Back in the 1980s, a group of ragtag rural home satellite dishowners with 10 foot dishes took on the cable television industry for forcing viewers to purchase a set top decoder unit ($395) and paying programming prices higher than what cable viewers paid.  It was all part of an effort by the cable industry, which had an ownership interest in most cable networks back then, to discourage consumers from purchasing satellite dishes to escape ever-increasing cable rates.

Back then, these consumers ran into the same kind of Congress we endure today — quick to listen to industry representatives bearing campaign contributions and slow to respond to the needs and interests of their constituents who elected them.  Indeed, in one infamous example, a call placed to then-New York Senator Al D’Amato resulted in a staff member asking “what company are you with?”

Despite the power and influence of corporate interests protecting their turf, earning enormous profits along the way, many satellite dishowners stayed in the fight, and as cable rate increases continued, major reforms were finally enacted in the 1992 Cable Act which made small satellite dish services like DISH and DirecTV possible.

The struggle for Net Neutrality reminds me of that fight, and the fact it would take time to overcome the special interests and obtain important reforms.  Here at Stop the Cap!, we’ve won more battles than we’ve lost thanks to a small army of consumers who despise Internet Overcharging schemes and are tired of paying outrageous high prices for broadband and other telecommunications services.  Giving up the fight is not an option.

As the 111th Congress draws to a close, efforts to enact Net Neutrality through legislation this year have come to naught.

We were also disappointed by Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  Despite his promising start at the agency, after more than a year watching his performance he has proven to be far better at making speeches than actually implementing policy.  His indecision and dawdling has resulted in a failure to deliver on his promise to reclassify broadband as — what it is — a telecommunications service.  That leaves standing a federal court decision that swept away the Commission’s authority to oversee broadband and stop abusive behavior.  For providers, that’s a dream come true.  Just consider this week’s story that Clear is throttling their customers despite marketing claims they would never do such a thing.

But not to worry, America.  AT&T is “committed to an open Internet,” proclaims the company in a new, feel-good advertisement.  AT&T’s public policy ad claims the company stands with the Obama Administration on delivering universal access to broadband by 2020.

“The future,” the ad claims, “has always been our business.”

The notion is just so warm and fuzzy, it makes me want to adopt puppies and kittens.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Public Policy Commercial.flv[/flv]

AT&T’s newest ad promotes the company’s public policy agenda, which opposes Net Neutrality while still claiming to respect its core principles.  (1 minute)

Of course, AT&T is not so warm and friendly in Washington.  This is the company that dwarfs all other Big Telecoms in spending its customers’ money on hardcore lobbying blitzkriegs on Capitol Hill, drowning Washington in cash and fooling consumers with fake front groups pretending to represent their interests.

Suz, a third-year graduate student at Georgetown University’s Communication, Culture and Technology (CCT) program, noticed some of our earlier coverage on the topic of AT&T and wrote this is a company with a history:

The ad really struck me because of its message and because of the medium. In another class I’m currently taking – The Development of Electronic Media – we just came to the chapter on the development of the telephone and the major influence that AT&T held over that field for the majority of the 20th century. In part because of government regulations supporting the idea of “universal service” and in part because of the desire to connect rural areas with urban areas on the same line of service, the federal powers – though they put a little pressure on after AT&T acquired Western Union with the threat of anti-trust lawsuit – eventually support AT&T’s decompetitive nature by insisting on a compatible network and blocking “duplicative” services, giving AT&T the far-and-away lead in the market.

“The future has always been our business – AT&T.”

Now, there was a lot of history between this “golden age” of monopoly for AT&T and its eventual position today. But what I find striking is the similar-sounding stance to then-CEO Vail’s mission statement of universal service. Their motive may not have been as altruistic as the motto was (one way to attain universal service is to place it in the hands of one provider), but it eventually convinced the government that its powers could be used for good, even at the expense of a competitive (and innovative) marketplace.

Welcome to AT&T v2.0.

AT&T’s dominance in landlines is now at an end, but its influence over the telecommunications medium of the 21st century — the Internet, is just beginning.

The timing could not be more ironic, either.  While AT&T supports the goal for universal broadband service, it is fiercely lobbying to abandon a promise it made a generation earlier to deliver universal landline telephone service.  For that earlier commitment to wire every home, it was granted monopoly status for much of the 20th century.

AT&T has promised to be benevolent if it can remain a completely unregulated mega-player in the broadband industry.  It won’t openly censor opposing viewpoints, but it reserves the right to slow them down to make room for its preferred content partners.  AT&T won’t control what you see or do online, but it does want the right to limit how much of the seeing and doing you can do without overlimit usage fees kicking in.  But no worries, America — AT&T promises full disclosure, so at least you will know you’ve been network managed and overcharged for service.

