The telecommunications industry better not take a tip from some Texas power companies that have found new ways to increase profits: charging customers a penalty when they do not use enough electricity during the month.  Imagine if broadband providers with Internet Overcharging schemes followed suit.

After Texas deregulated electric utilities, an increasing number of companies are using their freedom to find new, creative ways to tack on additional fees and surcharges that might normally be considered the cost of doing business.

CenterPoint Energy, a Fortune 500 corporation providing service in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas would like to introduce you to its Minimum Usage Penalty — a $9.95 fee applied to Texans caught using too little electricity from the company.

While most utility companies set a basic customer charge applicable to everyone, which covers the cost of your electric meter, power lines and their upkeep, billing, and other administrative expenses, many Texas power companies are billing consumers a monthly fee for conserving too much electricity.

The concept flies in the face of common sense, especially as the state contends with dozens of 100+ degree summer days and pleas from utilities for customers to cut back on energy use.  But if some do, especially low-consumption customers in apartments or those who maintain part-time residences, they’ll pay a penalty for doing so.

The Texas Electricity Ratings Blog found more than a dozen power companies with similar policies, with penalties as high as $12.96 for using less than 1,000 kWh per month:

Ambit Energy: $9.99 for less than 1000 kWh per month
Amigo Energy: Depending on the plan it is $9.95 of $6.95 for less than 1000 kWh per month
Bounce Energy: $4.95 for less than 1000 kWh per month for almost all of their plans, except intro plans are $6.96 per month for less than 1000 kWh.
Champion Energy: $4.95 for less than 500 kWh per month
Cirro Energy: $5.25 for less than 1000 kWh per month
Direct Energy: I couldn’t find a Monthly Fee in their Terms of Service or EFLs
Dynowatt: $6.95 for less than 1000 kWh per month
First Choice Power: $5 for less than 650 kWh per month, plus a $4.95 base charge
GEXA Energy: Seems to simply use a sliding rate per plan for different usage w/o a minimum charge
Green Mountain Energy: Didn’t seem to see any minimum usage charge in the EFL or Terms of Service
Mega Energy: $12.96 for less than 1000 kWh per month
MX Energy: Seems to simply use a sliding rate per plan for different usage w/o minimum charge
Reliant Energy: $9.95 for less than 800 kWh per month
Southwest Power & Light: I didn’t see minimum usage but they had a $7.95 monthly meter fee.
Spark Energy: $8.99 for less than 1000 kWh per month
StarTex Power: $4.99 for less than 500 kWh per month
Tara Energy: $6.95 for less than 500 kWh per month
Texas Power: $10.00 for less than 1000 kWh per month
TXU Energy: TXU uses a base $4.95 charge and sliding rates for less or greater than 1000 kWh, per plan.

[flv width=”600″ height=”358″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTRK Houston Higher Bills for Not Using Enough 7-11.flv[/flv]

KTRK in Houston provides surprising information about Texas utility usage-based-billing rates — power companies will charge you a penalty for not consuming enough electricity.  Better hope broadband providers angling for UBB don’t catch on.  (3 minutes)

Losing customers.

A year after Frontier Communications assumed control of Verizon’s assets in the Pacific Northwest, customers are fleeing the company’s inherited fiber-to-the-home service FiOS, after announcing a massive (since suspended, except in Indiana) 46 percent rate hike for the television portion of the service.  A new $500 installation fee has kept all but the bravest from considering replacing customers who have left for Comcast and various satellite TV providers.

Frontier’s second-quarter financial results revealed the company has lost at least 14,000 out of 112,000 FiOS TV customers in the region (and in the Fort Wayne, Ind. market, where the service is also available.)

Early reaction to the original rate hike announcement started customers shopping for another provider — mostly Comcast, which competes in all three states where Frontier FiOS operates.  Even after the rate hike was suspended in some markets, intense marketing activity by Frontier to drive customers towards its partnership with satellite provider DirecTV managed to convince at least some of those customers to pull the plug on fiber in return for a free year of satellite TV, although an even larger number presumably switched to the cable competition.

D.A. Davidson, a financial consulting firm, told The Oregonian the message was clear.

“They would love to get rid of the FiOS TV customers,” Donna Jaegers, who follows Frontier, told the newspaper. “They’re programming costs are very high compared to the rates that they charge.”

Jaegers said Frontier Communications completely botched their efforts to transition customers away from FiOS TV towards satellite, because most of those departing headed for the cable competition, attracted by promotional offers and convenient billing.

