Each time Frontier Communications gets mentioned on Stop the Cap!, we receive e-mail from disgruntled customers arriving to share their horror stories.  Since Frontier has now absorbed Verizon landlines in several states, that e-mail is only increasing.

Because so many messages arrive on different topics, we’ll be trying to share your stories with our readers based on the types of problems experienced.  Today, it’s the issue of refunds.

Stop the Cap! reader Alexia from Elk Grove, California writes:

Phillip, I want my money.  For four months, I have called, written, and called again to ask where my refund check from Frontier is.  We disconnected our service from Frontier back in May and our final bill had a credit of nearly $150 on our two landlines, DSL, and returned equipment.  Why so much?  Because we were quoted a final amount for our account and instead of using their auto-payment service, we mailed them a last check.  They withdrew that amount electronically from our checking account anyway, so we had double payments.

This isn’t just me.  My sister decided to disconnect her phone and will rely on her cell phone from now on, and she’s still waiting for her final credit balance to arrive back as well.

When you call Frontier, assuming you don’t get a busy signal or are left on hold, they seem very sympathetic and promise the refund has been processed and they are sending the check in the mail.  The Pony Express could have gotten the check to us by now.  My sister is waiting for $22 to be returned to her.

When I have canceled credit cards, utilities, and other services and have a credit balance, most of them include a check either in the final statement or in a letter that arrives within the month.  Not Frontier.  One representative claimed they don’t send refunds right away in case they discover additional charges they need to apply to an account.  What charges?  Are they hoping to find some?  We have not made a long distance call on our landline in years since getting a cell phone and I cannot imagine what other charges they are talking about.

What is the story here?

Stop the Cap! reader Jeff in Elko, Nevada had a similar problem:

My job transferred me to Reno in July and we canceled our service with Frontier and are still waiting for our last bill refund because we had a credit balance.  It was only around $8, but that was after I had to argue with them about a cancellation fee they tried to charge me and a fee for the DSL modem we returned to them.  They credited our account for both after talking to a supervisor but now it is a waiting game for the final refund check to arrive.  Every other company we canceled service with, right down to the propane people handled our final bill correctly.  Not Frontier.

Since moving to Reno, we signed up for AT&T service which turned out to be way better than the DSL we had with Frontier that went offline nearly every afternoon, so we’re fine saying goodbye to them.  Frontier has been in Elko for awhile now so I can only imagine what the Verizon customers are now dealing with.

In September, Frontier’s “the check is in the mail” excuse caught the attention of a Sacramento TV station’s consumer reporter.

Jeanne Pritchett Melendez of Elk Grove was also waiting for a refund check from Frontier for just over $15.

Back in May, Jeanne paid her Frontier phone bill ahead of time.  And when she canceled her service mid-month, her bill was pro-rated and she was promised her money back.  She called the company… Asking when her check would be sent. And every time, she says she was told, it’s on its way.  But after more than three months…

“I was very frustrated and I said, you know what, if I don’t have a check in the mail by Friday, I’m going to call Kurtis [Ming – CBS13 Consumer Reporter],” says Jeanne.

Melendez got her refund before our readers did, along with an explanation from Frontier about why refunds take months to arrive:

Frontier Communications Statement:

Frontier’s refund process is to refund the final credit balance on disconnected accounts within 2 to 3 bill cycles from the disconnect date to allow time for any additional credits or charges that need to be applied to the account. This process is to ensure that the customer receives an accurate refund check.

The customer’s account reflects that the service was disconnected on May 13, 2010. The May 22nd , June 22nd and July 22nd bills reflected a credit balance in the amount of $15.03. A refund check in the amount of $15.03 was processed on the account on August 9th. The customer will receive the refund check within 10 to 14 business days to the address on record.

The representatives are trained to alert the customer that it can take 2-3 billing cycles which is usually between 30-60 days. However in the case of Ms. Melendez’s account the disconnect notice was so close to the bill date that three bill cycles were required to process the refund.

