When Time Warner Cable introduced its SignatureHome service, the company claimed it wanted to deliver a comprehensive experience to its most premium-customers.  But oddly, the best broadband speeds, phone service, and digital cable TV lineup from the cable company didn’t include any premium movie channels.

“I was ready to sign up for SignatureHome, but I assumed it included major premium channels, and it didn’t,” says Stop the Cap! reader Liam in Los Angeles.  “I thought it would be a real money-saver but I would rather have the premium channels than their phone service, which I don’t actually use as I depend on my cellphone.”

Scott elected for a cheaper promotional bundle foregoing phone service and the fastest Internet speeds, choosing to stick with Road Runner Turbo service.

“Powerboost on their Turbo product is more than enough for me and I don’t need faster upload speed — if SignatureHome included the premiums I would have taken it,” he says.

Now Time Warner has introduced an addition to their super-deluxe package — SignatureHome Premium View, which bundles HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, The Movie Channel and Moviepass with everything else on offer for $30 more a month — $229.99.  The package excludes Starz!, a premium movie channel Time Warner has barely promoted over the years.

With many markets increasing prices to as high as $15 for channels like HBO, getting five premium networks for just under $30 isn’t a bad deal, assuming you watch them and benefit from SignatureHome‘s other features.

“When my promotion expires, I’ll consider this new option,” Scott says.  “Yes, I realize $230 for cable service should really be an outrage, but the way the company is pricing services these days, the more you bundle, the less you ultimately pay compared to trying to build your own package of services.”

That may be exactly the point.  For customers who rely on Time Warner for phone, broadband, and cable-TV, SignatureHome can be a reasonable value if you crave the company’s highest 50/5Mbps broadband speeds.  Building a comparable bundle on your own is much more expensive.  Now the same is true for premium movie channels, which run between $11-15 a month each a-la-carte.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY1 Signature Home Arrives 12-9-10.mp4

NY1, Time Warner Cable’s 24 hour news channel in New York City, talked about the introduction of SignatureHome last December.  (2 minutes)

Some proponents for AT&T U-verse suggest people will quickly get used to AT&T's metal cabinets.

A coalition of neighborhoods opposed to the installation of more than 700 4-foot tall metal cabinets across the city of San Francisco have filed suit against AT&T in Superior Court demanding the city follow its own environmental codes and conduct an environmental impact assessment.

The suit comes in response to last month’s close 6-5 vote by the Board of Supervisors permitting AT&T to install up to 726 boxes on the public-right-of-way — typically street corners and sidewalks — to support expansion of its U-verse television, broadband, and phone service.

San Francisco Beautiful, San Francisco Tomorrow, the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association, the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association, and the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association are all parties to the lawsuit filed Wednesday, which calls the boxes graffiti targets, a safety problem for traffic and pedestrians, and just plain ugly.

Milo Hanke, past president of San Francisco Beautiful, accuses the city of ignoring its own rules to give a green light to AT&T.

“We really don’t want to sue, but we are left with no choice when the city refuses to uphold its own environment codes and is about to give away our sidewalks for the benefit of a private company without objective review,” Hanke told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Long time observers of city politics are frankly surprised AT&T won permission for the controversial boxes.

“It wasn’t that long ago that something like this would have been stopped dead in its tracks in [one] environmental review [after another],” said KCBS-TV reporter Phil Matier.  “But this year, whether it’s a change in the tone for business or for jobs it actually got the six votes needed, and that is going to be interesting as this plays out in an election year in San Francisco.”

Lane Kasselman, an AT&T spokesman countered: “This is about choice and competition for San Francisco residents. It’s about new, better technology that enhances peoples’ lives. AT&T thanks the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for supporting the deployment of U-verse throughout San Francisco. We’ve already started construction and are working as quickly as possible to bring next generation IP network services to every block and household that wants it.”

But Hanke thinks the city has gone too far for the benefit of AT&T at the expense of local residents.

“This is a private enterprise with a benefit to private parties,” Hanke told KCBS.  “Why should the public be subsidizing a Dallas-based corporation, and having to look at these ugly boxes in the process.”

Sean Elsbernd, who serves on San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors personally thinks the boxes are a great idea, suggesting Comcast needs competition.

“I have a suspicion that four or five months after they are in, people aren’t going to notice them anymore,” Elsebernd said.