Many others simply don’t want a satellite dish on their roof, and are confounded about Frontier’s message that satellite TV is somehow better than fiber-to-the-home service.

Frontier admits its FiOS service is now underutilized, but claims it will continue to provide the service where it already exists.

Wilderotter

Frontier Claims Its DSL Service is Better Than Cable Broadband

Frontier’s general business plan is to provide DSL service in rural areas where it faces little or no competition, and most of Frontier’s investment has been to upgrade Verizon’s landline network to sustain 1-3Mbps DSL service, for which it routinely charges the same (or more) for standalone broadband service that its cable competitors charge for much faster speeds.

But Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter says their DSL service is better than the cable competition.

“A key differentiator between our network and cable competition is that you consistently get the speed you pay for,” Wilderotter told investors on a conference call. “There’s no sharing at the local level. High demand for bandwidth-intensive applications like video are putting pressure on all wired networks. To that end, we want to make sure that we have more than enough capacity to satisfy the expectations of our customers. We’re spending capital in all parts of the network with specific emphasis in the middle mile, which will enable us to consistently deliver a quality customer experience for our customers of today and tomorrow.”

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter defends anemic broadband additions during the 2nd quarter of 2011 and tries to convince investors DSL service is better than the cable competition. August 3, 2011. (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Netflix Traffic Represents 25% of Frontier’s Broadband Traffic; Online Video — 50%

Wilderotter admitted Frontier’s broadband network is overcongested in many regions, which she partly blamed for the company’s anemic addition of new broadband customers.

She noted Netflix, which has itself consistently rated Frontier the worst wired broadband provider in the country for being able to deliver consistent, high quality access to their streaming service, represents one-quarter of all capacity usage of Frontier’s broadband network.

“Video is about 50 percent,” Wilderotter added.  In an investor conference call, she explained network congestion in more detail:

“In [the second quarter], we had many areas with unacceptable levels of network congestion, which negatively impacted our growth in net high-speed additions.” Wilderotter said. “We believe all of the major congestion issues will be fixed by the end of [the third quarter], and that will enable us to drive higher growth and net broadband activation in [former Verizon service areas.]”

“What we decided to do is to go for fixing the middle mile, which is the [central office] to the […] neighborhood and to expand that capability by 100-fold. And then also, expand from the [central office] out to the Internet and make sure that we have huge capacity to deliver and receive capability to our customers. So when we sell 6 meg, 10 meg, 25 meg, 50 meg, the customer gets what we sell them and that was extremely important for us.”

“So what we did is in the areas where we saw the congestion increase based upon usage increases, and we’ve built new households. We’ve held off on marketing to a lot of those new households until we fixed the congestion problem because we didn’t want to exacerbate what we had already. We’ve shifted capital in terms of the mix of how we’ve spent capital to fix this problem. I’d say we’re probably 75% of the way there in fixing congestion. This quarter is another big quarter for us to get all of the major issues out of the network, which will allow us in the back end of this quarter through the fourth quarter, to really start pushing the penetration levels where we’ve built new households in the areas that have been affected by congestion.”

Frontier Introduces Line Bonded DSL — Two Connections Can Improve DSL Speeds

Frontier Faster? Frontier announces line bonded DSL.

Frontier Communications also announced the introduction of Frontier Second Connect, a DSL line bonding product that delivers two physical connections to a single household.  Line bonding allows for improved broadband speeds.

“Second Connect gives our customers two exclusive connections in one household, and we’re the only provider in every market that can do that,” Wilderotter claimed.

In more urban markets, Frontier’s DSL speeds are woefully behind those available from most cable competitors.  Frontier has begun upgrading some of their legacy service areas and retiring older equipment in an effort to improve the quality of service.

“The real initiatives that we have underway are called middle mile, interoffice facilities, as well as some of the more aged equipment that’s in the network,” said Dan McCarthy, Frontier’s chief operating officer. “So as we go through, there’s about 600 projects that are underway today that will improve both the speed and capability.”

“We’ve inherited markets that there has not been upgrades to capacity in these markets for many years and fixes to the networks, plus the elements as the DSLAMs, even the DSLAMs themselves are old,” Wilderotter said. “So we’re replacing network elements in the neighborhood. We’re splitting them and moving customers to other network elements to make sure that they have a good experience.”

