Too many inquiries can damage your credit score

While the passage of the CARD Act has protected consumers from some of the worst credit card tricks and traps, the legislation left plenty of loopholes which credit card companies are increasingly exploiting to minimize risk and generate additional revenue.  As credit card companies continue to reduce credit limits and close accounts, both permitted under the legislation, they are increasingly using “excessive credit inquiries” as an excuse for taking that action.

That’s why one Raleigh, N.C. Time Warner Cable customer was very unhappy to see not one, but two credit inquiries on his credit report from the cable company when he signed up for service back in July:

TIME WARNER CABLE - RALEIGH
Hide Details    07/13/10, 07/12/10

These “hard pulls” appear on credit reports under the “inquiries” section and are provided to other creditors as an indication of how much new credit you are applying for over a two year period.  While one or two of these inquiries are unlikely to dramatically impact your overall credit score, someone moving to a new home or planning to purchase one might run into some reluctant creditors unwilling to extend credit at the best possible rates for those who have six or more inquiries in the last 12 months.

According to Fair Isaac, the company that produces the FICO score, those with six or more inquiries on their credit reports are up to eight times more likely to declare bankruptcy than people with no inquiries on their reports.

As credit card issuers continue to be risk averse, a sudden appearance of hard inquiries on a credit report can be enough to deny you approval for a new account or help trigger a “credit review” which, in combination with other factors, can lead to a major credit line reduction or even account closure.

Pentagon Federal Credit Union, one of the nation’s best-rated credit unions, is also among the most sensitive to lots of inquiries, fearing potential customers are “pyramiding credit” through rapid fire applications.

Time Warner Cable is not alone in pulling credit reports on their new customers.  Comcast, AT&T, DirecTV and Verizon also obtain credit reports for customers signing up for cable, satellite, landline, and/or mobile service, and some customers have seen their FICO scores drop as a result.

Fair Isaac says the impact from inquiries will vary from person to person based on their individual credit histories.  For most people, one additional credit inquiry will take less than five points off their FICO score. But inquiries can have a greater impact if you have few accounts, a short credit history, are trying to rebuild credit, or are on the edge of moving from one score range to another.  Some creditors that manually check applications may ignore or discount credit inquiries from cable and phone companies, because it’s not the same as applying for a credit card, but automated systems may not be so forgiving.

More upsetting to some are why these companies are placing hard inquiries for credit reports on their subscribers’ credit files in the first place, especially when many customers had no idea they would try.

“Creditors can review credit reports and report them to credit bureaus as “soft” or “hard” inquiries,” writes our reader Tabitha, who had her credit report pulled when she called requesting a lower rate from Comcast.  “If they make a soft inquiry, that’s no big deal because no other creditors will see this on your report.  But Comcast made a hard inquiry and that does show up and it dropped my FICO score six points.”

Tabitha moved into her Philadelphia-area home eight months ago, opening a new checking account, establishing accounts with local utility and cable companies, switching her cell phone carrier, and dealing with Comcast.  Altogether, that resulted in six hard inquiries on her credit report.

And many credit card companies absolutely hate to see that.  Here’s a copy of a letter rejecting one consumer’s request for credit because there were “too many inquiries” for credit in his or her credit file:

Chase hates to see a lot of inquiries from creditors on credit reports. That alone can be sufficient to deny you credit from them. (Click to enlarge)

If Discover Card discovers a whole mess of inquiries on your credit report, you’ll discover a rejection letter from them in no time at all, as this customer discovered:

Discover Card's automated credit analyst software will reject credit requests out of hand if there are too many hard inquiries on your credit report. (Click to enlarge)

We have been able to find credit inquiries from cable and phone companies for everything from establishing service as a new customer to relocating to a new address or even upgrading or downgrading your level of service.  Establishing postpaid cell phone service almost always has resulted in a credit report pull, and most customers are aware of that when they sign up.  But should a cable company do a credit check just for calling them up and asking for a lower rate?