Jeffrey Burnbaum — writing for the Washington Post — notes AT&T was the gold standard of high powered lobbying and little has changed today:

In the 1980s, AT&T was known for having one of the largest and most skilled corporate offices in Washington. Its representatives were everywhere and well-regarded on Capitol Hill. I remember one encounter between a tall AT&T lobbyist and an elegant McLean matron at a congressional cocktail party. The woman pecked the lobbyist on the cheek and then teased him: “I see you’re wearing your sincere blue suit.” He laughed knowingly — as did the lawmakers standing nearby and with whom he held much sway.

But personal respect wasn’t enough to hold back the tide, either. The telecommunications act of 1996 demonstrated the growing clout of the Baby Bells and AT&T made one last stab at restoring its prowess. In 1998 it hired a former White House deputy chief of staff, James W. Cicconi, to reorganize its Washington presence.

The former aide to George H. W. Bush put together what stands to this day as the model of a contemporary lobbying campaign. Under his guidance, AT&T dispensed tons of campaign cash, formed coalitions with sympathetic-sounding organizations, hired some of the biggest names in downtown Washington as lobbyists and spent millions of dollars on television advertising.

Net Neutrality advocates believe broadband reform is essential in the marketplace duopoly that exists today for most Americans.  With limited options, providers must do more than commit to an open Internet — they must be compelled to deliver it.  The industry’s scare tactics of slowed investment, job losses, and lost innovation are as patently ridiculous — and offensive — as similar claims made by the company over its breakup in the early 1980s.  With the power and influence of lobbying, telecommunications deregulation has allowed them to start putting the pieces back together again.  They are richer and more powerful than ever.

But can they be overcome?  Considering the cable industry deeply underestimated the impact of a consumer outcry over the industry’s abusive practices in the 1980s and early 1990s, the answer remains yes.  Just like the speeds of AT&T’s DSL service, it is just going to take awhile.

High speed Internet, snail slow refunds

Each time Frontier Communications gets mentioned on Stop the Cap!, we receive e-mail from disgruntled customers arriving to share their horror stories.  Since Frontier has now absorbed Verizon landlines in several states, that e-mail is only increasing.

Because so many messages arrive on different topics, we’ll be trying to share your stories with our readers based on the types of problems experienced.  Today, it’s the issue of refunds.

Stop the Cap! reader Alexia from Elk Grove, California writes:

Phillip, I want my money.  For four months, I have called, written, and called again to ask where my refund check from Frontier is.  We disconnected our service from Frontier back in May and our final bill had a credit of nearly $150 on our two landlines, DSL, and returned equipment.  Why so much?  Because we were quoted a final amount for our account and instead of using their auto-payment service, we mailed them a last check.  They withdrew that amount electronically from our checking account anyway, so we had double payments.

This isn’t just me.  My sister decided to disconnect her phone and will rely on her cell phone from now on, and she’s still waiting for her final credit balance to arrive back as well.

When you call Frontier, assuming you don’t get a busy signal or are left on hold, they seem very sympathetic and promise the refund has been processed and they are sending the check in the mail.  The Pony Express could have gotten the check to us by now.  My sister is waiting for $22 to be returned to her.

When I have canceled credit cards, utilities, and other services and have a credit balance, most of them include a check either in the final statement or in a letter that arrives within the month.  Not Frontier.  One representative claimed they don’t send refunds right away in case they discover additional charges they need to apply to an account.  What charges?  Are they hoping to find some?  We have not made a long distance call on our landline in years since getting a cell phone and I cannot imagine what other charges they are talking about.

What is the story here?

The check is in the mail

Stop the Cap! reader Jeff in Elko, Nevada had a similar problem:

My job transferred me to Reno in July and we canceled our service with Frontier and are still waiting for our last bill refund because we had a credit balance.  It was only around $8, but that was after I had to argue with them about a cancellation fee they tried to charge me and a fee for the DSL modem we returned to them.  They credited our account for both after talking to a supervisor but now it is a waiting game for the final refund check to arrive.  Every other company we canceled service with, right down to the propane people handled our final bill correctly.  Not Frontier.

Since moving to Reno, we signed up for AT&T service which turned out to be way better than the DSL we had with Frontier that went offline nearly every afternoon, so we’re fine saying goodbye to them.  Frontier has been in Elko for awhile now so I can only imagine what the Verizon customers are now dealing with.

