The case involves late fees charged to Frontier FiOS video customers in the state of Oregon.

Frontier Communications FiOS video customers that paid late fees for service in the state of Oregon may be entitled to a partial refund after the telecom company settled a class action case.

The settlement, announced today will cover both current and former customers.

Some key points:

• Customers that are potentially included in this class action settlement will receive a separate notice in the next 60 to 90 days;
• The separate notice will include additional information and instructions regarding steps they can take if they are eligible for a refund;
• A claims administrator will be identified and responsible for providing notices to former and existing customers;
• Customers must wait until they receive a notice regarding the settlement from the claims administrator which outlines additional steps that must be taken.

The company was accused of unjustly charging and collecting late fees for video customers whose payments were processed late as the company assumed control of the FiOS service from Verizon Communications.

An internal memo sent to Frontier employees and obtained by Stop the Cap! suggests the company is expecting calls from customers inquiring about the settlement. Other than telling employees to express empathy, company officials have asked customer service representatives to avoid speculating about the case and referring customers to forthcoming communications from the settlement administrator within the next two to three months.

The lawsuit only covers Oregon residents.

Telecom door fees and other accommodations are often illegal under New York State law.

More details are emerging over Verizon’s complaint to the New York Public Service Commission after the company was refused entry to several New York multi-dwelling buildings to restore phone service after Hurricane Sandy and upgrade tenants to the company’s fiber optic network FiOS.

The New York Times reports the management blockade of telecom companies is nothing new. In some instances, landlords even expect to receive compensation for unlocking the front door for Verizon and Time Warner Cable, despite the fact it is illegal.

Verizon spokesman John Bonomo declined to tell the newspaper how much landlords are asking, but cable industry executives tell stories of building owners demanding as much as $150 per apartment in what they call “door fees.”

Verizon noted DSA Management, the company that takes care of 11 Maiden Lane, has asked for compensation. Theoretically, if DSA requested the same amount, it would run more than $10,000.

A DSA Management executive claims tenants in the building never lost phone service because of the storm and had no interest in the additional services Verizon FiOS had to offer. But a Stop the Cap! reader living in one of the impacted buildings shared a very different story with us.

“My phone has not worked right since even before Sandy hit,” shares a reader who wishes to remain anonymous to avoid possible retaliation. “You can get a dial tone but you also get to hear half of Manhattan when you make a phone call. I can’t hear myself over the other conversations. Verizon has let their copper network go to crap.”

The reader says Verizon is aware of the problem and a trouble ticket is open, and the company indicated it was having trouble arranging access to fix the problem.

“I want FiOS yesterday. I guess some of these building owners already have it and will let us have it if the kickback is finally high enough. Time Warner Cable comes and goes whenever they like.”

Bonomo told the Times Verizon has paid “nominal fees” to building owners before, ostensibly to post fliers and set up sales tables in the lobby.

In some states, renters don’t have much of a choice. Cable operators have been known to sign lucrative deals with property owners to sign everyone in the complex up for cable, bundling the monthly bill into rent payments or mandatory fees. Customers can refuse the service, but they will still pay for it.

Some building owners claim they have a natural hesitancy allowing telecom companies into their buildings because they do not always take care to hide their work or avoid inconveniencing tenants with noise or damage.

TF Cornerstone says Verizon should not be in a hurry to effect repairs at 2 Gold Street or 201 Pearl Street. Both luxury high-rises have been uninhabitable since Sandy struck and until heat, hot water, and electricity is back, FiOS can wait, they say.

Google Fiber is more than the experimental publicity/political “stunt” many large cable companies and Wall Street investors have suspected since the search giant first announced it would build a 1,000/1,000Mbps fiber to the home network.

BTIG Research, which follows the telecom sector for large institutional investors and investment managers, says there is a lot more to Google Fiber than many initially thought.

If Google’s fiber project expands outside of Kansas City, it could ultimately transform the business model of broadband in the United States. It already has generated unease for Time Warner Cable, which has resorted to knocking on doors to preserve its customer relationships.

It is one thing to consider Google Fiber from a New York City office and another to see it working on the ground. BTIG’s Rich Greenfield and Walt Piecyk decided to travel to Kansas City to investigate the new fiber service first-hand.

“We believe Google Fiber will accelerate rapidly, changing consumer habits in its territory,” they concluded. “While it is very early in Google Fiber’s life, we fully expect Google to build out more markets after they perfect the broadband and TV offerings in Kansas City.”

