Grab this bargain: Frontier’s website accidentally placed two different DSL packages on our order despite only requesting one. We didn’t ask for the phone line or satellite TV either, but there they are.

Frontier Communications is in the process of redesigning their website — a project long overdue in an age where customers can pre-qualify themselves for service and schedule installation from most cable operators without ever picking up the phone. If you also plan to improve the visual appeal and functionality of your website, you may need to seek the services of a memphis web design company.

But judging from some e-mail from Frontier employees working on the project, the forthcoming “upgrade” is about to make a bad situation much worse.

Frontier is the sixth largest phone company in the country with customers in 27 states, but they have never run a modern, well-functioning website. Frontier’s service pre-qualification tool has never worked properly in Rochester, N.Y., the largest city where Frontier provides service, and placing an order for service is fraught with confusion for customers who don’t speak telecom jargon.

Based on a reader tip, we tested the website this afternoon here at Stop the Cap! HQ.

Placing an order for DSL service is currently based on your street address, but the order process gives no indication if the company can actually provision service at the speeds requested.

As a customer journeys through a cumbersome 10-step order process, it becomes easy to be sidetracked with endless promotional tricks and traps in numbers I haven’t seen since last ordering a domain name from GoDaddy. The shopping cart also erroneously added two different broadband service packages on our order, despite only selecting one.

Step 1 offers murky promotions such as the impenetrable “Shop Promo VISA CD 100 2Y Challenger.” Promotions do not clearly disclose their terms up front. This one only discloses the two year service agreement with a steep early termination fee with the designation: “2Y.” Avoiding promotions still did wonders for our monthly bill, especially considering we were just looking for broadband service. We found Frontier quietly added a “digital unlimited phone” we could care less about for $30.99 a month, America’s Top 120 (presumably satellite TV we did not request) for $44.99 a month, Broadband Max (the slower DSL service we did not want) for $34.99 and Simply Broadband Ultimate (the service we did) for an extra $59.99. Our out the door price for what was supposed to be broadband-only service? A low, low $170 a month minus a $5 service loyalty credit for taking two services.

Step 2 piled on another $5 fee for satellite-delivered local channels for the satellite package we never asked for, but the duplicate broadband service was gone. Now we were stuck with the slower Broadband Max. Step 3 forced us to wade through more than a dozen phone feature packages for the phone line we don’t need. Step 4 sticker-shocked us with installation fees ranging from $50 for a self-install kit to $175 for a home installation of DSL and Wi-Fi. Those fees can be waived with a perpetually-renewing two year service contract (up to a $135 credit). At that point we had enough and bailed on the order.

This represents Frontier’s online shopping experience today. A Frontier employee who wishes to remain anonymous warns Stop the Cap! things could get much worse.

Our source tells us Frontier has outsourced much of the work on its forthcoming redesigned website to third party contractors who are now reportedly in over their heads, unaware that Frontier operates with a range of very different products and services depending on the service area. For them, one-size-fits-all seemed good enough:

[These contractors] don’t understand products or how those products interact with each other, yet they have been put in charge of creating the ability for customers to order them based on where they live.  The company has current issues with their website in that they can’t figure out how to get the right products to display for a customer in Rochester, N.Y. vs. a customer in Fort Wayne, Ind. Instead, Frontier has products configured by region, then broken down by zip code, and then by the customer’s phone exchange.

Unfortunately, new customers don’t know what phone number they will be assigned and that leaves them unable to determine what products are actually available to them. The products offered should be based on the customer’s actual service address, but these contractors don’t appear to have the expertise to make that adjustment.

The shopping cart application has also proved a problem, according to our source. Internal testing of the new site’s functionality has proved distressing because components of the site are still being developed. Recent tests found customers could not correctly select products available in their area or the site could not properly apply them to the shopping cart (a problem we found ourselves using the live site available now).

Our source tells us Frontier’s project manager is hell-bent on bringing the site up by Feb. 9, ready or not.

“We have brought up the fact that there are HUGE navigation issues that are completely not friendly to the customer,” says the employee. ” They are not concerned with any of those issues at the moment, just getting the product to launch. We have been told to manipulate the processes we are to use in order to be able to get any testing done.”

