Home » Internet » Recent Articles:

FairPoint’s Funny Numbers: Counts Customers Who Can’t Buy DSL ‘Broadband-Ready’

Phillip Dampier December 1, 2011 Audio, Broadband Speed, FairPoint, Public Policy & Gov't, Rural Broadband Comments Off on FairPoint’s Funny Numbers: Counts Customers Who Can’t Buy DSL ‘Broadband-Ready’

FairPoint Communications is under fire for counting customers “broadband ready” when, in fact, they can’t buy DSL service from the northern New England phone company at any price.

One of the commitments FairPoint made to regulators who approved their buyout of Verizon landlines in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont in 2007 was that the company would expand broadband availability to at least 87 percent of residents in states like Maine.  In October, FairPoint claimed it had met that target, but now the Office of the Public Advocate has found instances where the phone company counted customers who live too far away from the phone company’s facilities to buy the service as “served.”

FairPoint is apparently counting most customers within a DSL-equipped exchange as reachable by broadband, even if only some of them actually are.  The rest either live too far away to get proper broadband speeds, or are connected to inferior lines that will not sustain a serviceable connection.

Maine’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) is upset FairPoint seems to be padding the numbers in its favor.  Maine’s Public Broadcasting Network talked with commissioners:

“I just find it hard to reconcile that it’s in the public interest to include in the definition of addressable lines, a line on which no customer can be connected and to which Fairpoint has made no planning or economic commitment to serve in the future,” said Vendean Vafiades. She, along with fellow commissioner David Littell, voted in favor of a decision which is likely to require Fairpoint to re-calculate the 87 percent figure using a stricter methodology.

“And I do believe that Fairpoint has a commitment to be economically viable in this state and to provide good quality service. And at a minimum I think Fairpoint should be required to provide actual access to meet its merger condition and obligations,” said Vafiades.

The holdout vote was that of PUC Chairman Tom Welch, who sympathized with Fairpoint on this issue.

The vote in Maine is likely to force FairPoint, which had hoped it was “all done” fulfilling broadband obligations, to spend more to upgrade its network to sufficiently service customers it promised it would.

FairPoint defends their interpretation of the numbers, noting the company has spent more than $169 million across their northern New England territories on broadband, making good on their commitment.  The state’s consumer advocate and PUC disagree, so now all parties will be re-evaluating their numbers, and FairPoint customers still waiting for DSL might still have a chance to get it after all.

Maine’s Public Broadcasting Network reports on the controversy over FairPoint’s promise to serve at least 87% of Maine with broadband service. Maine’s public utility commissioners voted to ramp up the pressure on Fairpoint Communications with regard to their broadband rollout. The expansion of high-speed internet to most areas of Maine was one of the conditions of Fairpoint’s purchase of Verizon’s former landline operation in 2007. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Newspapers Teach Readers How to Cut Cable Cord, Even If It Means Going Underground for TV

Watch these shows online, if you want to risk some uninvited guests.

There is nothing new about news outlets promoting tips and tricks to lower your monthly cable bill.  We publish similar stories ourselves here on Stop the Cap!  But some newspapers take things further, openly advocating you disconnect your cable service for good and watch everything online.  This week, we found one even willing to publish website addresses that skirt copyright laws and take online video underground.

The State Press encourages Arizona State students to thumb their noses at Cox Communications’ latest offer — cable television for $29.99 a month, good for six months (regular price $70).  Instead, they encourage, take your viewing online to Netflix and Hulu — the former for movies, the latter for television series.  But with cable companies and Hollywood studios conspiring to tackle the growing problem of cord-cutting, new restrictions are finding their way to fans of both websites, including waiting periods, limited series runs, and higher subscription fees.  This means war to the State Press:

There is a dark side to these two corporate entities, however. In their attempt to slowly weasel their way into your pockets a bit more, Hulu has gone Plus and Netflix has divided their packages, limiting your viewing. Hulu has seemingly said, “You can pay a little more to watch it the day after, right? No? Well, then I guess you’re waiting five more days for that recent episode,” while Netflix has exclaimed, “Unlimited to our choosing! You’re going to have to pay up if you want every movie out there.” So we must retaliate and go a little dark ourselves.

The author advises readers there is a way around the roadblocks — visiting a website already shut down once by copyright enforcement action (but has since resurfaced with a Chinese web address), providing a list of links to other websites that host copyright-infringing videos you can’t watch on Hulu or Netflix.

While the author of the State Press story may not realize it, a brief test visit to the “pirate-streamed site” opened the door to some nefarious extras.  With the help of Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware, we stopped unwanted browser toolbars, various intrusion attempts, and even a few pieces of actual malware that wanted in on the party.  Without the most robust security software, visits to websites with underground video content can wreak havoc, and there are not that many TV shows worth watching to make that headache worthwhile.

The website owner disclaims responsibility from just about everything:

“[This website] does not host, provide, archive, store, or distribute media of any kind, and acts merely as an index (or directory) of media posted by other webmasters on the internet, which is completely outside of our control. Whereas we do not filter such references, we cannot and do not attempt to control, censor, or block any indexed material that may be considered offensive, abusive, libellous, obnoxious, inaccurate, deceptive, unlawful or otherwise distressing neither do we accept responsibility for this content or the consequences of such content being made available.”