There is ready-made demand, judging from the 1,100 cities that asked Google Fiber to set up shop locally. Local governments recognize their telecommunications future has been largely monopolized by one cable and one phone company, and it is important for that to change. Some have taken steps to build their own networks, others will throw a parade if Google does it for them. Reasoning with the likes of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and Verizon — among several others — has not gotten world class broadband at a reasonable price. Instead, many incumbent players have used their market power to raise prices, restrict usage with unnecessary usage caps, and retard innovation.

Google may prove to be the only force large and aggressive enough to throw a monkey wrench into the comfortable business plans and conventional wisdom about how broadband should be packaged and sold in this country. Community owned providers have shown they can deliver superior service and pricing, but face deep-pocketed incumbents that can use predatory pricing to save customers in one market while raising prices on captive customers in others. Incumbent providers also have successfully advocated for protectionist bans on publicly-owned broadband in a number of states. Washington regulators have thus far been largely supine and disengaged when asked to address the challenges consumers face from rising bills for more restricted service.

BTIG’s own research is a marked departure from the usual dismissive attitude incumbents and Wall Street have paid to the Google project. Greenfield himself acknowledges that the investment and business media communities typically respond with three reactions when one mentions Google Fiber:

• “Is it a sustainable business with those economics?”
• “How much cash are they blowing?”
• “Who cares about what they are doing in a couple of relatively small cities such as the Kansas Cities?”

But such thinking underestimates Google’s potential much the same way Yahoo! and AltaVista did with their dominant search engines a decade ago. The biggest mistake one could make is to assume Google just wants to be another competing cable or phone company. It goes far beyond that.

Greenfield believes Google is seeking to become an integral part of the communities it serves, equal in stature to the cable and phone companies, but without their reviled reputation.

But the most significant change Google brings is a challenge to the current business model of consumer broadband.

Phone and cable companies first monetized broadband speeds. The faster the speed chosen, the higher the price. The earnings power of broadband gradually increased as more Americans signed up for service and the costs to provide it declined. But as cable TV margins continue to erode, the money to cover the difference has come from broadband, which has seen regular, unjustified rate increases since 2010. Not content with monetizing broadband speed alone, many providers are also attempting to monetize broadband usage with usage limits and/or consumption-based billing schemes. A recent Wall Street Journal article estimated 90 percent of the price consumers pay for Internet access is profit.

With that kind of profit margin, the economics of Google’s ambitious fiber project do not look as unfavorable as some on Wall Street suggest.

Greenfield calls Google’s 1 gigabit speeds insanely low-priced at $70 a month. He’s right when one considers current pricing models of incumbents. At Time Warner Cable’s current pricing (50/5Mbps service for $99 a month), the cable company would charge consumers $1,980 a month for 1,000/1,000Mbps service, assuming they could actually deliver it. Upstream speeds above 5Mbps might cost even more. Cable television, which used to be the core service offered by cable companies, is almost an afterthought for Google. It can be added for $50 more per month, which is actually cheaper than many competing providers charge for a similar package.

Greenfield feels Google has an aspirational goal for its Kansas City network.

“In Kansas City, Google has a customer facing service with employees who are part of your community, trucks that come to your house and customer service reps that answer your questions when you need help,” Greenfield notes.

On that basis, Google can reboot itself into an entirely new entity in Kansas City, offering much more than a broadband service and a search engine.

Google’s sleek network box.

Greenfield notes Google Fiber has been carefully developed to break away from the familiar experience one has with the phone and cable company:

• The home terminals and DVR equipment more closely resemble a sleek Apple product, not a Motorola/Cisco set top box that has looked largely the same since the 1990s;
• The installation experience has been streamlined — the external network interface on the side of the customer’s home does not require anyone to be home during the installation, reducing the time needed for a customer to sit around while service is installed inside;
• In-home equipment envisions a more integrated IP-based network future with Ethernet and Wi-Fi connectivity, a centralized storage device which acts as an enhanced whole house DVR, and a minimalist TV box that can be hidden — no more unsightly hulking set top boxes. It represents a home entertainment network that goes far beyond what the competition is offering.

These factors deliver a positive customer experience, if only because Google paid attention to complaints from cable and telephone subscribers and decided to do things differently.