In September, Frontier’s “the check is in the mail” excuse caught the attention of a Sacramento TV station’s consumer reporter.

Jeanne Pritchett Melendez of Elk Grove was also waiting for a refund check from Frontier for just over $15.

Back in May, Jeanne paid her Frontier phone bill ahead of time.  And when she canceled her service mid-month, her bill was pro-rated and she was promised her money back.  She called the company… Asking when her check would be sent. And every time, she says she was told, it’s on its way.  But after more than three months…

“I was very frustrated and I said, you know what, if I don’t have a check in the mail by Friday, I’m going to call Kurtis [Ming – CBS13 Consumer Reporter],” says Jeanne.

Melendez got her refund before our readers did, along with an explanation from Frontier about why refunds take months to arrive:

Frontier Communications Statement:

Frontier’s refund process is to refund the final credit balance on disconnected accounts within 2 to 3 bill cycles from the disconnect date to allow time for any additional credits or charges that need to be applied to the account. This process is to ensure that the customer receives an accurate refund check.

The customer’s account reflects that the service was disconnected on May 13, 2010. The May 22nd , June 22nd and July 22nd bills reflected a credit balance in the amount of $15.03. A refund check in the amount of $15.03 was processed on the account on August 9th. The customer will receive the refund check within 10 to 14 business days to the address on record.

The representatives are trained to alert the customer that it can take 2-3 billing cycles which is usually between 30-60 days. However in the case of Ms. Melendez’s account the disconnect notice was so close to the bill date that three bill cycles were required to process the refund.

— Stephanie Beasly, Communications Manager

This isn’t the first time Kurtis Ming has had to approach Frontier Communications about Sacramento area residents’ frustrations with the company.  Back in July, KOVR-TV ran a story about a Frontier customer who was paying a whopping $15 a month for Frontier’s Peace of Mind hard drive backup service he never got because he didn’t realize he had to download software to get the feature installed.  While that was not Frontier’s fault (and the company provided a credit to the customer for the service he never used), charging $15 a month for a service other customers are paying less to receive isn’t exactly fair either.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOVR Sacramento Frontier Service Problems 7-7 and 9-17-10.flv[/flv]

KOVR-TV in Sacramento ran two segments on Elk Grove-area customers having problems with Frontier Communications — one waiting for a refund and the other charged for a service he didn’t realize he had.  (4 minutes)

Verizon, the nation’s largest wireless phone company, has agreed to refund erroneous data charges for 15 million subscribers who paid for data sessions they did not initiate.

Those familiar with the proposed refund settlement claim the company could spend between $50-90 million in refunds for customers without data plans who were charged, in some cases repeatedly, $1.99 for a few seconds of web access.

The problem stems from Verizon phones that make accessing data services easy to trigger.  One misplaced button press can launch a data session, resulting in a web access fee.  Verizon repeatedly denied the company was charging customers who accidentally landed on the provider’s wireless home page, but customers loudly claimed otherwise, filing hundreds of complaints against Verizon with the Federal Communications Commission.

Teresa Dixon Murray, a reporter for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, was among the first to report on the mysterious charges many customers couldn’t figure out, especially as they continued even for customers who placed a “block” on accessing data services or who had powered their phones off and were still charged the fees:

In a column last summer, I chronicled my battle with Verizon after I discovered Verizon had been concocting $1.99 monthly charges for supposed Web use by my family plan numbers. Verizon’s ruse ended the month that my son’s phone was dead and locked away for weeks.

Verizon responded directly to me in a meeting with several top executives, and they promised to investigate the problems suffered by thousands of customers nationwide. The company in August also promised to change its policy of charging customers if they accidentally hit their phone’s “mobile Web” button. The new policy: To get charged, customers now supposedly have to type in a Web address.

A Verizon Wireless employee anonymously told the New York Times the scheme was a planned money-maker for Verizon, which earned up to $300 million a month just from accidental web access:

“The phone is designed in such a way that you can almost never avoid getting $1.99 charge on the bill. Around the OK button on a typical flip phone are the up, down, left, right arrows. If you open the flip and accidentally press the up arrow key, you see that the phone starts to connect to the web. So you hit END right away. Well, too late. You will be charged $1.99 for that 0.02 kilobytes of data. NOT COOL. I’ve had phones for years, and I sometimes do that mistake to this day, as I’m sure you have. Legal, yes; ethical, NO.

“Every month, the 87 million customers will accidentally hit that key a few times a month! That’s over $300 million per month in data revenue off a simple mistake!

