Carol Hevey, executive vice president of operations for TWC’s Carolinas region.

Stop the Cap!‘s strong readership in the Triad region of North Carolina comes from their experience with Time Warner Cable’s Internet Overcharging experiment this past April.  For residents in greater Greensboro and surrounding communities, now you get a chance to be pioneers of a different sort.

Time Warner Cable today announced Greensboro, Raleigh, and Charlotte, all in North Carolina, among the first in the nation able to purchase Road Runner Mobile, a new 4G wireless mobile broadband service designed to accompany your existing Road Runner subscription.

On December 1st, Time Warner Cable customers can sign up for the service, providing speeds up to 6Mbps, starting at $34.95 per month, if you are on a Price Lock Guarantee (a service commitment requiring you to remain with Time Warner Cable in return for service discounts) and subscribe to a bundle of services.  That low priced option has a usage allowance of 2 gigabytes per month.

Time Warner Cable's Carolinas region service area

“With Time Warner Cable’s 4G Mobile Network, we now offer the fastest mobile service available and extend our reach outside the home.” said Carol Hevey, Executive Vice President of the Carolina Region for Time Warner Cable.  “Giving our customers the convenience of mobility and the speed of 4G, Road Runner Mobile lets customers take their favorite Internet service wherever they go.  This is an important part of our strategy to give our customers any content, on any device, anytime, anywhere.”

Time Warner Cable is using the Clearwire WiMax network to provide the service, a benefit it gained along with Comcast when they became part-owners of the Sprint-Clearwire venture.

Pricing will vary depending on the level of service customers need:

• Road Runner Mobile 4G National Elite gives unlimited access to both Time Warner Cable’s 4G Mobile Network and a national 3G network (Sprint, presumably), for use when traveling.
  o $79.95 per month for Road Runner Standard or Turbo customers.
  o Further discounts for Double and Triple play customers and those on a Price Lock Guarantee.
• Road Runner Mobile 4G Elite gives customers unlimited access to the Time Warner Cable 4G Mobile Network.
  o $49.95 per month for Road Runner Standard or Turbo customers.
  o Further discounts for Double and Triple play customers and those on a Price Lock Guarantee.
• Road Runner Mobile 4G Choice gives light users 2GB of service on the Time Warner Cable 4G network each month.
  o Available for $39.95 per month to customers of at least one other Time Warner Cable service.  Additional $5 off if you have a Price Lock Guarantee and bundled service package.

Time Warner Cable plans to launch additional mobile services to customers in the future such as the ability to program a DVR from a mobile device and the ability to take their video content with them on the go.  Time Warner Cable will be expanding its 4G Mobile network to additional service areas over the next few months including Dallas, TX and Honolulu and Maui, HI.

Customer experiences with the Clearwire network have been decidedly mixed.  In Portland, uneven signal coverage has plagued service and fueled customer returns.  In Greensboro, some who have tested the Clearwire-branded version of the service report earlier speeds close to 5Mbps that have since slowed to below 2Mbps.

As with any wireless mobile service, inquire about trial options and cancellation policies before signing any contract.  Consumers should always verify service is available to them at tolerable speeds before committing to any contract.

NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

The New York State Attorney General has slapped Frontier Communications with a $35,000 fine and ordered the phone company to refund up to $50,000 it wrongfully charged consumers in so-called “early termination fees” for telephone and broadband service — fees consumers were never properly informed about at the time they ordered service.

“Frontier failed to spell out in its contracts the existence of costly fees,” said Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo. “The company is now fixing the issue by providing written notices of these fees and paying back consumers who were wrongfully charged.”

Frontier, located on South Clinton Avenue in Rochester, provides high speed broadband Internet service (FrontierHSI) and local and long distance telephone service. Between January 2007 and September 2008, Frontier sold bundles of various services under one-, two- or three-year agreements known as Price Protection Plans that offered a lower rate than month-to-month service as well as a promise that the subscription rate would not increase during the term of the plan. However, Frontier charged early termination fees to consumers who terminated a service before the end of the term. These fees typically ranged between $50 and $400, depending on the contents and services included in the package.

The Attorney General’s investigation determined that consumers who purchased one-year bundle agreements were never provided with written notice of the term or the existence of an early termination fee. The investigation also uncovered that consumers were not notified in their monthly billing statement that their agreements contained early termination fees. Therefore, many consumers first learned about the fee only after they canceled their service with Frontier and the charge appeared on their final bill.

In at least one instance, Frontier automatically re-enrolled a consumer to a term commitment after the initial term expired and then charged an early termination fee when she canceled after the initial term.

