The Federal Trade Commission today filed a lawsuit against AT&T for its practice of subjecting grandfathered unlimited data customers to speed throttles that dramatically cut speeds up to 90 percent after customers use more than 3GB of data on AT&T’s 3G network or 5GB on its 4G network. Thus far, according to the FTC, AT&T has throttled at least 3.5 million unique customers a total of more than 25 million times.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that the company failed to adequately disclose to its customers on unlimited data plans that, if they reach a certain amount of data use in a given billing cycle, AT&T reduces – or “throttles” – their data speeds to the point that many common mobile phone applications – like web browsing, GPS navigation and watching streaming video –  become difficult or nearly impossible to use.

“AT&T promised its customers ‘unlimited’ data, and in many instances, it has failed to deliver on that promise,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “The issue here is simple: ‘unlimited’ means unlimited.”

FCC chairman Thomas Wheeler publicly complained about Verizon’s plans to start a similar throttling program on its wireless network, questioning the fairness of cutting speeds for certain customers while exempting others. Both Verizon and AT&T have claimed speed throttles are part of a fair usage policy that allows all customers to share its wireless resources. Broadband providers have often painted a picture of a “bandwidth hog” taking a disproportionate share of network resources away from other customers, but there is no evidence heavier users are creating conflicts for other users, especially as wireless carriers encourage customers to use more data.

From AT&Ts website

The logic of rationing Internet use for unlimited customers while providing unlimited access to those willing to pay usage-based charges escaped the FTC, which is what brought the suit.

According to the FTC’s complaint, AT&T’s marketing materials emphasized the “unlimited” amount of data that would be available to consumers who signed up for its unlimited plans. The complaint alleges that, even as unlimited plan consumers renewed their contracts, the company still failed to inform them of the throttling program. When customers canceled their contracts after being throttled, AT&T charged those customers early termination fees, which typically amount to hundreds of dollars.

The FTC alleges that AT&T, despite its unequivocal promises of unlimited data, began throttling data speeds in 2011 for its unlimited data plan customers after they used as little as 2 gigabytes of data in a billing period. According to the complaint, the throttling program has been severe, often resulting in speed reductions of 80 to 90 percent for affected users.

According to the FTC’s complaint, consumers in AT&T focus groups strongly objected to the idea of a throttling program and felt “unlimited should mean unlimited.” AT&T documents also showed that the company received thousands of complaints about the slow data speeds under the throttling program. Some consumers quoted the definition of the word “unlimited,” while others called AT&T’s throttling program a “bait and switch.” Many consumers also complained about the effect the throttling program had on their ability to use GPS navigation, watch streaming videos, listen to streaming music and browse the web.

The complaint charges that AT&T violated the FTC Act by changing the terms of customers’ unlimited data plans while those customers were still under contract, and by failing to adequately disclose the nature of the throttling program to consumers who renewed their unlimited data plans.

FTC staff worked closely on this matter with the staff of the Federal Communications Commission.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

Official merger announcement due next month.

Several media reports breaking this evening report Softbank/Sprint is close to a deal to acquire majority interest in Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA in a deal that will combine the two carriers under the Sprint brand.

Bloomberg News reports Sprint has offered $40 a share for Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA — 50% in cash and 50% in stock. The deal will leave the German wireless carrier with a 15% minority ownership stake in the combined company. Sprint would still dwarf both Verizon Wireless and AT&T and would continue to be hampered by significant coverage caps in suburban and rural areas that neither Sprint or T-Mobile’s home networks cover.

The deal includes a breakup fee payable by Sprint if the merger is blocked by regulators or fails to be executed. Sprint reportedly offered $1 billion in cash and assets if the deal falls through, but Deutsche Telekom is reportedly seeking as much as $3 billion.

Masayoshi Son

Bloomberg News previously reported a deal would probably be announced in June or July. It’s possible a deal announcement could slip into August, a source told Bloomberg. If no deal is reached by then, the sides are likely to stop negotiations for several years and wait for a new U.S. presidential administration more amenable to consolidation.