Bargaineering has some tips to help get these inquiries permanently deleted from your credit report from all three major credit bureaus.  It can be as easy as just writing a letter.  The Time Warner Cable customer in Raleigh called the cable company to demand they remove at least one of the duplicate hard inquiries, and Time Warner managed to do him one better by deleting all of them from his credit file, which suits him just fine.

Videotron last week unveiled 120/20Mbps broadband service loaded down with tricks and traps that will cost many Canadians far more than the $149.95CDN monthly asking price.

Québec’s largest cable operator introduced Ultimate Speed Internet 120 for “users who want to experience the fastest Internet access in Québec.”  But with a download limit of just 170GB per month combined with an upload limit of a paltry 30GB per month, what many Internet enthusiasts are also likely to experience is a huge bill.

Videotron is rolling out a high-speed Internet access service that will give residents of the Québec City area the fastest speeds in Canada. As of tomorrow, Ultimate Speed Internet 120 will support download speeds of 120 mbps and upload speeds of 20 mbps, a first for Québec City.

“Ultimate Speed Internet 120 pushes back the frontier for intensive Internet users,” said Robert Dépatie, President & CEO of Videotron. “Today, we are launching the high-speed Internet service of the future. With the pace at which users’ needs are changing, we are not so far from the day when 120 mbps will be a must-have convenience.”

Astonishing capacity
As of tomorrow, Ultimate Speed Internet 120 will be available in nearly 80% of the greater Québec City area, or to nearly 310,000 households and businesses. The service will be accessible throughout the Québec City area by December 31, 2010 and will then be gradually rolled out to other parts of Videotron’s service area.

Astonishing Overcharging

Yanette is going to the bank to withdraw more funds to pay her exorbitant Videotron broadband bill.

Unlike many other Internet Overcharging plans from Canada’s usage cap-happy providers, Videotron’s highest-speed plans don’t limit the amount of overlimit fees customers will be exposed to once their allowance is exhausted.  In little more than three hours of usage at near-maximum speeds, overlimit fees of $1.50CDN per gigabyte kick in until your usage allows resets the following month.  That’s more than $50 an hour in overlimit fees if running the service near top speeds.

Videotron’s press release says those limits are “well in excess of the current needs of heavy bandwidth users.”

Even worse, Videotron targets its highest speed broadband plan for “traffic management,” which throttles upload speeds dramatically for customers who “have uploaded a statistically significant amount of data,” which is never defined:

Every 15 minutes, a system checks the usage rate for each upload channel (each upload channel typically serves a few dozen modems). If the usage rate has reached a threshold beyond which congestion is imminent, the system identifies the USI 120 modems on that channel that have uploaded a statistically significant amount of data. Uploading from these modems is then momentarily given lower priority. Depending on the severity and duration of the congestion, uploading speed may be slowed for these modems.  […]The above measures are applicable at all times.

That assures customers of a less-than-blazing-fast broadband experience they have paid top dollar to receive.  In effect, this means Videotron’s customers who pay three times the regular price for a concierge-like-broadband-experience are pushed to the back of the line if they actually use it.

A Videotron customer on Broadband Reports wrote, “It’s like driving a jet-car in an alley. You can probably start the engine, but don’t open the gas too much!”

Another customer from Montreal noted it takes no time at all for customers to blow through those kinds of limits:

This is merely a political play to be able to advertise as “the fastest ISP in Quebec/Canada”. Obviously such ridiculous caps are nowhere near the needs of someone who would pay $150 for that kind of speed, but they don’t mind saying things like “well in excess of the current needs of heavy bandwidth users” because 90% of the population, even the journalists themselves, have no idea what gigabytes are in the first place.

Considering most recent games released on Steam/D2D can be over 20GB, one HD episode is 1.3GB to stream each, 170GB is very little.