KCBS in San Francisco covers the continuing controversy over AT&T’s 4-foot tall utility boxes and the lawsuit designed to stop or delay their installation.  (3 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KBAK Bakersfield Homeowner fights utility project in her front yard 5-27-10.flv

KBAK in Bakersfield shows what happened when AT&T brought their lawn refrigerator-sized boxes to that city in the spring of 2010 — one woman woke up and found AT&T crews tearing up her yard, without any notice, as part of a major construction project.  (3 minutes)

Ford, Jr.: Making his former public service pay-off with dollar-a-holler advocacy on behalf of Big Telecom.

Former U.S. Senator John Sununu and former U.S. Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., share several things in common:

1. Voters tossed them out of their elected offices (or refused to elect them to higher ones) for poorly representing their interests;
2. Both are honorary co-chairs of Broadband for America, the country’s largest Big Telecom-industry-funded astroturf effort;
3. They don’t understand the concept of content provider traffic-hosting, and the traffic expenses they already pay.

Both jointly penned a letter in the San Jose Mercury News accusing Netflix of enjoying undeserved streaming profits, “subsidized” by large cable and phone companies that deliver broadband Internet service to paying customers:

Netflix’s current pricing model allows unlimited downloads for $7.99 per month. Netflix saves, with every download, approximately 40 cents that would otherwise be paid to the U.S. Postal Service. If the average customer downloads 10 movies and TV shows a month, Netflix will save $4 a month for each of its 23 million customers.

Obviously these massive transmissions over the Internet are not really free. Someone is paying for them. That “someone” is the millions of broadband subscribers, whether or not they are Netflix customers.

How is that fair?

Netflix argues that the marginal cost to the network providers of streaming a half-hour TV show to a residential customer is “one penny.” This ignores the hundreds of billions of dollars in sunken network investments needed to create that one-penny marginal cost efficiency at the customer’s end.

[...] It hardly seems fair to make users of these services pay more in order to subsidize Netflix’s costs of delivering their videos online.

This call for a fairer pricing model and a more realistic long-term investment strategy has bipartisan support. In 2010, the FCC said government policy should not discourage “broadband providers from asking subscribers who use the network less to pay less, and subscribers who use the network more to pay more.”

Neither former elected official comes to the debate with any direct experience as a telecommunications specialist, but since when does that matter.  They know how to deliver talking points-on-demand.

Sununu: New Netflix Math

Netflix, like every content producer on the Internet, pays hosting and content delivery fees to place their content online.  Netflix hires a content delivery network to regionally distribute its video streaming to ensure the best, and most efficient route to ensure an uninterrupted viewing experience.  While Netflix’s incremental costs may seem low, they still amount to millions of dollars annually in transport costs.  And the online video streamer already pays extra additional fees to some of the largest broadband providers in the country, including Comcast.

The other factor Ford and Sununu ignore is the bill at the other end — the inflated cost for broadband service consumers already pay.  For $40+ per month, consumers pay for service precisely to obtain the content of their choosing, and millions choose Netflix.  That monthly broadband fee, far in excess of the actual cost to provide the service, more than compensates providers for the “network investments” that are now declining at a rapid rate, even as broadband bills keep rising.

No doubt part of your broadband bill goes to pay for industry astroturf operations like Broadband for America, which doesn’t represent a single consumer, even though you are paying for it.  Of course, the marginal cost to hire industry lobbyists and their former legislative friends who today represent their interests (not yours), is pretty low on a per subscriber basis.  It hardly seems fair to us that subscribers should be footing the bill for groups like Broadband for America, who regularly advocate against consumers’ best interests.

If providers are looking for more money to improve their networks, perhaps they can start by cutting off Broadband for America, an industry mouthpiece that cannot even get its core arguments anywhere near actual facts.

Cornell University students pay an average of $37,000 a year (before housing, student fees, and other expenses) to attend one of America’s most prestigious universities.  When they arrive on-campus, it doesn’t take long to learn the college has one of the nastiest Internet Overcharging schemes around for students deemed to be using “too much Internet.”

For years, Cornell limited students to less than 20 gigabytes of Internet usage per month, only recently increasing the monthly allowance to 50GB this summer.  Cornell’s overlimit fee starts at $1.50 per gigabyte, billed in megabyte increments.  Now some students are pushing back, launching a petition drive to banish the usage limits that curtail usage and punish the 10 percent of students who exceed their allowance.