We encourage you to exercise caution visiting websites that are willing to skirt copyright laws.  Up-to-date antivirus and spyware detection software when visiting is a must at all times.  Many of these sites stay in business selling ad space to anyone, and those ads can come with unwanted malware that can find its way onto your computer long after the viewing is over.  Be careful.

Low Income $9.95 Internet Coming to Time Warner, Cox, and Charter… If You Qualify

Genachowski

The cable industry is expanding so-called “lifeline Internet service” to more households in an effort to combat what a government agency calls “a persistent digital divide.”

Next spring, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Charter Communications will launch low-speed Internet service for $9.95 a month for two years.  The offers will echo Comcast’s Internet Essentials, which launched earlier this year as part of a deal with the government to win approval of the cable company’s merger with NBC-Universal.

The Federal Communications Commission calls the effort “Connect to Compete,” and suggests the public-private initiative will help rural Americans and low-income minorities get affordable Internet access. A study by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration found just 55% of black households and 57% of Hispanics currently subscribe to broadband.  More than 72% of Caucasian households and more than 81% of Asian homes use broadband by comparison.  The rural southern states of Mississippi (52%), Arkansas (52%) and Alabama (56%) have the lowest broadband penetration rates in the country.  In contrast, more than 80% of Utah residents have broadband in their homes.

“In this difficult economy, we need everyone to be working together on solutions,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said. “Broadband is a key to economic and educational opportunity and these kinds of commitments to close the digital divide are powerful.”

But not every poverty-stricken American will qualify for the discount programs.

Cable operators are following Comcast’s lead, restricting access to families with at least one school age child enrolled in the free school lunch program.  Customers must not have existing broadband service during the last 90 days and customers with past due balances cannot sign up.  Don’t have children or fell behind on your cable bill?  No discount Internet for you.

Pilot programs will be launched by each operator in around a dozen cities total starting next spring, with plans to roll programs out nationally by the start of the 2012 school year.  Broadband speeds, usage limits, and other fees were not disclosed.  Comcast’s Internet Essentials operates at 1.5Mbps with upload speeds up to 384kbps.

Comcast’s program sells a netbook computer loaded with Windows 7 Starter Edition for around $150.  The $250 computers expected to be provided by Microsoft will include Windows 7 Home Premium operating system and Microsoft Office.  An additional vendor will sell refurbished computers to interested program participants for around $150.

The program will primarily reach urban residents who cannot afford current Internet service plans that are sold for $40-45 a month.  Rural residents are unlikely to benefit much because most cable operators do not deliver service in rural areas.

CenturyLink announced its own version of discounted DSL Internet in October to sell for $9.95 a month, but with numerous “gotcha” fees and surcharges.

One group unlikely to take advantage of the program: older householders, particularly those ages 65 and older, where just 45% have broadband at home.  The biggest reason the rest don’t?  They don’t believe they need the Internet at any cost.

An Open Letter from a Frontier Communications Employee

Stop the Cap! received this unsolicited letter from an employee working at Frontier Communications about how the company has been running the business and treating their customers.  We’ve been able to independently verify enough of this letter, by talking with other Frontier employees, to highlight it for our readers. 

Frontier Communications is a long way from its progenitor (and namesake) — Rochester Telephone Corporation, which operated locally with excellence for 100 years.  Rochester Tel changed its name to Frontier Communications as it sought to abandon its image as a basic phone company.  It was later sold to Global Crossings, which later sold it to Citizens Communications, which decided to adopt the Frontier name itself.

I work for a major well known utility company and I feel ethically compelled to inform someone that there are practices within my company that are being done without consideration for the consumer. My employment there has extended well over three years now and I have been turning a blind eye to what they call ‘customer service.’ I believe that I have the duty to expose some of these inner-workings to the public. I work for Frontier Communications.

I do not want to be named nor am I going to divulge any names of my fellow employees. I will give details about some of the misinformation given to customers, issues with systems that cause billing problems, and a few other known issues that upper management continues to overlook.

Recently there were a few groups of employees force-fed training on Frontier’s newest [customer support] systems. It was crammed into an eight day course. The majority of the time the training systems were down, certain elements of the systems were overlooked with promises that employees will learn how to manage these while on the floor. Anxiety and panic swept the call center; worried faces riddled with anger and frustration stood out everywhere. All except the higher management. They kept saying, ‘don’t worry, you guys will be OK’ or ‘we have to get this call volume down’. But the statement that never failed was, ‘don’t forget that you need to offer a wide array of services on every call. That’s your job.’ Regardless if a customer is calling in because she/he cannot afford their service as-is, we are required to try and upsell them.

I was employed with Verizon prior to the acquisition to Frontier. It was an exciting day for us because we felt like Verizon’s iron hand was being lifted. But to our dismay the same type of mentality still exists [with Frontier]. The changes Frontier made caused a lot of panic as well. We are trained for sales rather than customer service even though Frontier’s values are “People, Product, and Profit.” A customer may call in with a major issue, often irritated and frustrated.  We are expected to entice them to purchase an additional product that may or may not work.