The cable operator will also throw some small bones to their existing customers effective Oct. 13:

• Customers with Videotron’s standard High Speed Internet service ($42.95CDN – 7.5Mbps/720kbps) will get a 10 gigabyte usage allowance increase — to 40GB of usage per month.  The overlimit fee remains a stunning $4.50 per gigabyte, up to a maximum of $50 per month;
• Upstream speeds on Ultimate Speed Internet 50 service ($81.95CDN – 50/1Mbps) will be doubled from 1Mbps to 2Mbps with no price increase.  Considering that plan limits consumption to 125GB per month, the faster speeds mean unlimited overlimit fees of $1.50 per month will add up even faster.

Delivering high speed broadband at premium prices with usage limits and speed throttles is a business plan disaster.  Customers willing to pay the highest prices for fast broadband don’t seek those Cadillac plans to browse web pages.  They want to leverage the fastest possible speeds to make high bandwidth applications work better and faster.  In a business environment, those faster speeds save time, which saves money.  But broadband providers who engage in Internet Overcharging schemes that limit use and charge confiscatory overlimit fees destroy demand for their own products, because few customers are willing to pay the premium prices these plans charge -and- expose themselves to overlimit fees if they happen to exceed an arbitrary usage limit.

Further south in the United States, Americans are still rejecting overpriced DOCSIS 3-premium speed broadband plans, and they come with no usage caps.  Time Warner Cable’s DOCSIS 3 expansion delivers a premium price on the resulting faster speed tiers, and the company managed to sign up fewer than 2,000 customers as of January.

Now imagine a plan that commanded a premium price -and- slapped a limit on usage.

As they say in Québec: c’est ridicule!

Phillip "It's Haunting Time for AT&T, Verizon and their good friends at Digital Society" Dampier

Imagine if you lived in a country where broadband competition actually delivered real innovation and savings, overseen by a consumer protection agency that made sure providers in a barely competitive marketplace actually delivered on their “highly competitive” rhetoric.

Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN) will deliver exactly that, with a check and balance system that makes sure advertiser claims meet reality and that “robust competition” means… robust competition.

One industry-backed front group, Digital Society, doesn’t think that idea is fair to big telecom companies (like those funding its operations), and wants none of that here in the States.

Nick Brown doesn’t object too much to Australia’s plan to deliver fiber-to-the-home connections offering 100/50Mbps service to 93 percent of residents.  He just doesn’t want the Australian government overseeing how private providers use (and how much they can charge to access) the publicly-owned network:

Internet Service Providers in Australia will be forced to compete with each other via the “Competition and Consumer Commission”.  The problem with this is that a supposedly ubiquitous commission deciding what is and what isn’t competition and fair pricing stands a fair chance of not actually playing out in any other fashion than simply being a price fixing commission.

[…]Because the NBN will only act as a wholesaler and treat all ISP retailers equally, ISP’s no longer have the ability to develop their own unique contracts that would reduce costs to consumers.  All backhaul would be priced to all ISP’s at the same rate.  So realistically no company has a significant advantage over the other.  That does potentially create a good deal of choice, but that does not necessarily ensure competition.  This would be akin to going to the grocery store and on the shelf were 5 different brands of soft drink, but every single brand tasted exactly like Coca-Cola.  You would have a lot of choice in that situation, but there would be no real competition between those 5 brands, because taste is the competitive factor.  For the Australian, this means that ISP’s will likely be forced to start bundling services to gain advantages over one another.  Something that is not always considered attractive here stateside.

NBNCo is responsible for the deployment and installation of Australia's fiber to the home network.

Brown’s bitter-tasting public-broadband philosophy is based on the inaccurate notion that incumbent private providers are just itching to deliver state-of-the-art broadband service across Australia.  If the darn federal government didn’t get in the way and steal their thunder with a nationwide fiber network, Aussies would be enjoying world class Internet access over copper phone wires and usage-limited wireless 3G networks right now.  Even worse, the Australian government that will finance the entire operation also has the temerity to set ground rules for private companies reselling access to consumers and businesses!  How dare they oversee a network bought and paid for by Australian taxpayers (he objects to the funding as well.)