— Stephanie Beasly, Communications Manager

This isn’t the first time Kurtis Ming has had to approach Frontier Communications about Sacramento area residents’ frustrations with the company.  Back in July, KOVR-TV ran a story about a Frontier customer who was paying a whopping $15 a month for Frontier’s Peace of Mind hard drive backup service he never got because he didn’t realize he had to download software to get the feature installed.  While that was not Frontier’s fault (and the company provided a credit to the customer for the service he never used), charging $15 a month for a service other customers are paying less to receive isn’t exactly fair either.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOVR Sacramento Frontier Service Problems 7-7 and 9-17-10.flv[/flv]

KOVR-TV in Sacramento ran two segments on Elk Grove-area customers having problems with Frontier Communications — one waiting for a refund and the other charged for a service he didn’t realize he had.  (4 minutes)

Marilyn Castro decided she did not need her landline phone any longer.  The Virginia Beach resident learned her provider would be happy to oblige her request to disconnect service, but she is still required to pay her phone bill, even without the service, for at least the next 25 years.

Woodland Park, Virginia resident Allan Pineda got a similar story when he wanted out of Cox Cable’s landline service.  Yes, Cox will schedule a visit to disconnect service at his convenience, but he’ll still have to pay his cable bill, including landline charges, every month.

Frederic Martin, who lives at a Mid-America Apartment Communities-owned complex in Dallas, learned he was on the hook for cable-TV service, even though he has not owned a television set for more than a decade.

In Weston, Florida, some 15,000 homeowners pay for cable television whether they want it or not and if they don’t pay, their homes are at risk from foreclosure.

It’s all thanks to the concept of “bulk billing,” a practice growing in popularity that delivers mandatory cable, phone, and broadband service to renters and homeowners whether they want the services or not.  It’s a multi-million dollar racket, and thanks to the Federal Communications Commission, it may be coming to your community or apartment complex soon.

For almost five years, mandating cable service has become a growing problem in many parts of the country, especially in Florida and Virginia.  Most of the controversy comes when large housing management and homeowner associations, builders, and corporately-owned apartment complexes cut “discount deals” with a cable company to wire a community or complex for service.  Their mission is not always altruistic.  Many builders receive generous signing bonuses and ongoing kickbacks earned from condemning residents to mandatory cable service contracts that may not expire in their lifetime.

Some apartment complexes have added charges for cable-TV service to the rent. Many earn ongoing compensation from grateful cable companies who pay 3-5 percent of revenue back to the complex.  Even homeowner associations have gotten into the act, adding cable-TV costs to required association dues for upkeep and maintenance.  For those who can’t or won’t pay, liens and even foreclosure can soon follow.

LM Sandler of Virginia Beach, a Virginia builder, is a typical player.

Sandler has built entire neighborhoods of new homes across Virginia, most of which are covered by a “bulk billing” contract with Cox.  When residents buy or rent a Sandler-built property, a triple-play package of phone, cable, and Internet service comes along with the deal.  It’s not cheap, running $146 a month.  Even worse, your grandchildren could still be paying Cox Cable if they stayed in the family home, because Sandler’s contract with Cox runs up to 75 years.

Although residents are not required to take service from Cox, they are required to pay for it, in full, every month.

It gets worse for residents in Florida.  Most contracts with cable operators include provisions that can terminate service for entire communities if even a single homeowner is 60 days past due.  To keep that from happening, homeowner associations aggressively pursue slow-paying residents.  JMB Partners, who built much the residential housing in Weston, and the governing bodies in Weston committed residents to an agreement that has enormous implications if they miss a payment:

Between Jan. 1 and Dec. 17, 2004, the Town Foundation, Weston’s homeowner association, filed liens against more than 200 homes in the city. Most of these, according to Broward County court records, are for unpaid cable TV bills, which until 2003 were collected by the foundation. The city utilities department now handles that task.

One of the upset residents is Vincent Andreano, whose mother, Lita Andreano, was faced with the predicament of losing her Weston Country Club Home for a $109 cable bill that he said had been left outstanding by the previous owner.  The Andreanos said that when closing on the home about a year and a half ago, they came upon the outstanding debt and sent a check.