“Our marketing, billing, and technical departments are all aware of this. But they have failed to do anything about it—and why? Because if you get 87 million customers to pay $1.99, why stop this revenue? Customer Service might credit you if you call and complain, but this practice is just not right.

“Now, you can ask to have this feature blocked. But even then, if you one of those buttons by accident, your phone transmits data; you get a message that you cannot use the service because it’s blocked–BUT you just used 0.06 kilobytes of data to get that message, so you are now charged $1.99 again!

“They have started training us reps that too many data blocks are being put on accounts now; they’re actually making us take classes called Alternatives to Data Blocks. They do not want all the blocks, because 40% of Verizon’s revenue now comes from data use. I just know there are millions of people out there that don’t even notice this $1.99 on the bill.”

Verizon’s decision to refund the erroneous data charges also comes long after a class action lawsuit was filed earlier this year against the company by Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., of behalf of customers.

Impacted existing customers can expect credits, typically ranging from $2-6 on their October or November bills.  Former customers will get refund checks in the mail.

The Federal Communications Commission said it was opening an investigation into the Verizon overcharges, seeking a financial penalty from the wireless carrier, according to Reuters.

The news agency noted some customers were billed for data fees just because of software pre-loaded onto phones:

The charges affected customers who did not have data usage plans, but were billed because of exchanges initiated by software built into their phones.

For example, trying out a demonstration of a game that Verizon Wireless had pre-loaded onto a phone would sometimes trigger data transmissions from the phone unbeknownst to the customers who were then charged by Verizon Wireless for the data.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPRI Providence Verizon To Pay Millions In Refunds 10-4-10.flv[/flv]

WPRI-TV in Providence covers the Verizon overcharges, pondering ‘why did it take more than two years for refunds?’  (3 minutes)

Stage two of the nightmare is billing problems, and one West Virginia family discovered a phone bill they couldn't imagine possible.

Frontier Communications’ performance in West Virginia is starting to resemble northern New England’s never ending nightmare with FairPoint, the phone company that couldn’t manage landline service for customers in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont and ended up in bankruptcy.  Things have gotten so bad, Frontier Communications now earns an “F” rating from the Better Business Bureau, called out specifically for failing to respond to complaints filed against the provider, failure to resolve the complaints they did acknowledge, and government action taken against the company for deceptive business practices.

Stop the Cap! reader Ralph in West Virginia drops us a line to share the latest progress the company is making in his part of West Virginia, or rather the lack thereof, starting with his own personal story:

The afternoon of  Thursday Sep. 2nd, our phones were out of order for awhile but were working by 4pm.  The DSL was still out so I waited to see if they’d get it fixed later that evening.  When it was still out Friday afternoon, I called to report it and asked if they had a reported outage for the area.  Their answer was no, and they proceeded to ask me to reset the modem and perform some additional diagnostic testing.

That didn’t “fix” it so they filed a trouble ticket and told me a technician would be out to check the outside wiring and, if needed, give me a new modem.  Frontier never showed up, so I called again and was left on hold for 30 of the 35 minutes that phone call lasted. I was finally told that it was a known outage affecting 12 people in the area.  No repairs were made on Sunday so I called on Monday and was told the problem now affected 16 people and they had no idea when it would be fixed.  It was finally fixed five days after initially reporting the outage, and nobody bothered to explain why it took so long.  I was later bemused to find an article in the weekly county paper that noted the outage was now up to impacting 20 people.

In your earlier report about Frontier, a spokesman for the company claimed the company follows a protocol about calling customers with service problems to see if the issues were resolved, but that call didn’t come until Sep. 8th, a full 24 hours after our DSL service was restored.  Keep up the good work, maybe Frontier and other providers will realize that the system is broken and we do want and need high speed Internet.

Ralph is not alone in having trouble with Frontier.  Just as Stop the Cap! reported with FairPoint’s failure in New England, service problems are just the beginning of the “fun” for transitioned customers.  Billing problems come next, and Frontier followed through in spades for one West Virginia family.

Meet Johna and Paul Snatchko, who are being billed $671.45 for dial-up Internet service calls by Frontier.  Not only did Frontier fail to deliver broadband service to the northwestern part of the state, now the Snatchko family has had to quit using dial-up Internet as well because the Snatchko’s claim Frontier made accessing the service a long distance call.

“When we switched from Verizon to Frontier, they said nothing will change,” Paul told WTOV News. “Well, there’s change.”

Despite selling the Snatchko family “unlimited long distance” service, Frontier still charged every call to their ISP at the regular long distance rate.  Why use dial-up in the first place?