Brown must also still be living in Australia if he missed the parade of American providers repricing services to push people into “triple-play bundles” whether they want them or not.  And we don’t even get the fiber to go with it.  For most Australians, they no longer care whether it’s Diet Coke, Pepsi One, Cherry Coke, or even RC Cola for that matter — as long as it arrives on a fiber network built by and for their interests (instead of Telstra’s), it’s far better than what they have now.

In reality, broadband issues hold a front-and-center position in Australian politics, and the Labor Government which supports an aggressive national broadband plan that puts America’s proposed broadband improvements to shame was -the- issue that keeps that government in power today.  Why?  Because Australia is well behind others in providing broadband access at reasonable speeds and prices.  Australian private providers maintain a nice little arrangement delivering sub-standard, near-monopoly service at some of the highest prices around, all usage-limited and speed throttled. Despite years of negotiations with big players like Telstra, the privatized phone company, broadband improvement has moved at a glacial pace (too often by their design).

The development of the National Broadband Network for Australia was driven by private provider intransigence.  Even Brown recognizes the logistics of the proposed fiber network is “very smart and very common sense” for a country like Australia, which he considers a close cousin geographically to the United States.  Brown also admits the use of fiber straight to the home “‘future proofs’ Australian networks and would allow for easier improvement in the future.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC Radio Battle of the broadband 8-11-2010.mp4[/flv]

ABC Radio National offered a comprehensive review of the competing plans from Australia’s political parties to address broadband issues as the country drops to 50th place worldwide in broadband excellence.  (9 minutes)

While Australia ponders a fiber future, today’s broadband picture across the country is less idyllic.

The minority of Australians receiving service over cable broadband, available mostly in the largest cities, continue to face usage-limited service and higher prices than American providers.

Most Australians get their service from DSL connections offered by Telstra and third party companies leasing access to Telstra facilities.  Telstra’s network is based almost entirely on aging copper wire that cannot deliver broadband to most rural populations.  Telstra’s long term broadband plan for Australia depends on milking every last cent out of those copper wires while raking in even bigger profits from usage limited and expensive wireless data plans.  Just last month, Telstra was fined $18.5 AUS million dollars for monopolistic behavior by impeding competitive access to its telephone network.  No wonder the country had enough.

Brown labeled the Australian government’s buyout of Telstra’s copper wire network a “negative,” as if they were stuck with a pig in a poke.  That suggests Brown does not understand the actual plan, which relies on reusing existing infrastructure like poles and underground conduit to install fiber at an enormous savings — both in billions of dollars in reduced costs and deployment time.  The alternative would require the government to obtain agreements with Telstra-owned facilities to share access or construct their own facilities from the ground up.  Telstra has no incentive to spend money to upgrade their networks, much less decommission them.  Logistically, the plan cuts through enormous red tape and guarantees Australians no one will be stuck waiting decades for the eventual retirement of copper phone wiring.

Call it Fiber Optic Broadband for Copper Wire Clunkers — the government has not nationalized the phone network — it wants to buy it a fair price, from a willing seller who will be able to use the new network to deliver some of its own services.

The horror show for groups like Digital Society is the thought private companies will actually be forced to deliver the competition and real savings they routinely proclaim in press releases, but never actually deliver to consumers.  The Australian people will own the fiber playground private companies will play on, so why shouldn’t they have the benefit of oversight to make sure the game is played fairly?

Australia’s Competition & Consumer Commission is equivalent to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and a state Attorney General all rolled into one.  The ACCC is an independent statutory authority that works for consumers.  It promotes and enforces real competition and fair trade.

The ACCC’s involvement in broadband regulation includes: stopping false advertising, helping intervene and resolve disputes over access and billing issues, and being an impartial observer about broadband uptake and measuring how competition actually delivers better service and savings for consumers.