The whistleblower informs us customers are likely to have a range of problems using the new site if it launches in its current state:

• Customers will be able to place orders for products they can’t get;
• Customers will receive inaccurate information about the products and pricing;
• Customers will not be able to get any promotions that they can currently get on the existing Frontier.com application;
• Customers may not be correctly informed about installation charges or taxes, deposit requirements, credit validations, etc.

Frontier needs to take a lesson from some of their competitors that have greatly simplified the ordering process for consumers that can get quickly confused. Frontier should de-emphasize the tricks and traps from the many add-ons and service commitment agreements thrown at customers. Efforts to repeatedly up-sell customers on products and services should be managed separately, perhaps in a follow-up verification phone call where a customer service agent can handle any order changes required. With customers getting a choice between a cable, satellite, or a telco provider, those overwhelmed by one company’s website will simply find another provider.

In the meantime, those with questions or concerns about Frontier might do better just calling them directly at 1-800-921-8101.

Susan Crawford’s new book, “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” is on the receiving end of a lot of heat from industry lobbyists and those working for shadowy think tanks and “consumer groups.”

Most of the critics have not disclosed their industry connections. Stop the Cap! will.

Crawford’s premise that Americans are suffering the impact of an anti-competitive marketplace for broadband just doesn’t “add up,” according to Zack Christenson and Steve Pociask, both with the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research.

Christenson and Pociask’s rebuttal of Crawford’s conclusions about broadband penetration, price, and its monopoly/duopoly status relies on industry-supplied statistics and outdated government research. For instance, the source material on wireless pricing predates the introduction of bundled “Share Everything” plans from AT&T and Verizon Wireless that raised prices for many customers.

Their proposed solutions for the problems of broadband access, pricing, and competition come straight from AT&T’s lobbying priority checklist:

• Free up more wireless spectrum, which is likely to be acquired by existing providers, not new ones that enter the market to compete;
• Allow AT&T and other phone companies to abandon current copper-based networks, which would also allow them to escape legacy regulations that require them to provide service to consumers in rural areas.

One pertinent detail missing from the piece published in the Daily Caller is the disclosure Pociask is a a telecom consultant and former chief economist for Bell Atlantic (today Verizon). The “American Consumer Institute” itself is suspected of being backed by corporate interests from the telecommunications industry. ACI has closely mirrored the legislative agendas of AT&T and Verizon, opposing Net Neutrality, supporting cable franchise reform that allowed U-verse and FiOS to receive statewide video franchises in several states, and generally opposes government regulation of telecommunications.

Critics for hire.

The so-called consumer group’s website links primarily to corporate-backed astroturf and political interest groups that routinely defend corporate interests at the expense of consumers. Groups like the CATO Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Koch Brother-backed Heartland Institute, and the highly free-market, deregulation-oriented James Madison Institute are all offered to readers.

The Wall Street Journal trotted out Nick Schulz to handle its book review. Schulz is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, which is funded by corporate contributions to advocate a pro-business agenda.

Schulz attempts to school Crawford on the definition of “monopoly,” eventually suggesting “oligopoly” might be a more precise way to state it.

“Washington’s fights over telecommunications—and just about every other industrial sector—could use a lot less militancy and self-righteousness and a lot more sound economics,” concludes Schulz, while ignoring the fact interpretation of what constitutes “sound economics” is in the eye of the beholder. All too often those making that determination are backed by self-interested corporate entities with a stake in the outcome.

Hance Haney from the Discovery Institute claims Crawford’s conclusions are “misplaced nostalgia for utility regulation.” Haney cites AT&T’s breakup as the spark for competition in the telecommunications sector and proof that monopolies cannot stand when voice, video, and data service from traditional providers can be bypassed. That assumes you can obtain those services without the broadband service sold by the phone or cable company (that also likely owns your wireless service provider and controls access to cable television programming).

Haney also ignores the divorce of Ma Bell has been amicably resolved. AT&T and Verizon have managed to pick up most of their former constituent pieces (the Baby Bells) and today only “compete” with one another in the wireless sector, where each charges identically-high prices for service.

Crawford’s critics often share a connection with the industry she criticizes in her new book.