Frontier executives answer a question from a Wall Street banker about DSL speeds and congestion problems on Frontier’s broadband network. A detailed technical discussion ensues as the company tells investors it is redirecting some capital to fixing Frontier’s overcongested network. August 3, 2011. (5 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Frontier Still Losing More than 8% Of Its Landline Customers Every Year

Despite broadband rollouts and incremental improvements, more than eight percent of Frontier’s landline customers disconnect service permanently every year.  Frontier called that disconnect rate an improvement over its line losses last year, which exceeded 11 percent in some areas.

“Total line losses improved to an 8.6% year-over-year decline, our lowest level since taking ownership when the pro forma loss rate was 9.7%,” reported Wilderotter. “We also improved [the] loss rate [in former Verizon service areas to] 10.1% compared to 11.4% in Q2 2010.”

Most of Frontier’s departing customers are switching to cable providers and/or cell phone service.

(Update 8-23-2011: We are now told in many areas, Frontier’s Second Connect service is not actually a bonded DSL product, but rather a “dry loop” second DSL line that carries the same speed as your primary line.  Presumably, household members can divide up who uses which DSL circuit for Internet access.  The charge for Second Connect in ex-Verizon service areas is $14.99 per month plus a second mandatory monthly modem rental fee of $6.99. If the web link does not work, it means the service is not available in your service area.)

While wireless providers currently treat Wi-Fi as a friendly way to offload wireless data traffic from their 3G and 4G networks, the wireless industry is starting to ponder whether they can also earn additional profits from regulating your use of it.

Dean Bubley has written a white paper for the wireless industry exploring Wi-Fi use by smartphone owners, and ways the industry can potentially cash in on it.

“It is becoming increasingly clear that Wi-Fi access will be a strategic part of mobile operators’ future network plans,” Bubley writes. “There are multiple use cases, ranging from offloading congested cells, through to reducing overseas roaming costs and innovative in-venue services.”

Bubley’s paper explores the recent history of some cell phone providers aggressively trying to offload traffic from their congested 3G networks to more-grounded Wi-Fi networks.

Among the most intent:

• AT&T, which acquired Wayport, a major Wireless ISP, and is placing Wi-Fi hotspots at various venues and in high traffic tourist areas in major cities and wants to seamlessly switch Apple iPhone users to Wi-Fi, where available, whenever possible;
• PCCW in Hong Kong;
• KT in the Republic of Korea, which has moved as much as 67 percent of its data traffic to Wi-Fi;
• KDDI in Japan, which is planning to deploy as many as 100,000 Wi-Fi Hotspots across the country.

America's most aggressive data offloader is pushing more and more customers to using their Wi-Fi Hotspots.

Bubley says the congestion some carriers experience isn’t necessarily from users downloading too much or watching too many online shows.  Instead, it comes from “signalling congestion,” caused when a smartphone’s applications demand repeated attention from the carrier’s network.  An application that requires regular, but short IP traffic connections, can pose a bigger problem than a user simply downloading a file.  Moving this traffic to Wi-Fi can be a real resource-saver for wireless carriers.

Bubley notes many wireless companies would like to charge third-party developers fees to allow them access to each provider’s “app store.”  Applications that consume a lot of resources could be charged more by providers (or banned altogether), while those that “behave well” could theoretically be charged a lower fee.  The only thing preventing this type of a “two-sided business model,” charging both developers and consumers for the applications that work on smartphones, are Net Neutrality policies (or the threat of them) in many countries.

Instead, Bubley suggests, carriers should be more open and helpful with third party developers to assist them in developing more efficient applications on a voluntary basis.

Bubley also ponders future business strategies for Wi-Fi.  He explores the next generation of Wi-Fi networks that allow users to establish automatic connections to the best possible signal without ponderous log-in screens, and new clients that can intelligently search out and connect to approved networks without user intervention.  That means data traffic could theoretically be shifted to any authenticated or preferred Wi-Fi network without users having to mess with the phone’s settings.  At the same time, that same technology could be used to keep customers off of free, third party Wi-Fi networks, in favor of networks operators run themselves.

Policy controls are a major focus of Bubley’s paper.  While he advocates for customer-friendly use of such controls, sophisticated network management tools can also be used to make a fortune for wireless providers who want to nickle and dime customers to death with usage fees, or open up new markets pitching Wi-Fi networks to new customers.

Bubley

For example, a wireless carrier could sell a retail store ready-to-run Wi-Fi that pushes customers to a well-controlled, store-run network while customers shop — a network that forbids access to competitors or online merchants, in an effort to curtail browsing for items while comparing prices (or worse ordering) online from a competitor.