Christina Lara, originally from Fair Lawn, N.J., started the petition which has attracted nearly 300 signatures over the past few weeks.

“Cornell students, along with students across the world, rely on the Internet to pursue their academics, independent research, and leisure activity,” Lara writes. “We should not be subjected to charges for our Internet usage, particularly because our curriculums mandate we use the Internet. Despite this, Cornell University continues to adopt NUBB (Network Usage-Based Billing), which charges students for exceeding the 50 gigabyte per month ‘allowance.’”

Lara incurred bills as high as $90 a month in overlimit fees last year, thanks to regular use of Netflix and Skype for online video chats with friends and family back home.

Internet fees for on-campus housing are included in the mandatory student services fee.  Although Time Warner Cable has a presence on campus, most residence halls don’t appear to be able to obtain service from the potential competitor, which sells unlimited Internet access in the southern tier region of New York where Cornell is located.  Instead, Cornell students on campus rely on the university’s wireless and Ethernet broadband network, and DirecTV or the university’s own cable TV system for television.

Lara

The apparent lack of competition makes charging excess-use fees for Internet usage easy, critics of the fees charge.

“It’s much easier if you live off-campus or in one of the apartment complexes students favor,” says Neal, one of our readers in the Ithaca area who used to attend Cornell.  “The only complication is getting access to the University’s Intranet, which is much easier if you are using their network.”

Neal says Verizon delivers landline DSL to off-campus housing, but not on-campus.  Because the service maxes out at 7Mbps, most who have other options sign up for Time Warner Cable’s broadband service instead.

“It’s cheaper on a promotion and much faster, and it’s still unlimited,” Neal says. “Hasbrouck, Maplewood and Thurston Court were the only residential buildings that offered the chance for Time Warner Cable on-campus, and only if the wiring was already in place.”

Neal notes many apartment complexes off campus have contracts with Time Warner Cable, which means cable TV and basic broadband are included in your monthly rent.  Some Cornell students who live on or near campus try to make do with a slower, but generally free option — the Red Rover Wi-Fi network administered by the University.  Others reserve the highest usage activities for computers inside university academic buildings, where the limits come off.

Lara complains Ithaca, and the southern tier in general, is hardly an entertainment hotbed, making the Internet more important than ever for leisure activities.

Time Warner Cable provides the rest of Ithaca with unlimited Internet.

“If Cornell was situated in a major metropolitan area with a vast nightlife that could accommodate the interests of most, if not all, our undergraduates, then many Cornellians wouldn’t be so inclined to stay in their rooms and get on the Internet,” Lara says. “But that’s not the case. Cornell’s Greek life dominates the social scene, making ‘nightlife’ a dividing factor in the community.”

Tracy Mitrano, Cornell’s director of information-technology policy, told The Chronicle the vast majority of students will never hit the cap, and those that do cannot be charged more than $1,000 a month in overlimit fees, regardless of use.  Those that do exceed the limit typically find a monthly bill for “overuse” amounting to $30.

“The approach that Cornell uses offers transparency and choice,” said Mitrano. She noted that Cornell provides students with clear information regarding their network usage by alerting them by e-mail when they are about to hit the limit and by setting specific rates for overuse fees.

“The choice seems to be using the university network or moving off-campus to buy Verizon or Time Warner Cable broadband to avoid the usage cap,” counters Neal. “I am not sure their ‘choice’ argument flies if students don’t have the option of signing up for Road Runner in their rooms on their own, bypassing the Internet Overcharging altogether.”

Both Neal and Gregory A. Jackson, vice president of Educause, seem to be reaching consensus on whether or not universities should be charging students for Internet separately from room and board.  Jackson notes it is a discussion being held at an increasing number of universities.  Neal thinks having a wide open access policy to deliver competition could solve this problem in short order, and students should make the decision where to spend their broadband funds themselves.

“If Cornell’s IT bureaucracy faced unlimited-access competition from Verizon and Time Warner Cable, do you think they’d still have a 50GB usage cap, considering only a small percentage of their captive customers exceeded it,” Neal asks.  “Of course not.”

[Thanks to PreventCAPS for the story idea.]

Slingbox PRO-HD

In a shot across the bow to programmers demanding compensation for the cable company’s TV Everywhere project, Time Warner Cable has announced it will give away a free Slingbox PRO-HD device to every customer signing up for its top-tier 50/5Mbps Road Runner ‘Wideband’ broadband service.