”No one ever contacted me or my mother afterwards to tell us they had not gotten the check or that the debt was still outstanding,” said Andreano, an attorney. “Then a year and a half later, they slap my mother with a foreclosure lawsuit. It’s legal brutality.”

Andreano said he tried to reason with Town Foundation attorney Douglas Gonzales, whose signature appears in the lawsuit paperwork, to no avail. He said he was told to pay the debt, plus legal fees billed at a little more than $200 per hour, in addition to court filing fees and other miscellaneous charges. The final tab: more than $1,500.

In the Tampa area, mandatory cable service bills for some neighborhoods and planned communities have increased by an eye-popping 44 percent because of the foreclosure crisis.  That’s because of mandatory payment clauses many have with providers like Bright House that demand full payment even when homes are unoccupied.  When a resident’s home is in foreclosure or a resident refuses to pay, all of the remaining area residents pick up the tab for unpaid cable bills.  This wreaks havoc with homeowner association budgets, who must find the money to pay the cable company, in full, every month.  Many have slashed security, road maintenance, refuse collection, landscaping, and other quality-of-life expenses just to keep the cable company happy.

Back in 2008, when Florida first began a downward housing spiral, the impact was already being felt:

The Chapel Pines subdivision in Wesley Chapel found itself stuck in a cable contract that requires $15,000 a month payment to Bright House, and is seeing the strain of foreclosed homes no longer paying their fees. That payment represents nearly half their total association budget.

The South Fork 1 development in Riverview has a 15-year contract with Bright House that requires a $9,700 a month payment, roughly one-third of the neighborhood’s total budget.

“We still have to foot the bill whether people live in those homes or not,” said Fred Perez, the former president of the South Fork association. “You end up with a big, bad debt line item on the budget.”

With the problem worsening, that homeowner’s association even contemplated bankrupting itself just to free it from obligations to Bright House.

Other communities are levying “special assessments” on homeowners to cover cable bills in high foreclosure areas:

To cement a good deal, the community, South Bay Lakes in Gibsonton, years ago signed a bulk contract with Bright House Networks to provide cable TV in the neighborhood, in exchange for a regular fixed payment.

That arrangement worked out fine when the neighborhoods filled up and residents paid their association fees – and the association turned over the cable TV payments to Bright House. The problem occurs when neighbors go into foreclosure and stop paying their fees.

The South Bay Lakes homeowners association still must pay about $140,000 a year to Bright House, even though there’s less money coming in from homeowners.

Because about numerous homes in the 300-home development are in foreclosure, South Bay Lakes had to issue “special assessments” on residents.

Fees rose from $150 a quarter to $216, and that probably won’t cover the shortfall, according to association officials. The Bright House bill represents almost half of the association’s annual budget of $261,000.

To make matters tougher, the community is locked into that deal with Bright House until 2019, with cable rates that rise “from time to time” according to the contract.

Earlier this year, Stop the Cap! covered the story of residents in Tennessee and Texas who discovered the corporate owners of their apartment complexes were making cable-TV mandatory and adding the resulting charges to lease agreements.

Defenders of these bulk billing arrangements claim they deliver savings residential customers could not obtain on their own and ensure that complexes and planned living communities are fully wired for service.  Besides, they claim, there is no obligation to use the services provided and customers can obtain service from another provider.

But they still face paying for service they don’t use.  In some communities, it is service many don’t want to use.

John Carter, who lives in Weston, told the FCC as a senior on a fixed income he cannot afford to pay a second cable bill, even though his existing service is terrible.

“I am stuck with poor programming options, outages during stormy weather, slow Internet speeds of 15kbps and poor customer service,” he wrote the agency.

In other instances, sweetheart deals fuel incentives for builders to sign lucrative contracts with providers even before a homeowner’s association is formed.  In some cases, the provider turns out to be a family member or associate of the developer.  In many others, perpetual kickbacks through “royalties” and fees are paid to the builder or complex owner as long as the agreement remains in place, even long after the builder is no longer on scene.

For impacted residents like Castro stuck with landline service she didn’t want, it was time to fight back.  She launched Ban Bulk Billing, an online forum for those who oppose mandated cable-TV service. Castro asked consumers to join her in protesting the fees with the FCC.  But it’s hard to keep a movement going when giant corporate providers and other special interests have the resources to shout down consumers.