Customers could also face smartphones programmed to connect automatically to a Wi-Fi network, while excluding access to others while a “preferred” network is in range.  Wireless carriers could develop the same Internet Overcharging schemes for Wi-Fi use that they have rolled out for 3G and 4G wireless network access.  Also available: speed throttles for “non-preferred” applications, speed controls for less-valued ‘heavy users,’ and establishment of extra-fee “roaming charges” for using a non-preferred Wi-Fi network.

Bubley warns carriers not to go too far.

“[We] believe that operators need to internalize the concept of ‘WiFiNeutrality’ – actively blocking or impeding the user’s choice of hotspot or private Wi-Fi is likely to be as divisive and controversial as blocking particular Internet services,” Bubley writes.

In a blog entry, Bubley expands on this concept:

I’m increasingly convinced that mobile device / computing users will need sophisticated WiFi connection management tools in the near future. Specifically, ones that allow them to choose between multiple possible accesses in any given location, based on a variety of parameters. I’m also doubtful that anyone will want to allow a specific service provider’s software to take control and choose for them – at least not always.

We may see the emergence of “WiFi Neutrality” as an issue, if particular WiFi accesses start to be either blocked or “policy-managed” aggressively.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/The Future of Wi-Fi.flv[/flv]

Edgar Figueroa, chief executive officer of The Wi-Fi Alliance, speaks about the future of Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi technology has matured dramatically since its introduction more than a decade ago and today we find Wi-Fi in a wide variety of applications, devices and environments.  (3 minutes)

It’s Cell Company Customer Crackdown-month for AT&T and Verizon Wireless as the two carriers increasingly engage in aggressive “management” of their wireless data networks.  Days after AT&T announced it would throw customers off legacy unlimited data plans if caught using “unofficial” tethering applications, Verizon has reportedly locked out customers from accessing web pages over jailbreak apps like MyWi, redirecting requests to a Verizon Wireless $20 Mobile Hotspot offer instead.

Mobiledia reports Verizon now requires users have a hotspot-capable data plan if they want to tether data from their smartphones to other devices.  At regular prices, those plans start at $20 for 2GB of usage, with a $10/GB overlimit fee.  Certain LTE/4G customers have fared better, being offered unlimited tethering for $30 a month — an option not available to 3G phone owners.

The Federal Communications Commission’s Net Neutrality policy exempted wireless providers from observing its core principles, giving carriers carte blanche to block websites and third party applications from their networks, and Verizon has put the green light to good use.

AT&T has favored direct punitive measures against customers who don’t respond to their demands to upgrade by auto-enrolling customers in $45 tethering plans or threatening legacy customers with the loss of their unlimited data plan.

Some media reports — including those from Mobiledia — have declared third party tethering applications “illegal,” which is inaccurate.  While carriers may not like these applications and declare use of them contrary to their respective acceptable use policies, they do not violate any laws.

Loyal AT&T customers grandfathered on unlimited data plans are being paid back for their loyalty to the company with the threat of a speed throttle hanging over their heads if they don’t limit the use of their unlimited use plan.

The Washington Post reports, by AT&T’s calculations, anyone using 4GB of usage and up during the month is likely to find their smartphone neutered to near dial-up speed for the rest of the month:

The company said that it will throttle back data use for the top 5 percent of data consumers, who use “twelve times” what its average smartphone data customers use.

A recent Consumer Reports survey found that the average smartphone user on AT&T’s network uses 360 megabytes per month — meaning that only power users will feel the pinch. Using AT&T’s formula, the company’s likely scaling back its network for users who exceed 4 gigabytes per month.

Four gigabytes of usage on a smartphone is a considerable amount, if all you do is browse web pages, read e-mail, and access a handful of apps.  But consumers who increasingly rely on GPS navigation and streaming multimedia content, particularly videos, will find they don’t have to live on their smartphones to put themselves on AT&T’s bad side.  Even devoted attention to video streams from a home security system could consume a considerable amount of data on a usage plan that was supposed to be unlimited.

“It’s a slap in the face to loyal customers who have been with AT&T for a decade or longer,” says Stop the Cap! reader Paul.  “Wireless providers used to operate on rewarding loyalty by letting customers keep their plans intact unless and until they change plans or depart for another provider.  Now AT&T is literally cattle-prodding their most loyal customers who pay $30 a month for an unlimited plan that will now have limits.”

Paul wonders why anyone would want to keep an unlimited plan that will be throttled to punish customers with unusable speeds.

“Clearly, Verizon moving away from unlimited data allowed AT&T to stick it to customers who know they have few places to run,” Paul writes. “This is probably only the beginning.  Why again would we want AT&T to get any bigger than it already is?”