What Brown dismisses as “a price fixing commission” is in reality a consumer protection agency with enforcement teeth.  The ACCC has a solid track record.  For instance, the broadband industry in 2009 itself admitted the ACCC stopped a “race to the bottom” in wild advertising claims:

In August last year, we sat down with the CEOs of the major telecommunication providers, Telstra, Optus and Vodafone Hutchison Australia. They acknowledged that there was a problem, exacerbated by a “race to the bottom” by industry participants in their advertising practices. The CEOs showed a ready willingness to resolve the issue on an industry-wide basis.

After analysing complaints, the ACCC identified the 12 most prevalent types of potential misleading conduct made in telecommunications. Some of these included:

• use of terms such as “free”, “unlimited”, “no exceptions”, “no exclusions” or “no catches” when this is not the case;
• headline price offers in the form of “price per minute” for calls made using mobile phones and phone cards when there are other fees/charges which are not clearly disclosed; or
• headline claims relating to price, data allowances, total time allowances, speeds and network coverage, where the claims cannot generally be achieved by consumers.

The three industry leaders have provided a court enforceable undertaking to review and improve advertising practices so that consumers are better informed about the telecommunications products they purchase. They have undertaken that their advertising will not make these claims in circumstances where they are likely to be misleading to consumers.

Further the majors have also agreed that they will take reasonable steps to ensure that this commitment will extend to any other players with whom they have commercial agreements which allow them to control the advertising and promotion of goods or services.

Australians are starting to receive consent forms for free installation of fiber broadband in their homes.

I can see why Digital Society, a group partly funded by telecommunications companies, would object to the ACCC stopping Big Telecom’s ill-gotten Money Party-gains.

ACCC also put a stop to promotions that tricked consumers into signing up for mobile data plans that included “free” netbooks, high value gas gift cards, or cash rebates.  The Commission discovered these “promo plans” weren’t giving away anything at all — they simply added the retail cost of the “free” item to the plans’ charges.

The ACCC received a court enforceable undertaking from Dodo Australia Proprietary Limited for the advertising of some of their mobile plans. Dodo had advertised that consumers would receive either an Asus Eee PC, a fuel card or a cash payment when they signed up to a ‘free offer’ plan.

However, cheaper mobile cap plans that did not include the ‘free’ offers were comparable in value and services. After raising these concerns with Dodo, they promptly ceased publishing the ‘free offer’ advertisement and undertook to ensure the affected customers would receive the goods for free, either by way of cash refund or by reducing the monthly charges for the ‘free offer’ plans.

That mean and nasty ACCC, ruining all of the fun for providers delivering tricks and traps for their customers.  Caveat emptor, right?

But the most ludicrous claim of all comes towards the end of Brown’s piece, when he claims the National Broadband Network will leave Australians with even higher priced, usage-capped access:

Australia traditionally has had low bandwidth caps.  Even just five years ago while most Americans were enjoying unlimited bandwidth with their broadband connections, I was living in Melbourne, Australia and was limited to a 1GB cap per month via my Telstra connection.  The likelihood of seeing 100Mb uncapped connections is highly suspect.  Australians may enjoy these speeds, but they will likely be extremely expensive with low bandwidth caps or limited to high priced premium tiers.

Brown can’t blame the private company that delivered his abysmal Internet service without his “free market knows best” philosophy falling apart.  It wasn’t the Australian government that provided him a 1GB monthly usage allowance — it was Telstra, and five years later the company is still usage-limiting Australian broadband consumers.  The National Broadband Network was designed to tackle that problem once and for all.  Brown apparently doesn’t realize the last argument private providers have used to justify usage caps — insufficient overseas capacity — is being addressed by new super-high-capacity undersea fiber cables stretching across the Pacific.  The issue of “usage cap” abatement is among the top bullet points for constructing the NBN.