Billionaire Masayoshi Son, the founder of Japan-based SoftBank, which owns 80 percent of Sprint, faces skeptical regulators who are wary about eliminating one of four national wireless competitors. But in the last few days, executives at Sprint and Deutsche Telekom believe they can get the deal passed regulators preoccupied with a flurry of merger announcements, including Time Warner Cable and Comcast and AT&T and DirecTV. With a tidal wave of consolidation sweeping across the American telecommunications market, some industry insiders believe groups opposed to such deals will be overwhelmed trying to stop all of them.

More importantly, the issue of wireless spectrum was a key motivator to push the two companies towards a quick deal.

The Wall Street Journal reports the FCC originally considered barring AT&T and Verizon Wireless from bidding on airwaves that would have been set aside for smaller carriers. But a fierce lobbying effort by AT&T successfully nixed that plan and slashed the amount of spectrum available exclusively to smaller carriers. Sprint and T-Mobile believe the FCC’s decision gives them an opening to argue the government needs to allow a merger because it isn’t doing enough to help them compete.

Rosenworcel

Another welcome sign for Sprint and T-Mobile is Democratic FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who saw nothing wrong with holding private meetings with Wall Street insiders, telling them she would keep “an open mind” when considering the merger. With both Republican commissioners almost certain to approve a merger and Thomas Wheeler and Mignon Clyburn — both Democrats — likely opposed, Rosenworcel may have signaled she holds the deciding vote.

Prior to 2011, wireless consolidation was rampant, with an FCC predisposed to almost rubber stamping approval of buyouts and mergers. That changed in 2011 when AT&T tried to buy T-Mobile. It was the U.S. Justice Department, not the FCC, that led the charge against the deal, calling it anti-competitive. The Justice Department was vindicated when T-Mobile promptly launched new competitive service plans and pricing that forced price reductions and plan improvements from its competitors. T-Mobile has seen dramatic growth since launching its aggressively competitive service plans.

Sprint will likely claim T-Mobile’s competitive gains are illusory and will never offer a real competitive challenge to AT&T and Verizon’s market dominance. Despite the fact the combined company would still be far smaller than either AT&T or Verizon Wireless, Sprint is expected to argue it will be better positioned to fiercely compete for customers.

That argument is tempered by the fact that competition in the prepaid wireless market — already diminished by AT&T’s acquisition of Leap Wireless’ Cricket — will suffer even more if Sprint and T-Mobile, both major competitors in the prepaid market, are combined.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Sprint T-Mobile Near Accord on Price Breakup Fee 6-4-14.flv[/flv]

Sprint is nearing an agreement on the price, capital structure and termination fee of an acquisition for T-Mobile US that could value the wireless carrier at almost $40 a share, people with knowledge of the matter said. Alex Sherman has more on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (2:34)

The meter is lurking

AT&T may soon approach your electricity provider to encourage the introduction of prepaid electrical service, powered by AT&T’s wireless network.

AT&T is looking beyond traditional cell phone service to keep profits flowing into its lucrative wireless business. A growing segment of revenue is anticipated to come from so-called “machine to machine” communications. One application, Meter Data Management (MDM), provides connectivity to wireless-enabled smart utility meters, and is expected to grow 300 percent to $221 million by 2014.

Although now uncommon in the United States, prepaying for electric service is found in many parts of the world where cash-strapped consumers tend to renege on the bill. With late and non-paying customers remaining a consequence of the current American economy, AT&T is encouraging utilities to adopt pay-for-use technology that will cut the 10 percent of late-payers off the grid and save utilities money spent to collect past-due bills.

AT&T argues the next generation of “smart meters” can do a lot more than report meter readings over a wireless network. The technology can be leveraged to offer risk-free utility service, targeting credit compromised customers and those seeking to avoid billing surprises from excessive energy use.

Customers switched to prepaid electric service fill their meter with an allotment of energy usage from prepaid top-up cards sold by area convenience stores, supermarkets and even street vendors. Customers can also use credit cards or authorize checking accounts to be debited on a regular basis. Customers who exceed their allowance quickly find their service shut off automatically, depending on state laws. Making a payment switches the power back on within minutes.

“Nearly 30 percent of people are on a prepay mobile plan in 2013,” said Ed Davalos, lead product marketing manager at AT&T, during a recent Greentech Media webinar. “That cannot be overlooked. The consumer has already changed.”