Other traditional business model busters noted by Greenfield:

• Google will deliver 6/1Mbps budget priced Internet for a $300 one time fee (payable in $20 installments) which includes an in-home router, breaking through the digital divide and getting Google’s infrastructure into homes that simply cannot afford traditional cable or phone company broadband. It blows away the current “lite” offering sold by cable and phone companies with much better speeds at a far lower price;
• Google is working with charitable organizations to help the poorest get broadband for even less, through donations and other fundraising;
• Google leverages the community as a crowd-sourced marketing engine. Word of mouth advertising and competition among different neighborhoods helps drive the expansion of the network. Even if a consumer has no interest in the service, many fight to see it in their neighborhoods for the benefit of local community institutions who will receive free hookups;
• Every new customer signed up for two years’ service receives a free Nexus tablet. The tablet is sold as the service’s “remote control,” but it is capable of much more;
• No data caps, no speed throttling. With just two speed tiers, Google has completely discarded the speed-based and usage-based business models for broadband.

A Nexus 7 tablet comes free with the service (and a two year commitment)

So what exactly does BTIG think is Google’s master plan? Greenfield suspects Google is not recouping its initial investment or costs with their current pricing model, but that may not matter. Google may earn profit in other ways.

A 33% increase in the number of homes with broadband could be a substantial boost for Google search and YouTube, earning Google additional revenue. Improved broadband available to an entire household guarantees people will spend more time online, especially with no data caps or slow speeds. Enormously faster upload speed promotes more content sharing, which in turn means more time online with services like YouTube. A home tablet enables even more broadband usage, according to Greenfield.

As broadband speeds improve, advertisers can expose web visitors to more attractive, multimedia rich advertising not easily possible on slower speed connections. That could let Google tap into a greater share of the $60 billion TV ad market, especially for YouTube videos.

Finally, Greenfield suspects the more Google develops brand loyalty, the more successful it will be pitching consumers and businesses on services of the future.

Greenfield notes there are still bugs and features to be worked on, particularly with Google’s TV offering, but the company will have plenty of opportunities to manage those before it introduces Google Fiber elsewhere.

The implications of an expanding fiber to the home universe in the United States under Google’s price model could deliver a potent punch to incumbents like Time Warner Cable. So far, the cable company has only faced satellite dish competition for television, a technologically inferior AT&T U-verse, which will never have the capacity Time Warner has so long as the phone company still relies on any significant amount of copper wiring, and Verizon FiOS, which has disengaged from a price war with the cable company and is raising prices.

The writing is already on the wall, at least in Kansas City. Greenfield relays that Time Warner has been going all-out to improve its own customer service. One customer noted Time Warner Cable came to his house twice in recent weeks, without a scheduled service call, to check on the quality of his Internet speeds and to make sure the customer was happy.

In some neighborhoods, Time Warner is going door to door to interact with customers, something not done since cable operators first knocked on doors 30 years ago to introduce you to their service.

Google Fiber could ultimately force the end of one more legacy the cable industry has earned itself over the past few decades: customers loathing its service and prices.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google Fiber Demo by BTIG’s Rich Greenfield and Walt Piecyk 11-23-12.flv[/flv]

BTIG’s Rich Greenfield and Walt Piecyk experience Google Fiber in Kansas City.  (3 minutes)

Can Verizon be enticed to puts its FiOS trucks back on the road to expansion?

Despite the fact further expansion of Verizon FiOS has been stalled for more than two years as a result of a company directive, local officials in one Massachusetts community won a commitment from Verizon to extend its fiber to the home service to every home and business in return for a lengthy contract renewal.

Just nine months after local officials in Medford, north of Boston, first signed an agreement with Verizon, The Medford Transcript reports the two were back at the negotiating table with an amended agreement to extend Verizon FiOS beyond the 71 percent already served in return for a franchise that will not expire until 2025.

Verizon originally left large sections of West Medford and several neighborhoods scattered around the area without a fiber upgrade.

Verizon regional president Donna Cupelo acknowledged Medford is the only community in the state that has won a second round of FiOS expansion.

Like many cable franchise agreements, Verizon has agreed to contribute towards the operation of the community’s Public, Educational, and Government access channels available to subscribers of both Comcast and Verizon FiOS.

The amended agreement will expire at the same time Comcast’s current franchise agreement ends, giving both providers parity.

Verizon’s agreement to expand its FiOS network under certain conditions may provide the first visible path for other communities with incomplete fiber service to entice Verizon to keep building its fiber network.