In March, the FCC collected its thoughts and submissions from property owners, apartment complex management companies, cable and phone companies, and consumers and rendered its decision — which threw consumers under the bus:

We conclude that the benefits of bulk billing outweigh its harms. A key consideration for us is that bulk billing, unlike building exclusivity, does not hinder significantly the entry into an MDU by a second MVPD and does not prevent consumers from choosing the new entrant. Indeed, many commenters indicate that second MVPD providers wire MDUs for video service even in the presence of bulk billing arrangements and that many consumers choose to subscribe to those second video services. We find it especially significant that Verizon, which more than any other commenter in the earlier proceedings argued that building exclusivity clauses deterred competition and other proconsumer effects, makes no claim in its filings herein that bulk billing hinders significantly or, as a practical matter, prevents it from introducing its service into MDUs. Bulk billing, accordingly, does not have nearly the harmful entry-barring or -hindering effect on consumers that exists in the case of building exclusivity.

In other words, because Verizon didn’t have a problem with these bulk billing arrangements, they’re fine by the FCC.  Verizon wants into this arrangement themselves, so it’s hardly a surprise they are not objecting.  The significance of Verizon’s change in position is hardly a mystery — the earlier barriers the FCC wrote about were designed to keep Verizon out of apartment complexes and condos.

The incentives for providers earned from these bulk billing contracts are enormous:

• The cost of collections and billing are passed on to local government, homeowner associations, rental companies, or other agents.  The risk of non-payment by a homeowner’s association or city government is nearly non-existent;
• Marketing expenses and customer promotions can be slashed because customers already have the service when they move in;
• Competition is diminished, especially from capital-intensive wired competitors.  Would you contemplate wiring a community for competitive service knowing existing residents are held captive by mandatory cable contracts?;
• Innovation expenses can be curtailed because the customer is already captive to the existing level of service;
• Rate increases are built-in, allowing companies to raise rates and still keep all of their existing customers.

Residents of Staples Mills Townhomes in Richmond, Virginia understand this only too well.  When the new corporate owner, PRG Real Estate moved in a few years ago, they brought Comcast with them, mandating every resident pay for basic cable service as part of their rent.

PRG’s website highlights Staples Mills as an example of “an institutional equity partnership:” (underlining ours)

The PRG model for improvement is two-pronged — pay close attention to the details of management with a well thought out capital improvement plan. Imbedding [sic] PRG’s professional management structure would mean the implementation of aggressive PRG policies and procedures, taking virtually all contract services in-house to save the profit margin being captured by contractors. The upgrade to PRG-trained site personnel would particularly enhance the marketing effort. Although the property was 97% occupied we anticipated that, after the capital improvements, the same occupancy rate would be maintained with significantly higher rents.

[…]It was crucial that we succeed, not only in terms of return to our investor, but in terms of building our relationships and profile with other institutional investors. We needed to hit this one out of the ballpark.

Residents called a foul ball, one writing, “Residents were slapped in the face with the news that they will be forced to pay for mandatory cable (an extra $34 per month on the rent) from Comcast regardless if they don’t want it, already have satellite, or don’t even have a TV under the guise of ‘lowering cable rates.’ It’s called subsidizing the people who want it by juicing those who don’t.”

PRG may have succeeded in making their investors happy, but they alienated a number of tenants in the process, most of whom assumed Comcast was their only choice and wouldn’t contemplate paying another cable bill from a competitor.

The FCC’s decision recognized that competitors could enter a bulk-billed service area, but ignored the reality most won’t.

Indeed, the FCC itself recognized the impact of these bulk-billing arrangements on the competitive landscape in their own decision, quoting from a submission:

One bulk billing cable operator states that fewer than 5% of an MDU’s residents subscribe to another video provider. It estimates that if it lost its bulk billing contract, it would raise its prices substantially for the remaining 95% because of higher programming and labor costs per customer. The combined savings for 5% of the MDU’s residents would be dwarfed by the increased expenses for the 95%, making the MDU’s residents significantly worse off than they were before as a whole.