Getting utilities to adopt the system may require AT&T, in partnership with other vendors, to front some of the costs to switch to smart meter and prepaid billing technology. A study commissioned by AT&T found the biggest hurdle to adopting prepaid electric service is understanding who pays to implement it. One-third of American utility companies would launch prepaid service if it could be done for no or low-cost. Another one-third say they would seriously consider it if someone else put up the money to introduce it.

Since customers can only use energy they already paid to use, there is no payment risk to the utility company. AT&T estimates nearly 10 percent of all utility customers receive disconnect notices every month. The utilities eventually cut service to 3-5 percent of those who still don’t pay, which usually requires a truck to be sent to the customer’s home.

Using prepaid electric service offers utilities the power to switch off service at the office without a costly truck roll and prevent customers from running up an enormous past due balance. If just 10 percent of customers switched to prepaid electric service, AT&T estimates an average utility with 250,000 customers would save $5-15 million per year in costs. Those using prepaid service are so wary of exceeding their power allowance, they use about 11 percent less electricity than non-prepaid customers, reducing demand on electricity generation.

This cellular module is designed to fit within many power meters.

Customers enrolled in prepaid service get to check their energy usage and some utilities offer different rates depending on the time of day. That means cost-conscious customers might hold off doing laundry until rates drop overnight. Others might avoid air conditioning use in the late afternoons, when fluctuating power rates are typically at their highest.

Campbell McCool, chief marketing officer of SmartSynch said the actual costs to the wireless network to manage prepaid was “well under” $0.50 per meter, per month — and SmartSynch executives have offered it can be as little as pennies per meter, per month depending on volume.

Verizon is also involved in the business, announcing a partnership with eMeter to offer cloud-based, scalable MDM for utilities.

Forty-two percent of U.S. electric customers now have digital meters, up from less than 5 percent in 2008. In 2015, more than 50 percent will have them, according to one consultant.

With the introduction of smart meters come risks, warns some consumer advocates.

Last month, the U.S. power market regulator moved towards charging JPMorgan with manipulating higher fluctuating electricity prices with fraudulent trading schemes, impacting customers in California and the Midwest.

Third party electricity marketers have also become a problem in many deregulated power states, with come-ons ranging from rebate checks to introductory rates that expire and leave the customer paying skyrocketing electricity rates well above the cost of buying service direct from the local utility. Many also impose lengthy contracts with steep early termination fees.

Smart meters allow utility providers to conjure up a number of marketing programs, such as a “free power day” offered once per week. Customers signing up for promotions like that typically avoid running the washing machine, dryer, and dishwasher except on days when they won’t pay to use the appliances. Others have to wait until after midnight for savings to kick in from overnight energy discounts.

But many of the programs have been designed to promise more savings than they deliver. Power providers have been criticized for aggressive door-to-door marketing, fraudulent utility switches reminiscent of days when phone customers found their long distance carrier switched without their permission, and tricky promotional checks that, once deposited, commit a customer to several years of service with a provider at whatever rates they choose to charge.

But lack of savings isn’t the only problem. In Texas, utilities can cut power service to customers within 24 hours of warning them they have exhausted their prepaid balance.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABS-CBN Regulators promoting use of prepaid electricity 10-25-12.flv[/flv]

In the Philippines, prepaid electric service was introduced to cope with customer complaints about high electricity rates. ABS-CBN News reports the meters don’t cut the price of electricity, they just help customers better manage bills by suggesting ways to reduce usage. (Oct. 2012) (2 minutes)

Think your wireless service contract ties you down?

