Windstream Communications is under investigation by the Governor’s Office of Consumer Protection because of allegations the company is advertising broadband speeds and performance the company simply cannot deliver its customers in Georgia.

A Windstream employee in a company retail office in Dawsonville told an undercover CBS Atlanta photographer that the company can offer Internet speeds up to 24Mbps. He guaranteed service no slower than 6 to 12Mbps. But Mark Creekmore, who lives in Dawsonville, reports his speeds sometimes barely reach 1Mbps during the afternoons.

Duane Hartness, a Windstream customer, says Windstream has oversubscribed their service by continuing to sell broadband on a network that is overcrowded as-is, which slows speeds for every customer.

“Every customer they add to their oversubscribed DSLAM increases their revenue while further degrading your bandwidth,” Hartness said. “Lacking competition, they can ignore any and all complaints.”

Creekmore wants every Windstream customer in Georgia that is dissatisfied with their broadband service to file complaints with the state agency.

“The more complaints, the more likely the Office of Consumer Protection is to take action,” Creekmore said. “Please make sure to include that you are not getting what you are paying for and any other personal detail that would help them understand what you have gone through. If you have had multiple communications with Windstream, please include those details as well. In short, the more detail the better.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WGCL Atlanta Windstream Exposed for Not Providing Speeds Promised 3-7-13.mp4[/flv]

WGCL — CBS Atlanta reports there are new developments in Georgia regarding Windstream: It is under investigation by the governor’s office for misleading subscribers with broadband speeds the company cannot actually deliver.  (3 minutes)

The FCC finds Windstream is the worst of the worst among DSL providers, only giving customers advertised speeds 81 percent of the time. AT&T, Georgia’s largest phone company, doesn’t do much better.

Windstream is the worst-performing DSL provider in the country according to the Federal Communications Commission, with just 81 percent of customers getting the broadband speeds marketed.

After complaints about the company helped derail H.B. 282 — a bill Windstream heavily lobbied for that would have eliminated possible competition from community-owned providers — Windstream representatives quickly began promising upgrades.

“We’re asking our customers to be patient with us because we’re on it. We understand that they have issues and we’re working to upgrade their network,” Bettye Willis, a regional vice president at Windstream, told the CBS station in Atlanta.

Willis added Windstream was committed to solving its Internet speed problems, but not for everyone.

The company released this map showing planned service upgrades for “two-thirds of the communities it serves” in Georgia. But the company warned not everyone would receive improved service. For the remaining one-third, “take it or leave it” broadband service will continue.

Cogeco customers in Québec will find faster speeds and a larger usage allowance for most of the company’s broadband packages.

The changes took effect Feb. 1. Customers can get the new speeds by briefly unplugging their cable modem, resetting it.

• Express 5 now offers 5/1.5Mbps service with a 25GB monthly cap;
• Express 10 now offers 10/1.5Mbps service with a 60GB monthly cap;
• Turbo 14 now offers 14/2Mbps service with a 80GB monthly cap;
• Turbo 20 now offers 20/2Mbps service with a 100GB monthly cap;
• Ultimate 60 now offers 60/2Mbps service with a 300GB monthly cap.

“Internet needs are rapidly evolving,” said Ron Perrotta, vice president of marketing and strategic planning at Cogeco Cable. “We have taken into consideration the feedback received from our current residential customer base, and made the necessary changes in order to meet the needs of the vast majority of our customers and provide them with more competitive internet offerings.”

If Cogeco surveyed their customers regarding getting rid of usage caps altogether, the answer would likely be yes. But that is a question Cogeco does not seem willing to ask.

Cogeco offers different plans for customers in Ontario:

A one-way street or Avoidant personality disorder?

Back in July we noticed Time Warner Cable’s Conversations website, engaged in two-way conversations with customers, began a “dialogue” on the issue of its new 5GB usage-capped “Internet Essentials” plan first unveiled in several Texas cities.

The company provided its view that broadband innovation required pricing flexibility with new usage-based broadband plans to offer customers “more choice” and a $5 discount on service if they agreed to limit monthly usage to 5GB or less.

Despite sharing our two cents (and several of our readers tried to add their own as well), we noted none of these views ever appeared online.

This week we checked back and discovered the dialogue had decidedly turned one-way: namely from Time Warner Cable to you. The company deleted the few views that were published on cable television programming costs and removed its comment section altogether.

Our reader Kevin even tried to be generous in his comments to the company last summer, but to no avail.

“I basically told them if usage meter billing is inevitable, then give us no less than 300 GB a month, at a rate of $40 a month,” he wrote. “Seeing how 1 GB of bandwidth and data costs you less than $1 to generate to me, this is more than fair. Doubt they will even read it since it isn’t a ‘wow this is awesome, OMG i luv you so much for this new plan TWC’-message.”

They might have read it, but elected to avoid the uncomfortable notion of sharing the actual costs to provide broadband service to customers. It is not the first time, either.

Wyden

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has introduced legislation that would force Internet Service Providers to prove usage caps are designed to manage network congestion instead of monetizing consumer data usage.

The Data Cap Integrity Act would require the Federal Communications Commission to enact new rules forcing providers to justify their usage cap programs, create standards by how ISPs measure usage and to provide useful measurement tools to customers before they incur overlimit fees.

“Internet use is central to our lives and to our economy,” said Wyden. “Future innovation will undoubtedly require consumers to use more and more data — data caps should not impede this innovation and the jobs it creates.  This bill is intended to help consumers manage their data more effectively and ensure that data caps are used only to serve the legitimate purpose of addressing congestion.”