“In this part of West Virginia, you’re very limited in your service,” Paul explained. “Dial-up is it for us. We’ve tried everything else. The only thing we could get was dial-up.”

The family also endured another Frontier specialty — the constantly changing promotional offers that are poorly explained by the company’s customer service representatives.

“They said it doesn’t include their package deal with the computer,” Johnna said, referring to a common Frontier promotion for a free netbook in return for a bundled package of services on a two year contract. “The first couple months it did and now it doesn’t include it.”

Frontier Communications earned an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau

Frontier’s spokesman for the area, Bill Moon, made yet another TV appearance to try and explain it all away.

“There are billing problems that can happen anytime you have a switch over like that,” he told WTOV. “It’s probably a simple mistake on this particular customer’s bill, something that can be rectified pretty easy.”

Apparently not. Frontier told the family they have received two credits already and that is the last time the company is willing to provide them.

Despite the increasing frequency and seriousness of complaints now becoming a staple on the nightly news, Moon said incidents like this are rare.  He told the station out of more than 60,000 lines of service, they’ve had about 10 problems at most.

West Virginians are also waking up to the realization that Frontier’s promised “fiber upgrades” are little more than bait and switch, and they’ll never be able to directly access the fiber the company is installing.  As Stop the Cap! has reported previously, Frontier’s residential customers are more likely to encounter beneficial fiber in their morning breakfast cereal than from Frontier Communications.

The Charleston media is abuzz about the fact taxpayers are footing the bill for a $40 million fiber network that the company will own free and clear, and charge top dollar prices to access.  Citynet, one of Frontier’s competitors, blew the whistle over Frontier’s much-ballyhooed fiber expansion that is actually intended to serve public institutions, wholesale customers, and Frontier’s “middle-mile” network — not directly benefit consumers:

[…]Once Frontier spends the $40 million of taxpayer money to expand its network, it will be the sole owner of that network and the State will have no ownership rights. Thus, Frontier’s monopoly in the State of West Virginia will have been financed with taxpayer money.

Frontier will then sell services to state entities such as schools and government offices at the existing exorbitant prices. Those prices will never decrease, because no competitor can afford to spend $40 million or more of its own capital to build out its network.

Citynet, however, has provided the state with a plan for the expenditure of the taxpayer money that will expand broadband access in the state while at the same time lowering the cost of broadband access by 70 percent to 90 percent.

It is true that competitors, like Citynet, have existing contracts with Frontier for access to fiber facilities, but given that Frontier’s new network will be built with your money, it is Citynet’s position that those facilities should be made available to competitors at a nominal cost so that competitors can make their services available to the public at large at much lower prices.

Frontier has flatly refused Citynet’s proposal and intends to require competitors to pay inflated prices for access to fiber facilities it built for free.

As currently structured, the state’s plan for expanding broadband will do nothing more than expand Frontier’s monopoly, and will not address the fundamental problem of the high cost of broadband access.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTOV Steubenville Speaking Too Soon – Frontier’s Customers Still Complaining 9-15 and 9-28-10.flv[/flv]

WTOV-TV thought Frontier’s problems were behind them when they ran the first of two stories about the company Sep. 15th.  But then they met the Snatchko family and learned they spoke too soon.  Last night, they tried to determine how a West Virginia family could be charged nearly $700 for dial-up Internet service.  (4 minutes)

Residents of these Virginia homes are required to pay $146 a month for Cox Cable, Broadband, and Phone service whether they want it or not.

Marilyn Castro decided she did not need her landline phone any longer.  The Virginia Beach resident learned her provider would be happy to oblige her request to disconnect service, but she is still required to pay her phone bill, even without the service, for at least the next 25 years.

Woodland Park, Virginia resident Allan Pineda got a similar story when he wanted out of Cox Cable’s landline service.  Yes, Cox will schedule a visit to disconnect service at his convenience, but he’ll still have to pay his cable bill, including landline charges, every month.

Frederic Martin, who lives at a Mid-America Apartment Communities-owned complex in Dallas, learned he was on the hook for cable-TV service, even though he has not owned a television set for more than a decade.

In Weston, Florida, some 15,000 homeowners pay for cable television whether they want it or not and if they don’t pay, their homes are at risk from foreclosure.

It’s all thanks to the concept of “bulk billing,” a practice growing in popularity that delivers mandatory cable, phone, and broadband service to renters and homeowners whether they want the services or not.  It’s a multi-million dollar racket, and thanks to the Federal Communications Commission, it may be coming to your community or apartment complex soon.

