Tech News

FTC Case Claims Frontier False About Internet Speed

Federal Trade The Commission is made up of officials from six countries challenged Frontier Communications Wednesday, saying telecom The retailer misrepresents the internet and charges most customers for running faster than they offer or are able to provide.

The program of to complain was held in the U.S. District Court in Central District in California by the FTC and lawyers from Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. California customers are represented in this suit by lawyers from Los Angeles County and Riverside County.

The case concerns the running of DSL, where Frontier provides copper lines in areas that have not been converted into fiber-to-home. Frontier failure to invest in fiber is a contributing factor bankirapuse last year. Frontier provides DSL online hosting to approximately 1.3 million consumers in 25 countries.

DSL failure means that speeds are slower for customers who live too far away from the nearest fiber path. A consultant study found that about 30% of Frontier DSL customers were required to receive a slower speed than they paid, the case said:

In early 2019, a management review firm analyzed, under the auspices of Frontier and the participation of Frontier, the information of Frontier companies and the internal records of about 1.5 million DSL subscribers. The study found that approximately 440,000 of Frontier’s DSL subscribers, or about 30% of the people screened, were “likely” to “exceed” the speed limit that exceeded the Frontier’s standard.

The FTC’s lawsuit alleges that Frontier often imposed speeds that were lower than those paid for, saying that Send “Consumer consumers take up less than the DSL internet shares they have subscribed to.” Giving low traffic is often due to real limitations. But giving puts limits on the distance, which is why customers may not get more than they have been given, even if the networks can significantly improve the speed of the ISP they are selling.

Frontier’s slow pace led to many customer complaints. “As of January 2015, thousands of customers have complained to Frontier and government agencies that the company has failed to deliver DSL internet as quickly as promised,” the FTC’s statement on the case said. “Many users have complained that the slow speed that Frontier failed to support the online activities they were supposed to perform on the running systems that Frontier sold.”

Frontier violated the FTC Act’s rules on fraudulent and fraudulent practices by spreading DSL lies online and using fraudulent payment methods that give “consumers more and cheaper online services than Frontier provided or could provide to these customers,” the court said. The complaint also alleges violations of consumer protection laws in Arizona, California, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.

The FTC requested permanent permission to avoid future violations of FTC’s activities and to finance the project. Officials from six countries requested laws, government sanctions, and refunds to consumers. The FTC’s vote of acquittal was 4 to 0; The FTC includes two Democrats and two Republicans serving as well.

Frontier issued a statement calling the lawsuits “meaningless,” stating that “DSL’s internet speed has been clearly and accurately described, explained and explained in corporate marketing and disclosure.”

“Complaints of plaintiffs also include baseless allegations, exaggerating any potential problems with Frontier customers and disregarding the requirements,” Frontier said. “Frontier provides online services in some rural areas that are often difficult, sparsely populated and very difficult to serve. The Frontier’s DSL Internet service was well received when it was established and has retained many customers’ satisfaction over the years.”

The FTC’s case contradicts Frontier’s immediate promises, in which the ISP “stipulated that consumers could receive DSL internet service ‘up to’ or ‘as fast as’ a certain speed at Mbps,” with advertising speeds ranging from 1 Mbps to 45 Mbps.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button