This proves two points:

1. The FCC still cowers in fear from threats issued by providers that any attempt to rein them in will do everything from raising prices to killing jobs and innovation, despite the fact only five percent of customers in the cited case took service from a competitor.  A five percent loss of customers would create conditions for a “substantial” rate hike only in their minds.  AT&T U-verse has captured far more than 5 percent of cable customers in markets where it competes with cable, yet somehow cable manages to keep the lights on and their doors open;
2. The FCC pretends that these agreements don’t impact the marketplace when the 95 percent “take rate” for service plainly indicates otherwise.  Do 95 percent of residents in non-bulk-billed neighborhoods also take cable service?  Of course not.

Despite the FCC’s industry-friendly ruling, many impacted consumers are not giving up.

Martin, the Dallas renter paying for cable-TV even though he doesn’t own a television, is taking the fight to state Attorneys General, hoping a group effort on the state level will dislodge at least some consumers from being forced to pay for something they don’t want or need.

Martin believes it’s manifestly unfair to deliver mandated “discounted service” to some on the backs of others who don’t want a cable bill at all.

“No one should have the right to force you to buy what you don’t want from someone you don’t like,” Martin says.

He points out under Mid-America’s terms, even blind and deaf residents are forced for pay for cable service.

The only thing cheaper than a discounted cable bill is no cable bill at all.  Now that represents real savings.

Martin’s vociferous objections and intervention from his Texas state representative eventually managed to get him off the hook with Mid-America’s mandatory cable bill.  His rent was lowered by an amount equal to the monthly cable fee, but the cable company is still getting paid on his behalf.

For Martin, that’s just plain wrong.

“I am still subsidizing an industry of which I do not wholeheartedly approve,” he writes.

Martin is now coordinator for Tenants United for Fairness and has launched an online petition demanding an end to mandatory cable-TV charges.

He has gathered more than 100 signatures from 13 states so far, and the petition is open for everyone to sign, even if they are not currently impacted.

Martin says getting signatures has proved challenging in some cases.

“It has been very hard to get tenants to sign my petition because they’re in fear of the landlords,” Martin says. “Very few of those who have signed have gone further and contacted their elected officials or the FCC to complain.”

The impact of the March decision by the FCC has given providers a green light to expand mandatory service even further.  Some communities are now finding mandatory broadband service fees being added to cable-TV charges.

The FCC’s response?  “Consumers complaining about these latest new fees are sent an unsigned form letter from the FCC advising them to “talk to your landlord,'” says Martin.

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WVEC Virginia Beach Residents fight mandatory bundle agreement 3-16-10.mp4[/flv]

WVEC-TV in Virginia Beach covered the plight of residents struggling to understand why they should be forced to pay $146 a month to Cox for cable, broadband, and landline phone service.  (3/10/2010 — 4 minutes)

Bray Cary has been falling all over himself again — singing praises for Frontier Communications while many of its customers in West Virginia contend with service problems and outages, sometimes for weeks at a time.

Cary, president and chief executive officer of West Virginia Media, owner of television stations across the state, was a big supporter of the deal to sell Verizon’s landlines in West Virginia to Frontier Communications. This past spring, Cary’s weekly Decision Makers program treated viewers to a softball question and answer session with Frontier’s Ken Arndt, who was forced to “endure” Cary’s contention that opposition to the deal was limited mostly to labor union sour grapes.

With a hard interview like that, Arndt was delighted to be asked back for another edition of Tea-’N-Cookies Breakfast Club With Bray, this time to answer tough questions about how the transition could have possibly gone any better for the independent phone company.

Good morning and welcome to Decision Makers on a weekend when America is discovering the beauty of the great state of West Virginia.  Through the magic of worldwide television […] we here in West Virginia are on the verge of discovering the power of the Internet across all of our hills and all of our valleys.

With that over-the-top introduction, Cary was off, spending nearly 20 minutes glad-handing Arndt through an interview that could have been produced in-house by Frontier’s marketing department.