More than 500 Canadians filed comments about their wireless service with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission as the telecom regulator wrestles with a proposed code of conduct for Canada’s wireless industry and the contracts they hand customers. Why? Because of language like this from a typical contract with Rogers Communications:

Device Savings Recovery Fee (applicable to term commitment customers only for any new term entered into on or after January 22, 2012): A Device Savings Recovery Fee (DSRF) applies if you have been granted an Economic Inducement (as defined below) upon entering your new term, and if, for any reason, your wireless service or your new term is terminated prior to the end of the term of your Service Agreement (Service Agreement Term). The DSRF is the amount of the economic inducement (which may take the form of a discount, rebate or other benefit granted on the price of your Equipment), as stated in your Service Agreement (Economic Inducement), less the amount obtained by multiplying such Economic Inducement by a fraction representing the number of months elapsed in your Service Agreement Term as compared to the total number of months of your Service Agreement Term (plus applicable taxes). In other words, DSRF = Economic Inducement [Economic Inducement × (# months elapsed in your Service Agreement Term ÷ Total # months in your Service Agreement Term)] + applicable taxes. An Additional Device Savings Recovery Fee (ADSRF) also applies if, for any reason, your wireless data service, or your data plans commitment term (Data Term), is terminated prior to the end of your Data Term. An Additional Device Savings Recovery Fee (ADSRF) also applies if, for any reason, your wireless data service, or your data plans commitment term (Data Term), is terminated prior to the end of your Data Term. The ADSRF is the additional Economic Inducement you received for subscribing to your wireless data service, less the amount obtained by multiplying such Economic Inducement by a fraction representing the number of months elapsed in your Data Term as compared to the total number of months of your Data Term (plus applicable taxes), and applies in addition to the DSRF for termination of your Service Agreement. If you subscribe to a plan combining both voice and data services, both the DSRF and the ADSRF apply, up to the total Economic Inducement.

Despite contract confusion being an issue in the eyes of the CRTC, the overwhelming majority of comments focused on something else that irks Canadians above all else: being held hostage by the industry’s traditional 36-month wireless contract, one year longer than consumers in the United States find common.

“Get rid of the 36 months contract,” wrote one Canadian, noting contract creep is all the rage. “It first started with 12 months, then 24 months, now the standard is 36 months, which is ridiculous!”

Most of the comments came from customers of the chief three providers: Bell, Rogers, and Telus. All three received scorn from customers for uncompetitive, expensive service.

The state of competition in Canada:

Roger offers new plans:
– $55 1000min local, unlimited text, 200MB
– $65 unlimited local/text, 1GB
– $75 unlimited local/text, 2GB
– $95 unlimited canada/text, 5GB

Then Bell offers their new competitive plans:
– $55 1000 min local, unlimited text, 200MB
– $65 unlimited local/text, 1GB
– $75 unlimited local/text, 2GB
– $95 unlimited canada/text, 5GB

Then Telus offers their competitive plans:
– $70 unlimited local/text, 1GB
– $80 unlimited local/text, 3GB
– $100 unlimited canada/text, 5GB

Where is the competition? These plans are all the same.

Also unfamiliar to Americans, the automatically-renewing contract that snags Canadians that forget to cancel with a brand new service commitment complete with a cancellation penalty. Perhaps the most consumer-friendly provinces in Canada are Quebec and Manitoba, which ban certain kinds of termination fees and auto-renewing contracts. Canadians want these bans extended nationwide. The European Union already bans 36 month contracts and made 24 months the maximum. One former resident of the United Kingdom noted the EU also compels providers to offer 12 month contracts for those who want them.

The CRTC may not provide much relief if it remains convinced the marketplace remains competitive.

The agency points out under the Telecommunications Act, the CRTC will only intervene in a market if there is insufficient competition to protect the interests of users.  In the 1990s the CRTC decided to allow market forces to guide the growth of the mobile wireless industry.

The CRTC seems to have already made up its mind on this issue when it announced its proceeding:

In the decision issued on 11 October 2012, the CRTC found that there was competition sufficient to protect the interests of consumers and it did not need to regulate rates.  Although many consumers indicated concerns about wireless rates and the competitiveness of the wireless market, a number of market indicators demonstrate that consumers have a choice of competitive service providers and a range of rates and payment options for mobile wireless services. According to the CRTC’s 2012 Communications Monitoring Report, new entrants in the mobile wireless market continue to increase their market share and coverage. Companies continue to invest in new infrastructure to bring new innovative services to more Canadians. Moreover, the average cost per month for mobile wireless services has remained relatively stable.

The CRTC concluded that competition in the mobile wireless market continues to be sufficient to protect the interests of users with respect to rates and choice of competitive service provider.