Brown would be right when he suggests that Australians may enjoy faster speeds, but with low usage caps and high prices — if Telstra was the only company providing the service.  The new network will provide speeds faster than most Americans enjoy, with enormously expanded capacity.  Providers like Telstra have an incentive not to deliver the unlimited service that fiber network can deliver, as it will reduce their profits.  But since any company can access the network and compete, Telstra’s loss in market power will also erode their pricing power.  When a consumer protection mechanism is added, Telstra won’t just be answering to their shareholders’ demands for greater value.  They’ll also answer to the ACCC and the consumers who will pay for and maintain the network.

That may not add up to mega-profits for Big Telecom, but it certainly makes a whole lot of sense to consumers and small businesses who will finally be able to get 21st century broadband at a reasonable price.

Even worse for Digital Society’s friends — AT&T and Verizon — who fund the group through its connection with Arts+Labs, it might provide a blueprint for how America’s broadband future should be built.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC TV National Broadand Network 8-15-10.flv[/flv]

ABC-TV (Australia) debated the merits of competing broadband plans from the incumbent Labor government, which supports a National Broadband Network delivering fiber to the home, versus a cheaper plan from the coalition opposition which promoted a private industry-favored initiative delivering improved broadband only to rural areas.  The Labor government initiative won the day when two rural independent members of Parliament, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor announced they’d support Prime Minister Julia Gillard, giving her the 76 votes required to form a minority Labor government.  Windsor is an enthusiastic supporter of the NBN, telling Sky News “’you do it once, you do it right, you do it with fiber.”  Oakeshott said Labor’s plan to deliver real broadband for the 21st century was a major reason he backed the Labor government.  For the first time ever, fiber optic broadband was the key factor in determining who would govern a country.  (5 minutes)

Verizon Wireless customers increasingly confront mandatory data plans costing $10-30 a month even if they don't intend to use their phones to access data services

An increasing number of Verizon Wireless customers at the end of their two-year contracts are suspended in time, unwilling to upgrade their phones because of costly mandated data plans that dramatically boost cellular phone bills, especially if everyone in the family wants an improved phone.

Kathy Vega, who lives in Rotterdam, N.Y., is just one example.

She complained to the Albany Times Union she’s effectively trapped with her old phone, an LG enV, because any upgrade will expose her to new mandatory data plans costing as much as $30 extra per month.

She’s been a satisfied Verizon Wireless customer for years. She also has Verizon Internet service, a Verizon e-mail address and a Verizon land line at home. She’s been a virtual walking, talking advertisement for the company’s products and services.

That’s why Vega was so irked by Verizon’s response when she tried to replace her enV phone and add a second one for her stepfather for free, thanks to a Father’s Day promotion the company was running.

Vega recalls that she was told that she’d have to pay another $30 each month for a “media pack” that would provide Internet and e-mail access.

It’s not clear to her now whether the additional price quoted to her was actually $30 per phone, which was her understanding at the time, or a total additional cost of $30 per month, based on a $9.99 data plan for each phone.

The Maroon enV model like hers on Verizon’s Web site now requires a data package costing “$9.99 or higher.”

The exact amount is almost irrelevant, as far as Vega is concerned. She just doesn’t see why she should have to pay for services she doesn’t use — especially since she wants the same phone she already has with no data charge.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Loyal Verizon customer laments plan – The Advocate 8-19-10.flv[/flv]

Kathy Vega explains her plight to the Albany Times Union Advocate.  (1 minute)

Good luck.

Verizon Wireless, like AT&T, is increasingly exposing loyal customers like Vega to hidden rate increases in the form of mandatory service add-ons, in this case to cover data usage.  While Verizon’s most basic cell phones are still free from these fees, the phones most popular with consumers these days all come with bill busting add-on requirements.

Vega pays $116 a month for cell phone service now.  Verizon’s salespeople don’t always volunteer the company offers a lower usage data plan for $10, so assuming she follows the path laid before her by Verizon’s in-store staff, she could face quite a rate hike.

Confronted with her options, Vega is toughing it out with her current phone and an expired contract — like many other Verizon Wireless customers.