[flv width=”500″ height=”395″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTRF Wheeling Decision Makers Cary Arndt Frontier 7-31-10.flv[/flv]

Nearly 20 minutes of mutual admiration between Frontier’s Ken Arndt and WV Media’s Bray Cary can be experienced for yourself.  These segments appeared July 31st on the Decision Makers program.  (19 minutes)

More tea?

Meanwhile, in other parts of the state things are not nearly as rosy as Cary and Arndt contend.

Stop the Cap! reader Ralph points us to Ohio Country, located in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia, where Frontier has subjected some customers to service outages extending into three weeks.  Entire neighborhoods have lost phone and broadband service.  Dela Misenhelder, who lives in Valley Grove says a storm August 4th knocked out service for her and her neighbors.  Misenhelder used her cell phone to call Frontier three different times to no avail.

“My concern is the elderly,” Misenhelder told a local TV station.  “Do they have cell phones — being out in the country, do they even have a signal — and be able to get 911 in case of an emergency or problem.”

Frontier’s regional general manager, William (Bill) Moon said that Frontier was supposed to have contacted all of the neighbors impacted by the outage to make sure service was restored.  In Misenhelder’s case, since her phone line was still not working, she never got that call.

Moon is a name readers will become increasingly aware of, as he features prominently in damage control efforts by Frontier in northern West Virginia when they get negative media coverage.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTOV Steubenville Frontier Continues Dealing With Phone Service Issues 8-25-10.flv[/flv]

Dela Misenhelder in Ohio County, W.V., was without her Frontier phone line for three weeks.  She made three calls to Frontier, who ignored her, so Dela called the newsroom of local TV station WTOV-TV in Steubenville, Ohio looking for help.  They achieved results for her, as you’ll see in this report.  (2 minutes)

Matters are even more serious in the northern tip of the state — in Hancock County — where emergency responders are coping with defective T1 data lines that Frontier has failed to maintain properly, causing interruptions in emergency radio traffic.

The problems started when Verizon was in charge, but have gotten considerably worse since Frontier arrived.  Now the backup systems are beginning to fail as well.

When that happens, emergency communications with fire, police, and ambulance can’t happen, forcing first responders to rely on cell phones to communicate with one another.

Frontier called the problems with the T1 lines “odd” and at last check was examining more than 10,000 feet of phone cable looking for problems.

On Saturday, another Frontier outage disrupted 911 service across Jefferson, Belmont and Harrison Counties, forcing local media to deliver streams of local direct numbers for emergency officials across all three counties.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTOV Steubenville Hancock County Experiencing More Phone Problems 7-8-10.flv[/flv]

Not less than three reports about failures in emergency communications attributed to a defective T1 line maintained by Frontier Communications have run on WTOV-TV in the last two months.  (6 minutes)

Residents in Marshall and Wetzell counties, which complete the Northern Panhandle are no strangers to Frontier service problems.  They were Frontier customers before Verizon sold its landline network to the company.

Stop the Cap! reader Mitch in New Martinsville writes to tell us West Virginia is just becoming acquainted with service on ‘the Frontier.’

“The company delivered lousy service to us long before they’ll deliver lousy service to the rest of the state,” he writes. “We cannot get DSL from Frontier because they won’t spend the money to re-engineer the ancient wiring on our street.”

For Mitch, the outage experienced by his ailing grandmother this past February, which stopped calls connecting from outside of the 686 exchange, was the last straw.

“She couldn’t reach me and I couldn’t reach her,” Mitch adds. “If a phone company cannot even handle basic phone call connections, what good are they?”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTOV Steubenville Phone Service Knocked Out In Parts Of Marshall Wetzel Counties 2-10-10.flv[/flv]

A winter storm knocked out Frontier service across parts of the Northern Panhandle this past February.  Customers discovered they could only dial and receive calls from other local residents.  WTOV-TV covered the story.  (2 minutes)

When Mitch tried to cancel Frontier service, he says they tried to stick him with an early termination fee of more than $100.

“I never signed a contract with them,” he writes.

Mitch escalated his complaint to the West Virginia Public Service Commission, which finally got Frontier to relent.