That makes it more likely than not the agency will limit itself to ordering wireless carriers to better explain their wireless policies, not force them to change them.

The only relief potentially available outside of canceling service is considering one of several new competitors which offer relaxed terms and better prices to attract customers. So far, only 4% of Canadians have switched to WIND, Mobilicity, Vidéotron, or Public Mobile. Some may be trapped in current contracts with larger companies or are discouraged having to buy new equipment to switch providers. Most providers in Canada, like in the United States, lock phones so they cannot be easily used on another company’s network.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CRTC Cell Phone Contracts 12-12.flv[/flv]

The CRTC used this video to invite consumers to share comments about confusing wireless service contracts. Instead, criticism of tricky term contracts that auto-renew and last three years arrived in buckets. (2 minutes)

A very frustrated employee of Frontier Communications working in one of their Ohio offices sent Stop the Cap! a detailed report on some of Frontier’s problems with customer service, unfair fees, and other horror stories. Over the next several days, we will present excerpts of this very long and detailed open letter, starting with what it is like to work in a Frontier customer service center dealing with customers unhappy with Frontier’s way of doing business. (Stop the Cap’s comments appear in italics.)

I work for a company that I am, quite frankly, frustrated with. The company is Frontier Communications.

I am currently an employee in the Marion, Ohio office/call center, and I am a customer service representative. I handle everything in terms of selling services, troubleshooting issues with telephone service, writing orders, setting up payment arrangements, etc. We occasionally refer to ourselves as universal service representatives. The latter title would admittedly sound better on a resume if my company were to ever find out that I had wrote this and fired me. So, after spending a long while working for this company I have learned a lot. I have taken every type of call that there is to take out there, ranging from a simple billing issue to someone getting absolutely screwed because of a mistake one our other representatives made.

I understand that when you have a customer base of three million residential accounts that you will take some angry calls, statistically speaking. It happens. I imagine that happens with every company out there, whether it sells phone service or a t-shirts. You will eventually run into a dissatisfied customer. I feel with Frontier, it happens way too often.

First off, before I go any further, I would like to say my supervisor and director are very knowledgeable individuals, and in no way am I implicating them in this open letter. They do their best to curb ignorance and poor customer service. I feel that the company limits their abilities to do even more to make customer service at Frontier a much more honest experience. Even the director of our call center still has to take orders from someone.

Frontier’s Shock and Awe:  The $200 Early Termination Fee for a Two-Year Contract Customers Never Realized They Had

Frontier’s early termination fees and contracts often come as a surprise to customers who had no idea they signed up.

I have noticed a lot of people calling in (and leaving comments on numerous review sites, as well as our Facebook page) voicing their displeasure about suddenly finding out that they were in a two-year contract, unable to cancel their services without incurring a 200 dollar early termination fee (ETF). This is something that I hate to deal with, as there are almost always no notes on any of these accounts left by previous representatives indicating they informed the customer of an ETF. Unless it is a special circumstance, we are supposed to tell you that you are notified on every billing statement that you are in a contract, and there is nothing that we can do to waive your fees. Most of the time, if a customer is persistent, they can actually escape and have these fees credited.

Firstly, the systems we use to write orders (Salesforce and DPI — yes, we have two different and completely redundant systems that serve the same function — one just looks prettier) both automatically default to the option of a 1 year contract with the option of automatically renewing that contact indefinitely. Frontier does offer a no-contract plan, but then you will fail to receive any sort of promotional pricing. So, a rep will write an order, complete it, and most of the time fail to review with the customer they are agreeing to a one year contract. We get a LOT of these types of calls, the majority originating from orders written by our service center in DeLand, Fla. What frustrates me is the lack of protocol that makes sure a rep notifies the customer that they are indeed being put on a contract. The calls are recorded and could be reviewed, but there are still too many of these people who fly under the radar and get stuck with a fee when it is too late to opt out.

It sucks to no end to have to tell somebody that they will have to spend an extra $200 to cancel their phone and Internet service, and many are left bewildered over the fee. It is always  hard to tell who has really been screwed and who is trying to dodge an ETF. So we handle it with our gut. That’s the best we can do.