Wyden’s bill is an attempt to force providers to prove their contention that usage limits improve the user experience by preventing so-called “data hogs” from slowing down connections of other paying customers.

Wyden is also concerned that without uniform standards of data measurement, consumers could be blindsided with overlimit fees or even have their service cut off. In the past, providers have stuck customers with a variety of often inaccurate measurement tools that have under or over-reported usage, which can sometimes lead to higher bills. At present, no government agency has authority over the veracity of provider measurement tools, and most ISPs impose terms requiring subscribers to accept their word as final for the purpose of usage measurement.

The Oregon senator’s bill is the first measure regulating usage caps introduced in the Senate. In 2009, Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) introduced a measure in the House that would have banned most usage caps and usage-based billing without first applying a means test. Massa introduced the bill after Time Warner Cable attempted to impose a usage-billing scheme on customers in his district, which includes parts of the Rochester area.

Among the provisions in Wyden’s bill the FCC must enact and enforce within one year of its passage:

• A “truth in labeling requirement” that requires ISPs fully disclose the cost of their services, the true upload and download speed a customer will receive, and the presence of any speed throttles or usage limits;
• A ban on usage caps for any provider that cannot prove they are needed to control congestion and not simply discourage Internet usage;
• A penalty for providers that either do not provide suitable measurement tools or inaccurately measure usage leading to unjustified overlimit fees;
• A provider may not exempt certain content from its usage cap while imposing it on others.

Lyons

Wyden’s bill was introduced at the same time the nation’s largest cable lobbying group, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, sponsored an event defending usage limits and consumption billing. Two of the three experts speaking at the event declared peak usage limits or congestion pricing ineffective.

In fact, Michael Weinberg from Public Knowledge took note of the fact the cable industry now seems to admit it does not have a congestion problem:

“The most refreshing section of the [NCTA’s] study is the one that is not there,” Weinberg wrote. “There is no meaningful discussion of usage-based pricing as a tool to reduce network congestion or a suggestion that monthly data limits are a reasonable way to impact congestion. There is also no invocation of the mythical ‘data hog,’ a sinful creature that can only be punished with data caps. Hopefully, the omission is NCTA’s tacit admission of two things: that cable networks are not congested and, if they become so in the future, monthly caps will do little to address that congestion.

”

“I don’t think congestion is as big a problem in fixed broadband,” said Professor David M. Lyons of Boston College Law School at the NCTA event. “The latest broadband speed surveys that the FCC has come out suggests that there is not a whole lot of slowdown at peak periods on the fixed side.”

Ford, Jr. (D-The Green Room)

Harold Ford, Jr., a former Democratic congressman from Tennessee and John Sununu, former governor of New Hampshire, are unhappy with an Op-Ed piece written by David Cay Johnston in the New York Times that calls out the telecom industry for high prices and and an uncompetitive marketplace.

Ford, who can usually be found in the green room of various cable news networks waiting to deliver his pro-industry messages on behalf of front groups like Broadband for America, says that 93 percent of Americans are happy as can be with their broadband Internet service.

Sununu joined Ford in some less-than-factual arguments about the state of American broadband:

Second, nearly 90 percent of all Americans can choose from two or more wireline competitors and at least three wireless broadband providers, most of whom now provide some of the fastest 4G LTE broadband networks in the world. Meanwhile, new fiber optic, satellite and wireless choices keep emerging.

Third, during the past four years, broadband providers invested $250 billion in the nation’s broadband infrastructure, while other industries sat on their cash.

Fourth, unlike many other consumer products, the monthly prices for broadband Internet have remained relatively constant, while average speeds have increased by 900 percent or more. Free-standing broadband service is now routinely available for $20 to $30 a month.

That is playing fast and loose with the truth. In reality:

• Most Americans have one cable and one phone company to choose from, not “two or more.” Wireless broadband providers offer service with a cap so low, it can almost never provide a suitable replacement for wired broadband service. Although AT&T and Verizon Wireless have growing 4G LTE networks, neither carrier has provided universal access to LTE speeds. T-Mobile and Sprint are only getting started. The fiber optic choices that are emerging these days are primarily from community-owned providers Ford’s industry friends vehemently oppose. AT&T does not offer fiber to the home service and Verizon effectively suspended expansion of its FiOS fiber network several years ago.  Wireless choices are now shrinking because of mergers and acquisitions and satellite broadband remains a painful experience regardless of the provider;
• Most that the investment made in “broadband” is focused on expanding wireless 4G service. That investment allowed both AT&T and Verizon to pay Uncle Sam dramatically lower tax bills — AT&T even collected a refund. Home broadband expansion has been far less expansive;
• Monthly broadband bills have not remained constant — they are rising, and more rapidly than ever. Speeds enjoyed by average customers have not increased by 900 percent, only some top speeds that are priced well out of range for most Americans. The price both quote for free-standing broadband is for “lite” service, often so slow it no longer even qualifies as “broadband.” Often, that budget service also comes with usage caps, sometimes as low as 5GB per month.

Sununu and Ford close:

Fortunately, very few policy makers in either party have endorsed the kind of heavy-handed regulations that Mr. Johnston’s arguments seem to imply — regulations that would only stifle investment and truly put America at risk of falling behind.

America has already fallen behind, and will remain in decline as long as regulators and Congress listen to a handful of telecommunications companies speaking from their sock puppet front groups and handing out campaign contributions to elected officials to keep things exactly as they are today.