Mitch’s experience with phantom early termination fees charged by Frontier are hardly new.  Last fall, Frontier was slapped with a $35,000 fine and ordered to refund $50,000 in wrongfully charged termination fees by the NY State Attorney General’s office.

That precedent might come in handy in Washington state, where Frontier “accidentally” put former Verizon customer Steve Matheny in Redmond on an annual contract with a hefty cancellation fee.  When Frontier took over for Verizon, Matheny decided it was time to drop service.  Frontier sent him a final bill including a fee of $120 for terminating his service before his contract had ended.

Only one problem — he never had a contract.

“These folks rolled in and added a fee that no one committed to, at least I didn’t commit to,” he said.

Frontier ignored Matheny’s attempts to get the fee off his final bill, so he called KING-TV in Seattle for help.

As with so many other cases, when local TV stations feature Frontier’s mistakes and bad service on the 6 o’clock evening news, doors to a speedy resolution have a tendency to open.  Matheny got his $120 “fee” removed.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KING Seattle Bundled by accident charged a fee 8-24-10.mp4[/flv]

Redmond, Washington resident Steve Matheny joins a growing number of Frontier customers who suddenly find themselves on annual service contracts with hefty cancellation fees, despite the fact they never agreed to them.  KING-TV reports their intervention finally cut through Frontier’s red tape to get $120 in early cancellation fees removed from a final bill.  (2 minutes)

For West Virginia residents, the next time you experience a problem with your Frontier landline or broadband service, why not contact Bray Cary and ask him what he’ll do about it.  At the very least, ask him to pass you the plate of cookies.

Attention rural residents in 38 counties in Tennessee with AT&T landlines: Start saving your money because AT&T will come looking for more of it soon enough.

As a result of 2009 legislation heavily promoted by the state’s largest phone company, AT&T has easily managed to pass a “competition test” it helped devise, triggering total deregulation of basic phone rates across the state.

Although some of the legislation’s supporters are celebrating the end of rate oversight by the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA), claims that competition has broken out across Tennessee may be an exaggeration.  Critics contend many residents will face relentless AT&T rate increases, especially for the elderly and those living in rural areas — typically the poorest regions of the state.

AT&T’s competition test only required the presence of a potential competitor to meet the definition of “competition.”  Unfortunately, for many residents in the 38 affected counties, that competing cable or wireless provider often can’t or won’t provide reliable service, either because cable lines bypass rural areas or cell phone service offers poor signals.  That leaves many consumers at the mercy of AT&T, who can now charge whatever they like.

It’s a key flaw many state legislators fail to recognize when accepting the phone company’s argument that deregulation will save consumers money.  Documentary evidence suggests the reverse is true, especially in areas not well covered by cable and wireless competition. Those choosing the most basic levels of service typically face the largest rate hikes as telecommunications companies try to drive customers into multi-service bundles often approaching $200 a month.

For now, the first step is to do away with oversight and AT&T wasted no time pulling out provider maps for the 38 still-regulated counties in the state and found cable and cell phone competitors in all of them.  Despite the fact those services are not available to every resident, AT&T lawyer Joelle Phillips demanded the TRA immediately end rate regulation.

Customer Advocacy Lawyer Mary Leigh White warned the TRA AT&T would follow their track record in other states where rates were deregulated and raise prices up to 50 percent. Phillips told the Authority it didn’t matter — the law AT&T helped write and lobby for was clear:

“When a statute includes one thing specifically and doesn’t refer to other things, that the statute must be read to have done that on purpose,” said Phillips.

With that argument, the TRA capitulated Monday and voted unanimously to end rate oversight.

Consumers in the state who do find major price hikes in their future can blame the deregulation bill’s chief sponsors:

• Sen. Paul Stanley, (R-Collierville) (Resigned last August after caught in an extramarital affair with a 22-year old intern.)
• Sen. Dewayne Bunch, (R-Cleveland)
• Rep. Gerald McCormick, (R-Chattanooga)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSMV Nashville ATT Deregulated 8-23-10.flv[/flv]

WSMV-TV in Nashville covered the end of AT&T rate oversight and the implications the change will have on Tennessee phone bills.  (2 minutes)

Like two peas in a pod, Robert Cyran and Bob Cox are back for the umpteenth time with their views on something.  A few years ago, they were upset because the group Radiohead decided consumers should name their own price for one of their albums.  This time it’s about Net Neutrality and variable pricing for broadband.  Writing for Reuters BreakingViews, they’re deeply concerned poor traditional phone and cable companies are being shortchanged — saddled with the costs of building and maintaining networks that content companies like Google, Apple, Cisco, and Microsoft get to use for free.