For those who have been loyal to Verizon for years, it’s galling to find higher priced monthly bills when it’s time to renew a contract and upgrade a phone.

Jen Smith said she was peeved when she learned of the new data program and associated costs.

“It’s sickening. I also hate that they have no customer loyalty. We have been with Verizon since they took over for Bell Atlantic Mobile in the area (~11 years ago). We have six phones and spend about $320 a month for them. You’d think we’d get a little better service for that, or a free accessory or some little perk, or heck, even a polite customer service specialist, but nope,” she writes.

Reader Sarah discovered the same thing, and she headed out the door to Sprint:

“This is exactly why I left Verizon over a year ago. I wanted a Palm. I didn’t want the data plan. Even though you can put a block on the phone to prevent the “unintentional use” of the data plan, they refuse to sell any smart phone without a data plan. So I had to go to Sprint. Can’t say I’m totally pleased with Sprint, but at least I could get what I wanted, and that was no data.”

For Verizon spokesman John O’Malley, it’s all a matter of doing some math.

He told the Times Union’s Cathy Woodruff, who serves as the newspaper’s consumer advocate, mandating data plans actually saves customers from unexpectedly high bills. He described circumstances where many owners of such devices had been racking up unexpected charges, suffering bill shock from Verizon’s punitive charge of $1.99 per megabite of data consumed.

“Customers who purchase these phones tend to take full advantage of the phone’s capabilities for surfing the Web, checking e-mail, etc.,” O’Malley said. “We’ve seen that those customers use an average of 17 megabytes of data per month. At our pay-as-you-go rate of $1.99 per megabite, that would cost them more than $30 a month.”

The $9.99 data feature provides up to 25 megabytes of data per month, which would cost nearly $50 under the old pricing policy, which makes the package “more cost effective,” he said.

Woodruff argued it won’t save any money for customers who don’t use data services.

But beyond that, we contend O’Malley’s math only works when using Verizon’s numbers.

It was Verizon Wireless that set the price of $1,990 per gigabyte of usage for “occasional users.”  Had Verizon chosen pricing more reflective of its actual costs, consumers finding an extra dollar or two on their bill for a piddly 17 megabytes of data would still leave Verizon fat and happy, more than covering their costs.  By inflating accidental and occasional use pricing into the ionosphere, O’Malley has a stronger argument to sell customers mandatory data plans that protect them from data pricing traps created by Verizon itself.

Overpricing data plans for loyal Verizon Wireless customers who can’t or won’t jump for joy at the prospect of spending $100 a month or more for a single cell phone with data service are now shopping around for better deals.  Unfortunately, they won’t find them at AT&T, who generally charges the same prices Verizon does.  But the financially-stressed consumer can find savings if they are willing to explore the second-tier of carriers, ranging from Sprint and T-Mobile and prepaid plans that require no contract.

Sprint promotes itself as a better value than larger carriers AT&T and Verizon

Sprint is banking on Verizon and AT&T overplaying their hand and overcharging their customers.  With Sprint’s newest handset hit — the HTV Evo, which also works on Sprint’s slowly growing 4G network, the company is attracting another look by advanced smartphone users.  Sprint’s latest marketing also targets families weary of tricks and traps from their cell phone provider, especially usage-limits and allowances.  Sprint bundles more services into its unlimited plans than other carriers, and its prepaid unit, Virgin Mobile, is no longer limiting wireless broadband usage on its 3G network.

Sprint’s biggest challenges to regain its top-tier footing come from years of bad customer service which company CEO Dan Hesse now assures is behind them, and a considerably more limited coverage area that simply cannot compare to AT&T and Verizon.

But for customers like Vega, being able to use the phone she wants and not pay gotcha fees for services she doesn’t use may be enough to compel a switch. 

Verizon isn’t fooling her.

Woodruff

As Woodruff observes, “it seems foolish for Verizon to close out options for loyal customers, though, at a time when options can be such a strong selling point.”