This is not the first time Frontier’s promotions have faced scrutiny by a New York Attorney General.  In March 2006, Frontier agreed to pay $80,000 in penalties and around $300,000 in customer refunds for what former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer called “misleading advertising and marketing tactics.”

Frontier’s customer service centers have often provided uneven service to consumers calling for information about products and services.  Stop the Cap!‘s editor, yours truly, had a number of problems when sampling Frontier’s DSL service during the Time Warner Cable Internet Overcharging experiment.  In addition to inconsistent product information, pricing, and terms and conditions, customer service representatives were ill-equipped to properly describe their own lineup of products, at one point promoting their wireless wi-fi network service in Rochester as “wee-fee.”

After the company couldn’t provide DSL service to my residence at speeds better than 3.1Mbps, service cancellation did not result in an early termination fee, but did cause serious billing foul-ups that took multiple calls to sort out.

In 2008, Stop the Cap! helped many customers cancel their DSL service without incurring early termination fees when the company introduced a 5GB usage limitation in their Acceptable Use Policy, under the provision allowing customers to opt-out of materially adverse changes in their service.  The company later announced customers under their Price Protection Agreement would not be subject to any service limitations until those agreements expired.

In January 2009, Attorney General Cuomo’s Office began investigating Frontier Communications and its subsidiaries after receiving dozens of complaints from consumers who were unexpectedly charged early termination fees.

Through an agreement with Attorney General Cuomo’s Office, Frontier must pay up to $50,000 in refunds and credits of early termination fees paid by eligible consumers who filed complaints prior to December 31, 2008. The company has provided the Attorney General’s Office a list of those eligible for refunds or credits.

Frontier's headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Other consumers who believe they are eligible for a refund or credit may submit a claim to the Attorney General’s Office by December 21, which will review the claims and act as the final arbiter for eligibility for reimbursement. Consumers wishing to file a complaint should call the Attorney General’s Rochester Regional Office at (585) 327-3240.  A promised web-based claim form could not be located on the NY Attorney General’s website at press time.  Residents living outside of New York State are not eligible to participate, but you may want to contact your own state’s Attorney General and ask them to review the New York settlement agreement, which could provide the basis for similar settlements in other states.

Frontier must also pay $35,000 in fees and costs. Frontier will send written notices to all customers who subscribe to new services regarding early termination fees. The company will not collect any such fee until after the notice has been sent. Frontier must also include a written notice of the term of any service agreement on consumers’ monthly billing statement for any agreement with an early termination fee.

Many customers never realized Frontier automatically renewed their Price Protection Agreements without their explicit consent, generating early termination fees of $300 for some customers who left after more than five years of service with the company.

JuniPerez, a former Frontier customer, wondered whether Frontier was offering a Price Protection Lifetime Agreement: “I had Frontier’s DSL and phone service for about five to six years (phone service for much longer). After my last move, I switched to Time Warner’s phone, cable, and broadband package. Within two weeks of notifying Frontier of my service cancellation, they sent me my last bill — $300.00! This was for what they called an “Early Termination Fee”. After five to six years I had an early termination fee? I didn’t even get a chance to dispute it. Within days (not weeks or months) they turned the account over to a collection agency. They still dare to send me ‘come back to us’ flyers and specials.”

Some Frontier customers sign up for bundled packages of service to receive incentives, such as heavily discounted satellite television service or a “free” Dell netbook (after paying $45 in fees for taxes and shipping), in return for signing a two- or three-year Price Protection Agreement.  The agreement promises customers will not see any changes in pricing for the length of the agreement.  At the same time, the agreement “locks-in” the customer to stay with the company for the length of the contract, or face a penalty for canceling service early.  In many cases involving incentives, the early termination fee amounted to $300.

But Frontier appears to have made some changes even before yesterday’s settlement with the Attorney General.

As of at least this past spring, customers signing up for a promotion with a Price Protection Agreement were directed verbally to an e-mail copy of the agreement sent to them, urged to read it, and were required to electronically consent to the terms of the agreement in order to participate in the company’s promotions.  Follow-up e-mails were sent to customers who did not complete this process.  The contract also included provisions notifying customers that agreements were automatically renewed for an additional term unless the customer notified the company in advance they did not consent to automatic renewal.  In fact, customers could cancel the contract renewal almost immediately after electronically consenting to it.