Haney places the blame for these problems on the government. He argues exclusive cable franchise agreements instigated the lack of cable competition and allowed “hidden cross-subsidies” to flourish, causing the marketplace to stagnate. Haney’s argument ignores history. In the 1970s, before the days of USA, TNT and ESPN, the two largest cable operators TelePrompTer and TCI nearly went bankrupt due to excessive debt leverage. With a very low initial return on investment, exclusive cable franchise agreements were adopted by cities to attract cable providers to wire their communities. Wall Street argues to this day that there is no room for a high level of competition for cable because of infrastructure costs and the unprofitable chase for subscribers that will be asked to cover those expenses. Government was also not responsible for the industry drumbeat for consolidation, not competition, to protect turfs and profits.

The cable industry repeated that argument with cable broadband service, claiming oversight and regulations would stifle innovation and investment. The industry even won the right to exclude competitors from guaranteed access to those networks, claiming it would make broadband less attractive for future investment and expansion.

Haney never discloses the Discovery Institute was founded, in part, to support the elimination of government regulation of telecommunications networks. Broadband Reports also notes the Discovery Institute is subsidized by telecom carriers to make the case for deregulation at all costs.

The Discovery Institute is essentially a PR firm that will present farmed science and manipulated statistics for any donating constituents looking to make a political point.

Broadband for America, perhaps the largest industry-backed astroturf telecom group in the country and itself cited as a source by the American Consumer Institute, seized on the criticism of Crawford’s book for its own attack piece. But every book critic mentioned has a connection to the telecom industry or has ties to groups that receive substantial telecom industry contributions.

NetCompetition chairman Scott Cleland, who accused Crawford of cherry picking information, does not bother to mention NetCompetition is directly funded by the same telecom industry Crawford’s book criticizes. Cleland in fact works to represent the interests of his clients: large phone and cable operators.

Randolph May’s criticism of Crawford’s book is unsurprising when one considers he is president of the Free State Foundation, a special interest group friendly to large telecom companies. FSF also supports the work of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group with strong ties to AT&T.

Richard Bennett, who once denied to Stop the Cap! he worked for a K Street lobbyist (he does), attacked the book on behalf of his benefactors at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a group Reuters notes  receives financial support from telecommunications companies. He also received a $20,000 stipend from Time Warner Cable.

In fact, Broadband for America could not cite a single source criticizing Crawford’s book that does not have ties to the industry Crawford criticizes.

Follow the money to the real root of this argument.

After conclusive evidence that cable broadband upgrades have eliminated any congestion problems, the cable industry has finally admitted usage caps are not about “congestion relief,” but are, in their view, “about fairness.”

Reports of the Internet data exaflood, tsunami, brownouts, or even blackouts are highly exaggerated and always have been. But we knew that from the first day Stop the Cap! got started.

In the summer of 2008, Frontier Communications attempted to define a top limit on their residential DSL accounts at a staggeringly small 5GB per month. Time Warner Cable initially thought 40-60GB a month was more than fair when it tried to ram its own Internet Overcharging scheme down the throats of customers in New York, North Carolina, and Texas in April 2009. Comcast said using more than 250GB a month could create congestion problems on their network and be unfair to other customers. To this day, AT&T, one of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies, claims that anything more than 150GB on their DSL service or 250GB on U-verse could bring their entire network to its knees.

The Holy Grail of Wall Street economics for broadband is to monetize its usage, creating an endless money party for what is today a utility service. Millions have been spent lobbying anyone who will listen that usage caps and consumption billing were essential to promote investment, upgrades, and to expand broadband service into rural America. Since those arguments have been made, broadband rates have increased, investment has decreased on a per customer and often real basis, and the government is now trying to chip in public taxpayer dollars to get providers to wire areas that will never pass demanding return on investment formulas.

The second prong of selling this meme is the creation of an Internet boogeyman — the “data hog,” a largely fictional creature that supposedly cares only about consuming every possible bit of bandwidth and slowing your web browsing to a crawl. Shouldn’t he pay more, you are asked, at the same time these same companies continue to raise your rates and now attempt to limit your use of a service that should cost less.