Castro

For almost five years, mandating cable service has become a growing problem in many parts of the country, especially in Florida and Virginia.  Most of the controversy comes when large housing management and homeowner associations, builders, and corporately-owned apartment complexes cut “discount deals” with a cable company to wire a community or complex for service.  Their mission is not always altruistic.  Many builders receive generous signing bonuses and ongoing kickbacks earned from condemning residents to mandatory cable service contracts that may not expire in their lifetime.

Some apartment complexes have added charges for cable-TV service to the rent. Many earn ongoing compensation from grateful cable companies who pay 3-5 percent of revenue back to the complex.  Even homeowner associations have gotten into the act, adding cable-TV costs to required association dues for upkeep and maintenance.  For those who can’t or won’t pay, liens and even foreclosure can soon follow.

LM Sandler of Virginia Beach, a Virginia builder, is a typical player.

Sandler has built entire neighborhoods of new homes across Virginia, most of which are covered by a “bulk billing” contract with Cox.  When residents buy or rent a Sandler-built property, a triple-play package of phone, cable, and Internet service comes along with the deal.  It’s not cheap, running $146 a month.  Even worse, your grandchildren could still be paying Cox Cable if they stayed in the family home, because Sandler’s contract with Cox runs up to 75 years.

Although residents are not required to take service from Cox, they are required to pay for it, in full, every month.

It gets worse for residents in Florida.  Most contracts with cable operators include provisions that can terminate service for entire communities if even a single homeowner is 60 days past due.  To keep that from happening, homeowner associations aggressively pursue slow-paying residents.  JMB Partners, who built much the residential housing in Weston, and the governing bodies in Weston committed residents to an agreement that has enormous implications if they miss a payment:

Between Jan. 1 and Dec. 17, 2004, the Town Foundation, Weston’s homeowner association, filed liens against more than 200 homes in the city. Most of these, according to Broward County court records, are for unpaid cable TV bills, which until 2003 were collected by the foundation. The city utilities department now handles that task.

One of the upset residents is Vincent Andreano, whose mother, Lita Andreano, was faced with the predicament of losing her Weston Country Club Home for a $109 cable bill that he said had been left outstanding by the previous owner.  The Andreanos said that when closing on the home about a year and a half ago, they came upon the outstanding debt and sent a check.

”No one ever contacted me or my mother afterwards to tell us they had not gotten the check or that the debt was still outstanding,” said Andreano, an attorney. “Then a year and a half later, they slap my mother with a foreclosure lawsuit. It’s legal brutality.”

Andreano said he tried to reason with Town Foundation attorney Douglas Gonzales, whose signature appears in the lawsuit paperwork, to no avail. He said he was told to pay the debt, plus legal fees billed at a little more than $200 per hour, in addition to court filing fees and other miscellaneous charges. The final tab: more than $1,500.

In the Tampa area, mandatory cable service bills for some neighborhoods and planned communities have increased by an eye-popping 44 percent because of the foreclosure crisis.  That’s because of mandatory payment clauses many have with providers like Bright House that demand full payment even when homes are unoccupied.  When a resident’s home is in foreclosure or a resident refuses to pay, all of the remaining area residents pick up the tab for unpaid cable bills.  This wreaks havoc with homeowner association budgets, who must find the money to pay the cable company, in full, every month.  Many have slashed security, road maintenance, refuse collection, landscaping, and other quality-of-life expenses just to keep the cable company happy.

Back in 2008, when Florida first began a downward housing spiral, the impact was already being felt:

The Chapel Pines subdivision in Wesley Chapel found itself stuck in a cable contract that requires $15,000 a month payment to Bright House, and is seeing the strain of foreclosed homes no longer paying their fees. That payment represents nearly half their total association budget.

The South Fork 1 development in Riverview has a 15-year contract with Bright House that requires a $9,700 a month payment, roughly one-third of the neighborhood’s total budget.

“We still have to foot the bill whether people live in those homes or not,” said Fred Perez, the former president of the South Fork association. “You end up with a big, bad debt line item on the budget.”

With the problem worsening, that homeowner’s association even contemplated bankrupting itself just to free it from obligations to Bright House.

Other communities are levying “special assessments” on homeowners to cover cable bills in high foreclosure areas:

To cement a good deal, the community, South Bay Lakes in Gibsonton, years ago signed a bulk contract with Bright House Networks to provide cable TV in the neighborhood, in exchange for a regular fixed payment.

That arrangement worked out fine when the neighborhoods filled up and residents paid their association fees – and the association turned over the cable TV payments to Bright House. The problem occurs when neighbors go into foreclosure and stop paying their fees.