Frontier’s e-mail was sent to the customer’s Frontier e-mail account, which some customers never used and never accessed.  For some, the terms amounted to “fine print” that many never read.  While the New York Attorney General ultimately found Frontier Communications responsible for failing to adequately notify customers about such fees, Stop the Cap! reminds the public they have a responsibility to carefully read and review the terms and conditions of all service agreements, especially those involving promotional giveaways tied to service commitments like Price Protection Agreements.  Many have historically carried steep cancellation penalties as well as automatic renewal provisions designed to keep you from switching providers.  Such agreements should be considered only if you are certain you are happy with your service provider.  If you are trying a service for the first time, inquire whether you can sample the service for a trial period and retain the right to cancel without incurring penalties.  Frontier traditionally offers a 30-day trial period for DSL service.  Always record the time and day you made the inquiry, and the name of the customer service representative you spoke with.  Should you be given incorrect or inconsistent information, being armed with this information may help convince the provider to agree to what you were promised.

Customers who are not satisfied with the response they receive from a customer service representative or their immediate supervisor should check the front of their telephone directory for the number of the “executive customer service office,” sometimes also called, “unresolved complaints.”  These special representatives are empowered to resolve complaints customer service representatives may not have the authority to fix.  Failing that, contact your state’s Public Utilities/Service Commission or the Attorney General’s office.

Two video news reports appear below the fold.

… Continue Reading

The evidence just keeps on coming that broadband in North America is not what it should be, remaining behind several Asian and European countries and not prepared for the broadband future.

Researchers at Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford and the University of Oviedo’s Department of Applied Economics, supported by Cisco (who does have an agenda to sell the equipment to improve service) analyzed almost 24 million speed tests measured by Speedtest.net for broadband customers between May and July of this year.

Both the United States and Canada, which consider themselves world leaders in broadband, might be surprised to learn they are behind more than a dozen nations, including one former Soviet republic.

The good news for the United States is that improvements have been made, primarily by cable and fiber optic broadband earning a bigger market share from slower speed telephone company DSL service.  The bad news for Canada is that Internet service there isn’t seeing the same degree of improvements, as vast parts of the country are stuck with DSL service for wired broadband indefinitely.

The CBC reported the results as negative:

Canada has some of the poorest-quality broadband among advanced countries, according to a study of global internet infrastructure.

Canada placed 25th out of 34 countries in the University of Oxford’s ranking of innovation economies, far behind top-rated South Korea and just ahead of Australia and the United States.

Some key findings from the study appear below….

… Continue Reading

Lynch

Verizon today joined the chorus of large providers looking for an enhanced payday off the backs of their subscribers when Chief Technology Officer Richard Lynch told a 2009 Fiber to the Home Conference and Expo press conference that the days of unlimited broadband may be coming to a close.

“We’re going to have to consider pricing structures that allow us to sell packages of bytes, and at the end of the day the concept of a flat-rate infinitely expandable service is unachievable,” Lynch said, adding that the broadband industry will see a paradigm shift as the Internet grows and Verizon passes on the cost to “someone.”

This is the first public comment from a Verizon executive that directly supports Internet Overcharging, although Lynch said Verizon was not announcing any pricing changes at this point in time.

Lynch’s statements came in concert with Verizon’s more immediate concerns about Net Neutrality, which the company has spent considerable amounts of money on Washington lobbyists to oppose.

Lynch doesn’t want Net Neutrality to interfere with the potential for the company to offer “premium bandwidth plans.”

Assuming Lynch is speaking about plans sold to consumers, there are no provisions in Net Neutrality legislation that address speed-based Internet service tiers.

Verizon’s statement about metered pricing and Net Neutrality may be a “divide and conquer” strategy to suggest to consumers an “either/or” proposition.  Either accept usage caps and metered service plans or Net Neutrality.  Stop the Cap! has written about this strategy in the past, and it has tripped up some public policy consumer groups in the past who were willing to support one or the other instead of objecting to both.

But Verizon’s near limitless capacity fiber optics FiOS network, and the fact the company’s “cost structure is certainly different, as a tier-one [carrier], [means] their transport costs are a fraction of the smaller operators,” according to Vince Vittore, an analyst with The Yankee Group.  That makes justifying such pricing questionable.

Verizon equates usage pricing models on its wireless mobile network with its wired fiber optic network.  Telephony Online quotes Lynch: “We have already gone this way in wireless because that is where the resource is most constrained.”

Of course, wireless mobile broadband is constrained by limits on the amount of spectrum space available to transport the data, something a fiber optic network need not contend with.

A Wall Street Journal article this morning calls the imminent introduction of Net Neutrality policy “a boon for consumers […] to use their computers or cellphones to enjoy videos, music and other legal services that hog bandwidth.”

The article refers to the widely expected announcement today by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that Net Neutrality should be adopted as the fifth principle governing Internet service in the United States.