Major cable and phone companies are rolling out new bundled packages and promotions designed to protect their cable television packages from cord cutting.

Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have all run promotions that carry a clear message: cancel your cable television and your wallet gets it.

The Wall Street Journal shared the story of Comcast subscriber Cathy Vu, who decided she no longer wanted cable TV and tried to downgrade to a broadband-only account.

Comcast gave her an offer she could not afford to refuse when the representative explained canceling cable television would increase her monthly bill $20. As a result, Vu decided she would save more money keeping her cable television turned on.

Welcome to the new world of double and triple play bundled pricing promotions that bring downgrade penalties customers cannot ignore.

The idea of repricing cable service to protect vulnerable cable television and phone service began in earnest after analysts like Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett began noticing customers were no longer addicted to keeping cable television, no matter the cost. He proposed a solution: price broadband service higher and cut the cost of cable television.

The result: carefully constructed promotional and bundled package offers that entice customers to purchase services they might not even want, to get the best (and sometimes lowest) price. Gone were promotions that offered phone, broadband, and television service for $33 each. In their place, new pricing that charges $60-70 for the first service, and heavily discounted prices for each additional service.

You know the pitch:

“Yes, I am calling to sign up for broadband service,” you say.

“Certainly, I would be glad to help you with that. But did you know that for just $20 more a month, you can also get cable television?”

“Really, it’s only $20 more? Sure.”

“I am thrilled to hear you say that. But I hope you are sitting down because I have more good news. For just $10 more, we can give you a phone line with unlimited local and long distance calling. How much do you pay the phone company now?”

“Too much, that sounds like an amazing deal, so I get everything together for $99 a month?”

“You sure do, for the first 12 months anyway.”

One year later when the promotion ends, you call to begin downgrading service to lower your bill. But cable and phone companies are increasingly ready for you.

First they will offer you a slightly less attractive promotional retention offer to keep your business. If you accept, the company gets to book the extra revenue and probably locked you into an annual service agreement.

If you don’t bite and insist on a downgrade, they have some bad news for you — that broadband service you still want will now cost you $60-70 a month, including the modem fee.

If you bail early on a promotional discount offer, the bite on your wallet can be significant.

The Journal found unbundling just does not pay:

• Comcast: TV + Internet for about $50/month for the first 6 months vs. standalone same speed Internet for about $70/month.
• Verizon FiOS: TV + Internet for about $85/month (two-year contract) vs. standalone Internet for about $80/month.
• Time Warner Cable: TV + Internet for about $50/month for 12 months vs. standalone Internet for about $45/month for 12 months, then up to $60 after that.

At the end of the day, Moffett and the rest of Wall Street get their wish — preservation of the all-important growing average revenue (ARPU) collected from each customer. Downgrades lower ARPU, so they must be discouraged at all costs.

Cable operators “recognize that their most advantaged product is broadband,” said Moffett. “They don’t want to sacrifice that advantage by giving the opportunity for customers to cherry pick their best product at a low price and take the rest of your services from somebody else. In effect, they are pricing the broadband at a price that discourages you from taking broadband only.”

Customers primed for cord cutting (or who have never bought cable TV) are likely to receive targeted mailings from Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable encouraging subscriptions to cable TV and prices that nearly give the service away.

Comcast’s Blast Plus promotion in selected markets delivers 30Mbps broadband with Digital Economy television service, both for $50 a month for six months. Internet-only customers would pay $70 per month for the same speeds without television.

Time Warner Cable in New York City wants to be your cable TV supplier so much, it offers a package of broadband and throws in Broadcast Basic service for just $5 more per month. Combined, Turbo Internet and television will cost $49.99 a month for a year. Standalone Internet on a promotion runs $45 a month for 12 months.

On a strict cost basis, charging more for Internet does not make sense. The Journal reports that about 90% of your monthly broadband bill is pure profit for cable operators, because the cost of delivering the service has continued to plummet to all-time lows. Cable television is no longer the cash cow it used to be for cable operators because programmers increasingly demand a piece of the profit pie. Today, cable operators only get to book about 35% of your monthly cable television payment as profit.

[flv width=”640″ height=”369″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Cable Cord Cutting Less Attractive 11-13-12.mp4[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal examines the trend towards repricing broadband service so that customers feel compelled to keep their cable television package or face even higher bills.  (5 minutes)