The South Bay Lakes homeowners association still must pay about $140,000 a year to Bright House, even though there’s less money coming in from homeowners.

Because about numerous homes in the 300-home development are in foreclosure, South Bay Lakes had to issue “special assessments” on residents.

Fees rose from $150 a quarter to $216, and that probably won’t cover the shortfall, according to association officials. The Bright House bill represents almost half of the association’s annual budget of $261,000.

To make matters tougher, the community is locked into that deal with Bright House until 2019, with cable rates that rise “from time to time” according to the contract.

The city of Weston collects cable payments from residents forced to pay for service from Advanced Cable Communications.

Earlier this year, Stop the Cap! covered the story of residents in Tennessee and Texas who discovered the corporate owners of their apartment complexes were making cable-TV mandatory and adding the resulting charges to lease agreements.

Defenders of these bulk billing arrangements claim they deliver savings residential customers could not obtain on their own and ensure that complexes and planned living communities are fully wired for service.  Besides, they claim, there is no obligation to use the services provided and customers can obtain service from another provider.

But they still face paying for service they don’t use.  In some communities, it is service many don’t want to use.

John Carter, who lives in Weston, told the FCC as a senior on a fixed income he cannot afford to pay a second cable bill, even though his existing service is terrible.

“I am stuck with poor programming options, outages during stormy weather, slow Internet speeds of 15kbps and poor customer service,” he wrote the agency.

In other instances, sweetheart deals fuel incentives for builders to sign lucrative contracts with providers even before a homeowner’s association is formed.  In some cases, the provider turns out to be a family member or associate of the developer.  In many others, perpetual kickbacks through “royalties” and fees are paid to the builder or complex owner as long as the agreement remains in place, even long after the builder is no longer on scene.

For impacted residents like Castro stuck with landline service she didn’t want, it was time to fight back.  She launched Ban Bulk Billing, an online forum for those who oppose mandated cable-TV service. Castro asked consumers to join her in protesting the fees with the FCC.  But it’s hard to keep a movement going when giant corporate providers and other special interests have the resources to shout down consumers.

In March, the FCC collected its thoughts and submissions from property owners, apartment complex management companies, cable and phone companies, and consumers and rendered its decision — which threw consumers under the bus:

We conclude that the benefits of bulk billing outweigh its harms. A key consideration for us is that bulk billing, unlike building exclusivity, does not hinder significantly the entry into an MDU by a second MVPD and does not prevent consumers from choosing the new entrant. Indeed, many commenters indicate that second MVPD providers wire MDUs for video service even in the presence of bulk billing arrangements and that many consumers choose to subscribe to those second video services. We find it especially significant that Verizon, which more than any other commenter in the earlier proceedings argued that building exclusivity clauses deterred competition and other proconsumer effects, makes no claim in its filings herein that bulk billing hinders significantly or, as a practical matter, prevents it from introducing its service into MDUs. Bulk billing, accordingly, does not have nearly the harmful entry-barring or -hindering effect on consumers that exists in the case of building exclusivity.

In other words, because Verizon didn’t have a problem with these bulk billing arrangements, they’re fine by the FCC.  Verizon wants into this arrangement themselves, so it’s hardly a surprise they are not objecting.  The significance of Verizon’s change in position is hardly a mystery — the earlier barriers the FCC wrote about were designed to keep Verizon out of apartment complexes and condos.

The incentives for providers earned from these bulk billing contracts are enormous:

• The cost of collections and billing are passed on to local government, homeowner associations, rental companies, or other agents.  The risk of non-payment by a homeowner’s association or city government is nearly non-existent;
• Marketing expenses and customer promotions can be slashed because customers already have the service when they move in;
• Competition is diminished, especially from capital-intensive wired competitors.  Would you contemplate wiring a community for competitive service knowing existing residents are held captive by mandatory cable contracts?;
• Innovation expenses can be curtailed because the customer is already captive to the existing level of service;
• Rate increases are built-in, allowing companies to raise rates and still keep all of their existing customers.

Residents of Staples Mills Townhomes in Richmond, Virginia understand this only too well.  When the new corporate owner, PRG Real Estate moved in a few years ago, they brought Comcast with them, mandating every resident pay for basic cable service as part of their rent.