But Journal reporter Amy Schatz’s judgment about who wins and who loses in the Net Neutrality debate is framed by the flawed broadband provider arguments she adopts as reality:

The proposed rules could change how operators manage their networks and profit from them, and the everyday online experience of individual users. Treating Web traffic equally means carriers couldn’t block or slow access to legal services or sites that are a drain on their networks or offered by rivals.

The rules will escalate a fight over how much control the government should have over Internet commerce. The Obama administration is taking the side of Google, Amazon.com Inc. and an array of smaller businesses that want to profit from offering consumers streaming video, graphics-rich games, movie and music downloads and other services.

Setting aside the inappropriate use of the word “hog” to define broadband usage, which comes straight out of the broadband industry’s public relations strategy, Schatz ignores the fact some of the biggest drains on these networks will soon come from the industry’s own efforts to dominate online video — TV Everywhere.

In fact, the excuses for imposing Internet Overcharging schemes in 2009 do not reference much beyond online video growth as a justification to impose speed throttles and price increases on consumers.

Schatz adopts industry positions as fact in a number of places throughout her piece, which belongs on the Editorial page of the Journal:

If the FCC does force U.S. wireless carriers to open their networks to data-heavy applications like streaming video, it could push them beyond the limited capacity they have. Already, in areas like New York and San Francisco, a high concentration of iPhones has caused many AT&T customers to complain about degrading service.

In fact, many wireless carriers already provide their own wireless video to customers, and don’t seem to be engaging in a lot of hand-wringing over that.  Should Net Neutrality force open the wireless platform, the quality of the service, not the provider’s self interest will govern the success and failure of individual applications.  AT&T, which has earned massive revenue from its exclusive iPhone arrangement with Apple, can and should continue to invest some of that revenue into expanding their network to meet the demand.  If they cannot, it is an open question why they would allow any online video or other data-heavy applications on their networks until those networks can handle the traffic.

In such a scenario, wireless carriers may have to rethink how much they charge for data plans or even cap how much bandwidth individuals get, said Julie Ask, a wireless analyst at Jupiter Research.

This ignores the fact providers have already rethought about how much they charge for data plans.  Some providers are now compelling subscribers to choose data plans as part of their two year service agreements, while the industry is replete with 5GB usage caps on wireless data services today.  Someone should ask Ask what she thinks is forthcoming that hasn’t already happened.

The FCC’s proposal will take into account the bandwidth limitations faced by wireless carriers, according to people familiar with the plan, and would ask how such rules should apply to current networks.

…which takes the wind out of the sails of the argument Net Neutrality would be ruinous to wireless providers.

The proposals come as the FCC faces a federal appeals court case over its authority to regulate Web traffic. Comcast is fighting an FCC decision last year to ding it for violating the agency’s “net neutrality” principles when it slowed traffic for some subscribers who were downloading big files. Comcast said it didn’t violate any rules because the FCC had never formally adopted any, but it did change how it manages its network.

In reality, Comcast’s speed throttle targeted files small and large, all because they were delivered over a specific network Comcast didn’t like: peer to peer.  That’s a protocol that relies on a group of people obtaining files by sharing pieces already downloaded with one another until the file is complete for everyone.  That involves uploading and downloading file pieces, often over a lengthy period.  Comcast’s network was built with the assumption most customers would download far more than they upload, and peer-to-peer challenged that model with its file sharing methodology.  The surge in upload traffic challenged their network at times, so Comcast decided to throttle the maximum speeds consumers could use while engaged in peer-to-peer file sharing.

Republicans are likely to oppose the FCC’s new proposal — both at the FCC and in Congress — arguing that the FCC is trying to fix problems that don’t exist and that the agency should take a more hands-off approach to the fast-changing industry.

“With only a few isolated instances of complaints alleging net neutrality-like abuses ever having been filed, it is a mistake,” said Randolph May, president of Free State Foundation, a free-market oriented think tank.

It’s difficult to fathom exactly how much more “hands-off” the agency can get with respect to broadband, an unregulated service in the United States.  That “hands-off” policy was responsible for the establishment of de facto monopoly/duopoly broadband service in most American cities, wireless broadband that charges nearly the same price for the same usage capped service, and is tinkering with Internet Overcharging to leverage that market status into higher pricing for all consumers.

May’s argument is akin to calling the fire department only after a fire has consumed half of your home, not when the smoke detector first goes off.

As a result, both the cable companies and phone companies had incentives to create conditions on the Internet — either through pricing or slowing or speeding up certain sites — to favor their own content.

This sentence, buried towards the end of the piece, exemplifies exactly why Net Neutrality is so important.  Let’s put this fire out before it burns out of control.