As for the four leading [content companies], they have a combined net cash pile of around $140 billion. Last year they spent $4.9 billion on capital expansion, a tenth of what the big four [telecom companies] paid to erect new cell towers, buy routers and extend fiber-optic cables.

[…]The introduction of variable pricing, or charging customers based on the data they consume, will help pay for the needed gear. But it means that the already unpopular [telecoms] will stick their customers with far larger bills — a recipe for political interference. Meantime, the [content companies] would continue to carry away what the telecom operators see as a disproportionate share of the benefits.

This analysis is a mile wide and an inch deep — fundamentally flawed because of information Cyran and Cox either ignored, didn’t know about, or didn’t care to consider.

First, Cisco is hardly a content company.  It is doing quite nicely feeding rumors of the forthcoming great tsunami of data — the “zettabyte era of broadband” that will result in a global traffic jam only they can help overcome. Cisco’s success comes from the sale of advanced networking equipment that can manage the growth of the Internet.  The amount of data that crosses today’s broadband wires has grown exponentially, even as the costs to manage it are increasingly declining on a per-gigabyte basis.  Apple is partly a content company, but more importantly is a developer of devices like the iPad and iPhone which are driving growth in wireless networks and helping justify the acceptance of monthly wireless phone bills easily over $100 a month in many households.  Google has content, but is also willing to take a plunge into being a provider itself, with plans to deploy an advanced 1Gbps fiber network that big telecom providers say cannot be built in a sensible way (to their investors.)  Finally, love or hate Microsoft, they have successfully powered the growth of personal computing which made the concept of broadband something telecom companies could actually sell to their shareholders as a viable business.

Cyran and Cox equate content providers and big telecom companies as unequal beneficiaries of the broadband revolution.  But just like many other powerful interests opposed to Net Neutrality, they forget those big telecom companies earn enormous revenue and profits from their customers — you and I.  The financial reports of all of these companies tell the story Cox and Cyran don’t.  Broadband profits among large telecom companies are the biggest growth area these companies have.  Deploying the service reaps financial windfalls.  Even with capital expenses involved in constructing fiber optic networks, broadband revenue can still make shareholders smile like no other component in today’s triple play packages.

On the wired side, Verizon has announced it has suspended further expansion of its fiber network FiOS indefinitely.  No other national cable or phone company is currently constructing true fiber to the home networks. Instead, most deploy fiber to the neighborhood and let coaxial or copper wiring cover the rest of the way.  Indeed, capital spending by many telecom companies is actually dropping.

On the wireless side, more than 90 percent of Americans now carry cell phones.  The monthly prices most pay for service exceeds that of their landline provider, if they have one.  Yet for all of the awful costs wireless providers face, AT&T and Verizon can’t wait to devote more time and energy to the wireless side of their business, because that is where the real money can be found.

It’s difficult to claim “victim” status of unequal treatment when you’re standing in a room filled with piles of cash.

The authors also completely ignore the fact companies that produce content don’t just throw it on the web for free.  An entire industry devoted to delivery of streaming media and other high bandwidth content buys fat pipelines from these telecom companies to deliver content to consumers.  Every content provider already pays their fair share for the traffic they generate.  Consumers pick up the rest as part of their monthly bill.

But Cyran and Cox believe these content companies (and consumers) should pay dramatically more to telecom companies for “upgrades” that may or may not materialize, and are frankly just the cost of doing business, which can be recouped from the relatively expensive broadband pricing Americans already pay for service.  The profit margins for broadband service are enormous.

Variable pricing, which we consistently call Internet Overcharging, is nothing more than price gouging, and the one true fact in their piece we agree with is that customers will get stuck with the bill.