PRG’s website highlights Staples Mills as an example of “an institutional equity partnership:” (underlining ours)

The PRG model for improvement is two-pronged — pay close attention to the details of management with a well thought out capital improvement plan. Imbedding [sic] PRG’s professional management structure would mean the implementation of aggressive PRG policies and procedures, taking virtually all contract services in-house to save the profit margin being captured by contractors. The upgrade to PRG-trained site personnel would particularly enhance the marketing effort. Although the property was 97% occupied we anticipated that, after the capital improvements, the same occupancy rate would be maintained with significantly higher rents.

[…]It was crucial that we succeed, not only in terms of return to our investor, but in terms of building our relationships and profile with other institutional investors. We needed to hit this one out of the ballpark.

New and improved Staples Mills?

Residents called a foul ball, one writing, “Residents were slapped in the face with the news that they will be forced to pay for mandatory cable (an extra $34 per month on the rent) from Comcast regardless if they don’t want it, already have satellite, or don’t even have a TV under the guise of ‘lowering cable rates.’ It’s called subsidizing the people who want it by juicing those who don’t.”

PRG may have succeeded in making their investors happy, but they alienated a number of tenants in the process, most of whom assumed Comcast was their only choice and wouldn’t contemplate paying another cable bill from a competitor.

The FCC’s decision recognized that competitors could enter a bulk-billed service area, but ignored the reality most won’t.

Indeed, the FCC itself recognized the impact of these bulk-billing arrangements on the competitive landscape in their own decision, quoting from a submission:

One bulk billing cable operator states that fewer than 5% of an MDU’s residents subscribe to another video provider. It estimates that if it lost its bulk billing contract, it would raise its prices substantially for the remaining 95% because of higher programming and labor costs per customer. The combined savings for 5% of the MDU’s residents would be dwarfed by the increased expenses for the 95%, making the MDU’s residents significantly worse off than they were before as a whole.

The Cowardly Lion is still working for the FCC.

This proves two points:

1. The FCC still cowers in fear from threats issued by providers that any attempt to rein them in will do everything from raising prices to killing jobs and innovation, despite the fact only five percent of customers in the cited case took service from a competitor.  A five percent loss of customers would create conditions for a “substantial” rate hike only in their minds.  AT&T U-verse has captured far more than 5 percent of cable customers in markets where it competes with cable, yet somehow cable manages to keep the lights on and their doors open;
2. The FCC pretends that these agreements don’t impact the marketplace when the 95 percent “take rate” for service plainly indicates otherwise.  Do 95 percent of residents in non-bulk-billed neighborhoods also take cable service?  Of course not.

Despite the FCC’s industry-friendly ruling, many impacted consumers are not giving up.

Martin, the Dallas renter paying for cable-TV even though he doesn’t own a television, is taking the fight to state Attorneys General, hoping a group effort on the state level will dislodge at least some consumers from being forced to pay for something they don’t want or need.

Martin believes it’s manifestly unfair to deliver mandated “discounted service” to some on the backs of others who don’t want a cable bill at all.

“No one should have the right to force you to buy what you don’t want from someone you don’t like,” Martin says.

He points out under Mid-America’s terms, even blind and deaf residents are forced for pay for cable service.

The only thing cheaper than a discounted cable bill is no cable bill at all.  Now that represents real savings.

Martin’s vociferous objections and intervention from his Texas state representative eventually managed to get him off the hook with Mid-America’s mandatory cable bill.  His rent was lowered by an amount equal to the monthly cable fee, but the cable company is still getting paid on his behalf.

Martin's petition to stop mandatory cable service

For Martin, that’s just plain wrong.

“I am still subsidizing an industry of which I do not wholeheartedly approve,” he writes.

Martin is now coordinator for Tenants United for Fairness and has launched an online petition demanding an end to mandatory cable-TV charges.

He has gathered more than 100 signatures from 13 states so far, and the petition is open for everyone to sign, even if they are not currently impacted.

Martin says getting signatures has proved challenging in some cases.

“It has been very hard to get tenants to sign my petition because they’re in fear of the landlords,” Martin says. “Very few of those who have signed have gone further and contacted their elected officials or the FCC to complain.”

The impact of the March decision by the FCC has given providers a green light to expand mandatory service even further.  Some communities are now finding mandatory broadband service fees being added to cable-TV charges.

The FCC’s response?  “Consumers complaining about these latest new fees are sent an unsigned form letter from the FCC advising them to “talk to your landlord,'” says Martin.

[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WVEC Virginia Beach Residents fight mandatory bundle agreement 3-16-10.mp4[/flv]

WVEC-TV in Virginia Beach covered the plight of residents struggling to understand why they should be forced to pay $146 a month to Cox for cable, broadband, and landline phone service.  (3/10/2010 — 4 minutes)