Once a Frontier Customer, Always a Frontier Customer… Unless You Pay and Pray

Frontier works hard at holding onto the customers they have, either with long term contracts with heavy early termination penalties or other tricks and traps that can make departing Frontier a difficult and costly ordeal. In addition to term contracts, Frontier heavily markets extra services they claim will protect your account from mischief, but in reality makes it much more difficult to switch phone companies or terminate landline service.

Locking your phone number from third party transfers also buys you a headache if you want to switch providers.

When a Frontier rep asks you to put a free service on your account that will make sure nobody else can steal it without your permission, most people agree to it. This is called a Primary Local Exchange Carrier Freeze. Representatives have an incentive to push this free service, winning a $3 bonus to our commission if you let us add it to your account.

This service makes sure any third party companies cannot port your service over to theirs without your permission. Even with your permission, they still can’t do it until a Frontier rep removes the freeze. That requires customers to call in and speak with us. This gives us a very valuable opportunity to rescue your business and get you to change your mind. Customer retention is vital, which is why Frontier pays us extra to push a service that costs you nothing.

If a customer insists on “porting out” — keeping their current phone number but moving service to a new provider — we will remove the freeze on your account, but you will pay us for doing it.

It does not cost Frontier anything to remove the freeze, but we now charge customers a $1 fee to change your provider. Want local service with one company and long distance service with another? We charge $1 for each.

When customers accept our offer to place a freeze on unauthorized third parties messing with your phone service without your permission, we are required to obtain third party verification of your desire to have this service. Frontier uses an independent verification company that is god-awful and treats customers rudely, even yelling at some who do not follow the precise verification procedure. If they don’t like your answers, the order will not go through.

Their treatment of our customers reflects poorly on Frontier, especially when a customer’s order to obtain service never gets beyond the verification process.

I’ve heard these reps rip into customers for not answering with a “yes” or “no.” In one case, a gentleman from South Carolina had simply wanted to make sure that telemarketing calls would not screw with his phone bill/service, so I offered a freeze to ease his mind. I was absolutely appalled when he was asked by the third party verifier if he authorized the changes and he replied with the usual southern-accented “ya” and the woman on the other end literally yelled at him for not answering “yes.” The customer was completely taken aback and abruptly hung up. I would have too.

As a result, I often do not bother to include line freezes on larger orders, fearing the unprofessional attitude customers might endure could sabotage my commission and the customer’s scheduled service date. I wish Frontier would utilize a different company to process and verify orders.

So You Are Leaving? Do Exactly What We Say or Lose Your Phone Number

Listen very carefully

Oh boy, do I LOVE number porting. Of course that is absolute sarcasm. So, a port-in/out on paper sounds like a rock solid type of deal. The customer can retain his or her phone number, and check out the grass on the other side, greener or browner.

The process for handling a port-in is also fairly simple, and you would think that this would not be an issue for the customer to worry about. Of course, I wouldn’t be venting about it if this were always the case.

One big mistake routinely made by Frontier and other companies is cancelling your existing telephone service before the number port is complete. Some customers want to hurry the divorce and take it upon themselves to terminate service with their old provider as soon as the new service is turned on.

Under no circumstances should you do this, as it will absolutely screw you out of keeping your phone number. This is basic knowledge instilled in every Frontier rep during training, yet screw-ups still happen when one of our reps cuts off service before the other company has taken ownership of your phone number. That means your number is gone. Sometimes the porting process takes as long as 60 days to go through, so please be patient.

Unfortunately, with no system in place to prevent ignorant reps from screwing things up, numbers get lost. Sometimes it is our fault, sometimes it is with the customer, other times the new company created the problem. But we are often the ones left to explain to a customer the phone number they have had for 40 years is gone for good.

But it can get worse once someone else randomly grabs your old number. Imagine what happens when a grandmother’s lost number is reassigned to a porn smut peddler. Now some porn shop down the way has grandma’s number. This actually happened to a customer of a major cable provider. Imagine her friends and family trying to get her only to reach these people instead. It’s not a fun mess to clean up.

Coming Up: Wheel of Installation & Modem Fees, Adventures With Missed Appointments & Lost Trouble Tickets, and Big Trouble in Little DeLand