I will enlighten you on that subject.  Our ‘network congestion’ issue with High Speed Internet has caused a tremendous volume of calls to the call centers and tech support. There were periods when calls to these departments exceeded 30 minutes and even at times close to an hour. Numerous [former Verizon] customers have experienced ‘network congestion’. This issue caused a great deal of frustrated customers to call about their Internet (HSI) service dropping. Some of them experience up and down periods over a few months. I even witnessed some customers that were out for weeks at a time.

How do you sell a product that is not reliable? Netflix made the comment that Frontier has one of the worst broadband services in the nation. Some of us here feel guilty when we sell certain products because we know it may or may not work sometimes. The newest, greatest selling technique we have for HSI is selling it whether or not it is available in a customer’s area. Customers call in livid and frustrated because they were told they can get a service and now they are being told their area is not available for that upgrade to HSI quite yet.

Another odd situation we have going on right now is our new phone systems are Voice Over IP. We are the phone company right? Then why are we using that type of system? Among the numerous issues: dropped calls, noise on the line, being unable to fully understand what the customer is saying & vice-versa, and the system totally freezing up while on a call.

There are some of us who have just sat around because we were unable to access anything. One rep became concerned because their training for the phone system consisted of a learning document they were given minutes before they were expected to use it. A coach was made aware of her concerns and his comment was more or less ‘well then you need to ask if you need help’. That reply was heard by a few different reps and all were taken aback. Why can’t we get the training we need to navigate through all of the madness?

Call volume. How are we going to be able to handle issues like repair and collections, write orders properly, and steer through a calling system that just doesn’t seem to be working correctly? Apparently it doesn’t matter as long as we upsell our customers.

One of the last issues I’m going to share with you is a critical issue that a new rep has brought to our attention and higher management as well. When a service  appointment — repair, new install, etc. — is not fulfilled, the customer is NOT called back to let them know their scheduled appointment will not be kept, much less make an effort to reschedule it. Management and other departments know about this and still no efforts have been made to fix it. I have seen this on my end as well. What do you say to a customer who asks, ’why didn’t anyone call?’ There’s no real honest way to answer that properly.

I don’t know what is going to happen with the pending lawsuit that Frontier has from the $1.50 surcharge for HSI service but I do know that a lot of us here don’t agree with the charge and how it was handled. We were given a document on what to say when the customer calls in and disputes the charge. It was a paragraph, more or less, stating we are imposing this surcharge and there’s nothing we can do to waive it.

I now realize I have a made a poor choice in my career. I have great empathy for the customer and I’m fed up with how they are treated as well as the employees.

Thank you for listening,

“Joan Jones” (Anonymous)

NC Man and Deputy Sheriff Move to Seize AT&T Store Over Unpaid Internet Overcharging Judgment

A Winston-Salem man with a judgment from a North Carolina court in hand shocked AT&T store employees on Summit Square Boulevard Tuesday when he walked in with a Forsyth County Sheriff’s deputy to serve AT&T a court order that allowed the Sheriff’s Office to seize the store’s assets and sell them to satisfy his $2,000 judgment.

George Kontos says AT&T has been stonewalling his family for more than three months after winning a lawsuit against AT&T for Internet Overcharging.  The company had been stalling Kontos with paperwork requests, but a visit by a sheriff’s deputy prepared to begin selling off the store’s property to pay Kontos managed to finally get AT&T to act.

“AT&T is making arrangements to pay the sum owed to the Kontos family and will deliver the payment to the appropriate entity,” an AT&T spokesperson said in a statement.

Kontos had little trouble arguing his case in small claims court.

(Courtesy: WFMY News)

“When I went into AT&T to look at the plan, I wanted to make sure I had a comparable data plan with what I had been using and the rep pulled up the account and obviously even as an AT&T employee it must have been outstanding for him because his first reaction was, ‘wow you’re paying too much,'” Kontos told WFMY News.

With an AT&T employee on his side, Kontos thought AT&T would do the right thing and credit his account for 24 months of overcharging.  AT&T agreed to partial credits for the last five months.  Kontos said he would see the company in court.

In July, a county small claims court judge quickly found for Kontos and handed him a judgment and Kontos has been waiting by his mailbox for AT&T’s check ever since.

Kontos calls the matter a real David vs. Goliath story, and openly wonders how many other customers in the Triad are being overcharged by AT&T.

“Demand that they review your account for the last two years minimum,” he told the station. “Find out what you’ve been paying. Find out what other rate plans exist. Find out what you could have been paying and if you’ve got money that’s owed to you, get it back.”

If AT&T won’t provide an owed refund willingly, and you live in North Carolina, you can use this form — the same one used by the Kontos family — to sue AT&T yourself.

[flv width=”640″ height=”447″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFMY Greensboro Customer George Kontos Took ATT Mobility To Court And Won 10-7-11.flv[/flv]

WFMY in Greensboro shares the story of the Kontos family, who discovered they were overcharged for a data plan for more than two years.  When the company refused to issue an appropriate credit, Kontos took the company to court and won.  (2 minutes)

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!