“I just think (Verizon’s data package) is their way of building it to create more revenue, which I understand,” Vega told Woodruff, “but the customer should have a choice.”

She is so right.

Cathy Woodruff is known to Times Union readers as The Advocate.  Cathy covers telecommunications issues regularly in her column which appears twice-weekly in the newspaper.  She has covered the capital region of New York around Albany for more than 25 years, becoming The Advocate in July, 2009.  She grew up in Herkimer County in upstate New York. Her column is highly recommended.

Time Warner Cable is probably changing your channel lineup, or already has — removing several analog channels you used to receive as part of your Standard Service subscription and moving them to digital.

For customers with digital set top boxes, the change happens without most noticing the difference.  The formerly analog signal still shows up in the same place, only the transmission format has changed.

But customers without set top boxes will notice as channels disappear forever from their lineups, replaced with… nothing.  But their cable bills will remain exactly the same, despite the loss of channels.

For Stop the Cap! readers like Bev, today spelled the end of Animal Planet and The Travel Channel, among others.  For those in Rochester, N.Y., last night was the last chance to watch C-SPAN 2, The Travel Channel, TruTV, Discovery Health, and Shop NBC in analog.  In Buffalo, it was bye-bye to The Travel Channel, C-SPAN 2, TV Guide Channel, and CMT.

It some states, particularly Texas, Time Warner Cable is sticking it to Public Access, Educational, and Government channels, moving them all to digital.  In some cases, cable companies and AT&T U-verse have managed to forever bury these PEG channels in Digital Channel Siberia with channel numbers in the high hundreds or even thousands.  For many subscribers, a search and rescue team couldn’t find their new channel positions.

It’s all a part of a larger plan to slowly erode away analog channels in favor of digital service, which takes up far less bandwidth on Time Warner Cable systems.

As cable systems are nearing capacity and do not wish to spend millions to commit to further upgrades, switching out analog service in favor of digital can provide enormous new capacity to accommodate HD channels and forthcoming DOCSIS 3 cable modem service upgrades.

Unfortunately, these channel changes will irritate subscribers who do not want to pay for set top boxes and do not want them on their televisions.  If you are among this group of box-haters, Time Warner Cable will continue to slowly drop more and more of the channels you used to watch without bothering to reduce your bill for the channels you no longer get.  Eventually, virtually all analog channels will probably disappear, replaced by digital versions you will need a set top box to view.

In many areas of upstate New York, Time Warner is trying to placate angry subscribers by offering one set top box at no charge for one year.  But here comes the tricks and traps — Stop the Cap! confirmed with Time Warner Cable this evening that only those customers without any set top boxes in their home can take advantage of this free offer.  If you already have a box, you’ll continue to pay for it even though your neighbor is getting one free for a year.  After the year is up, pony up — each box costs $7.80 a month ($7.50 for the box, $0.30 for the remote).

At least Texans are getting a better deal from Time Warner Cable — Broadcast Basic subscribers will get their boxes free for five years, Standard Service customers will get them for one year.  But beware — if Time Warner needs to roll a truck to install your box in the San Antonio area, be prepared to cough up $39 for the service call.

For broadband customers, there is some good news.  Virtually all major Time Warner Cable service areas facing channel changes like this will receive DOCSIS 3 upgrades and the chance to obtain faster Internet service by the end of 2010, even those communities bypassed for earlier upgrades.  You will also get additional HD channels.  In western New York, for example, Time Warner Cable plans to add a large number of HD cable channels by mid-fall:

On or About September 2, 2010:
Style HD
BBC America HD

On or About September 9, 2010:
National Geographic Wild HD
MTV HD
Comedy Central HD
Nickelodeon HD
Spike HD

On or About September 16, 2010:
History Channel International HD
CMT HD
Hallmark HD
VH-1 HD
Cooking Channel HD
DIY HD
TWCSN HD
YNN HD

On or About October 1, 2010:
Womans Max HD
HBO Latino HD