better than her original Internet plan, which itself only managed around 500kbps, and called Verizon to complain.

Verizon technicians quickly responded Allen could never get the benefits of a faster speed plan because she lived at least two miles from her local Verizon central office.  DSL speeds degrade with distance and can also be impacted by the quality of the landline network Verizon maintains in southern California.  Because Allen lives too far away to receive anything better than 700kbps service, she was advised to downgrade her $34.99 DSL plan back to the one she started with.

Allen requested a refund for the extra $11 a month she was paying for the last year for promised speed improvements Verizon never delivered, but the company flatly refused her request.  Allen is now taking her case to the California courts, and her legal representatives are seeking to have the case designated a class action covering all Verizon landline customers in California who, like Allen, are paying for Verizon-marketed speed upgrades they actually cannot receive.

The suit claims Verizon is well aware it is selling speed upgrades to customers who live too far away from the company’s facilities to actually benefit from the enhanced service, and pockets the proceeds without delivering improved service.  The suit alleges Verizon is engaged in unethical, unscrupulous, immoral, and oppressive business conduct in violation of California state law.

Verizon’s spokesman Rich Young called the lawsuit “baseless and without merit.”

Verizon Class Action Copy

Stop the Cap! has learned Frontier Communications is laying the groundwork to upgrade selected areas of its network to deliver fiber-to-the-neighborhood service to some of its customers, perhaps as early as the last quarter of 2012.  Documents obtained by Stop the Cap! indicate the company is negotiating with AT&T to license U-verse technology to deliver the service.

The documents suggest Frontier’s 2011 negotiations with AT&T to resell mobile phone service to Frontier customers have now expanded to include the development of improved broadband at a cost less likely to antagonize Wall Street and the company’s investors.

Sources familiar with Frontier’s operations tell Stop the Cap! although the company will continue to support Verizon-acquired FiOS fiber-to-the-home networks in Indiana and the Pacific Northwest, Frontier plans to rely on less-expensive alternatives for the rest of its service areas and has no plans to further expand the FiOS branded fiber-to-the-home service.

For the most rural customers, Frontier appears ready to partner with HughesNet to resell a satellite broadband product to customers considered unsuitable for basic DSL service.  Frontier will continue to invest and upgrade its traditional 1-3Mbps ADSL service in rural states like West Virginia, Idaho, Nevada, and South Carolina.  The company is also planning to upgrade selected cities to VDSL — a more advanced form of DSL needed to support a U-verse offering.  Perhaps one major target for such an upgrade is Frontier’s largest service area — Rochester, N.Y., where Time Warner Cable has systematically picked off Frontier’s landline customers for years with offers of faster broadband speeds and better package pricing.

Frontier's headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Frontier’s insistence customers don’t need faster broadband speeds, a statement made repeatedly by Frontier Rochester general manager Ann Burr, has cost the company market share, especially for high speed Internet service.  Although Frontier claims to offer speeds up to 10Mbps in Rochester, the company only manages to deliver 3Mbps in some of the city’s nearest suburbs.

An upgrade to U-verse, while not as technologically advanced as fiber to the home service, would help Frontier defend its position in more urban markets, especially as cable companies upgrade their own infrastructure to market faster broadband speeds.

AT&T U-verse sells broadband at speeds of 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24Mbps.  Time Warner Cable, Frontier’s largest competitor in upstate New York, sells speeds of 3, 10, 20, 30, and 50Mbps.

Frontier Communications has been preoccupied integrating its newest customers, acquired from Verizon Communications in 2009, with their existing IT and operations systems.  The company recently touted it completed transitioning former Verizon operations, financing, and human resources with its own information technology network nine months ahead of schedule.

Frontier has been reorganizing some of its internal departments in preparation to launch several aggressive initiatives in 2012, especially in its efforts to roll-0ut more competitive broadband — considered a landline lifesaver —  in areas where the company has lost a lot of business to its cable competitors.  The company also intends to spend tens of millions upgrading its regional and national broadband infrastructure and continue extending DSL service to presently unserved rural areas.

Another planned improvement is an overhaul of Frontier’s website, which has brought complaints from customers for delivering inaccurate information, making online bill payment cumbersome, and being difficult to navigate.

Documents obtained by Stop the Cap! also reveal the company has made progress on its plans to pitch AT&T cell phone service to Frontier customers.

Frontier signed a resale agreement with AT&T last fall and is on track to begin limited trial offers of AT&T cell phones, smartphones, and tablets — with full access to AT&T’s network of 29,000 Wi-Fi hotspots during 2012 with a more widespread rollout in 2013.  Frontier plans to offer customers the option of a single bill for Frontier and AT&T services.

Frontier’s Karen Miller told Stop the Cap! the company had no comment about today’s story.