This week, Michael Powell, former FCC chairman turned head of the nation’s largest cable lobby — the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, capitulated on the “congestion” myth to an audience at the Minority Media and Telecommunications Association.

Asked by MMTC president David Honig to weigh in on data caps, Powell said that while a lot of people had tried to label the cable industry’s interest in the issue as about congestion management. “That’s wrong,” he said. “Our principal purpose is how to fairly monetize a high fixed cost.”

He said bandwidth management was part of it, though a more serious issue with wireless.

But he pointed out that the cable industry had to spend a bunch of money on its network before the first customer was signed. So, for a business that requires “enormously high” fixed costs — digging up the streets, put the wires in — and operational expense, “it is a completely rational and acceptable process to figure out how to fairly allocate those costs among your consumers who are choosing the service and will pay you to recover those costs.”

When will Washington regulators and lawmakers stop drinking the Kool-Aid handed them by high-paid lobbyists?

But our readers know Powell’s arguments are based on nothing more than the same empty rhetoric that declared the Internet exaflood was at hand.

Cable broadband was introduced as an ancillary service in the late 1990s utilizing cable television infrastructure that was constructed and paid off years earlier. Introducing broadband required only incremental investment and that remains true to this day. Cable operators more than cover their costs with sky high prices for service delivering some operators as high as 95% gross margin on broadband. Capital investments have broadly declined for years as have the costs to deliver the service on a per customer basis.

Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent admitted the days of expensive system upgrades were over and it was now time to rake in profits.

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Powell’s arguments ironically may apply partly to Verizon’s FiOS fiber network, which requires the retirement of copper wire infrastructure around since Alexander Graham Bell, but even Verizon covered much of its costs winning permission to raise rates years earlier to cover fiber upgrades. Much of that money was diverted to their wireless business instead. Today, Verizon FiOS manages just fine with no usage limits at all.

In fact, the only argument about fairness that should be open for debate regards the current cost of broadband service in the United States when compared against operators’ enormous profit margins. The lack of competition has allowed providers to increase prices and introduce “creative pricing” that always guarantees protection for the incredibly high average revenue per customer already earned.

Too often, Washington regulators and lawmakers drink the Kool-Aid handed them by an industry with an incentive to distort the truth. That incentive is the billions at stake in this fight.

Powell has even shelved the notion of the Cheetos-eating data hog burning up the Internet in his parent’s basement and has elected to try class warfare instead, claiming the most capacity is used “by a high end elite subsidized by the rest.” The real high-end elite are the telecom company executives cleaning up overcharging customers for a service that has become a necessity. Arguing for usage caps as a way to offer “lower prices” for those who cannot afford the ridiculously high prices the industry charges today only creates a new digital divide – the have’s and the have only so much.

Either way, providers laugh all the way to the bank.

Time Warner Cable has soft-launched a new Ultimate speed tier offering 75/5Mbps service in the Dallas metro area, first to Signature Home customers promised free upgrades to the new speed.

That is 25Mbps faster than the company’s usual top speed, for $10 more than Ultimate 50 customers pay.

Dallas customers report Time Warner is offering some promotional pricing on speed upgrades, charging $79.99 for 50/5Mbps service, $89.99 for 75/5Mbps, and 30/5Mbps for $59.99. These prices are good for one year. Existing customers who cajole customer service about committing to a speed upgrade in return for a better price are achieving some success.

“We do have a 75Mbps tier in Dallas and a 100Mbps tier in Kansas City, both of which are part of our larger announcement on speed increases,” Time Warner Cable’s Alex Dudley tells Broadband Reports. “As far as those two tiers are concerned, we don’t have anything else to announce, though I think it is fair to say that we have been making an effort to increase speeds and will continue to do so in the future.”

In other words, expect a gradual rollout of speeds greater than 50Mbps in other cities across Time Warner’s footprint, particularly in areas where competitors cut into Time Warner’s market share.

Upstream speeds continue to be no greater than 5Mbps across all of Time Warner’s DOCSIS 3 speed tiers.

AT&T provides limited U-verse competition in the region, but their speeds are not competitive with Time Warner’s latest speed upgrades.

Time Warner Cable’s speed tiers and priced differently in various regions of the country. This shows pricing and speeds in upstate N.Y.

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.