The Slingbox, which allows customers to watch live streams of cable television programming and other video over a broadband connection, retails for $300 and that is what Time Warner will rebate to new “Wideband” customers who are willing to pay $99 a month for the fastest possible Internet service from the cable operator.

By handing out a free Slingbox, which customers can use to watch whatever channels they want, Time Warner is sending a message to intransigent programmers, particularly Viacom. which has been particularly hard-nosed in its negotiations for streaming rights of popular Viacom networks like Comedy Central and MTV.  Time Warner found its efforts to stream those networks on its free iPad app stymied when Viacom went to court to stop the streams pending compensation negotiations.

With the Slingbox, customers can bypass messy business debates and watch whatever channels they choose to subscribe to, although Time Warner Cable won’t officially declare that as their intention for the new promotion.

Instead, Jeffrey Hirsch, Time Warner’s executive vice-president and chief marketing officer, claims the Slingbox offer is an attempt to drive subscriptions for its DOCSIS 3-based Wideband service.

“Over time we’re really trying to emphasize Wideband as a mainstream product,” Hirsch told the New York Times.

Currently, only a small percentage of customers subscribe to the company’s 50/5Mbps service, most through Time Warner’s super-premium SignatureHome service, which includes the speedy tier as part of its triple-play bundle of phone, Internet, and cable service.  The company sells SignatureHome in most markets for around $200 a month.

The Slingbox promotion is planned for launch this September.  Customers are expected to pay upfront for the device and receive a $300 prepaid debit card as part of the rebate offer.  No word on whether the promotion will extend to new SignatureHome customers, or only to those choosing Wideband service a-la-carte.

Ironically, Slingbox use promotes a major increase in broadband traffic, thanks to high bandwidth HD streaming video.  Time Warner’s Slingbox promotion will drive increased traffic on their broadband networks once customers start watching shows outside of their home.

Rumors are swirling Sprint will begin selling Apple’s iconic iPhone this October, bringing the number of carriers supporting the wildly popular phone to three.  Sprint shares soared 10 percent on the news.  But while Sprint customers and shareholders are celebrating the potential imminent arrival of iPhone, launching the phone on the Sprint network is no simple matter, especially for the last remaining carrier delivering truly unlimited data.

On the Plus Side

Apple’s iPhone has become a must-have for a significant number of consumers.  They won’t leave the phone behind to switch carriers, not even for Verizon Wireless, until they introduced the phone earlier this year.  Now Sprint can win its own share of iPhone devotees.

Sprint’s iPhone promotions could draw customers away from larger carriers, especially enticed by Sprint’s worry-free unlimited data plan that has become extinct at other wireless companies.

The iPhone locks customers into new two-year contracts with Sprint, helpful security at a time when AT&T threatens to further consolidate the wireless industry in its efforts to acquire T-Mobile.

On the Down Side

Sprint’s phone subsidy expenses will skyrocket with Apple’s iPhone, which commands the highest subsidies in the industry.  Analysts suspect AT&T currently shells out up to $425 for iPhone 4 and $375 for iPhone 3GS.  Then AT&T sells the phone to consumers for $200 or less, making the subsidy back over the life of the two year contract.  That hits AT&T’s cash on hand hard.  For Sprint, regularly accused by Wall Street of spending too much on customer promotions, it will only increase those costs.  Sprint pays less than $150 for its top of the line Evo phones in comparison.

One guarantee the iPhone always delivers: Lots of data hungry users.  The introduction of the iPhone may ultimately threaten Sprint’s unlimited usage experience because of demand placed on an already burdened 3G network.  There is also no guarantee the first Sprint iPhone will support Sprint’s 4G network.

KMBC in Kansas City talked with customers looking forward to Sprint’s iPhone.  Sprint is a major employer in Kansas City.  (2 minutes)

Frontier Communications is adding a new $1.50 monthly surcharge for broadband customers not currently enrolled in a “price protection agreement.”  Labeled the HSI Surcharge, the new fee started showing up on customer bills this month, with only a vague explanation buried inside the bill:

Courtesy: Manmaniac

Frontier's Fast One.

Customers attempting to get an explanation of what this charge was all about got a myriad of answers from Frontier customer service representatives:

• It’s a broadband tax;
• It’s a surcharge to help pay for network improvements;
• It’s a charge for customers who refuse to take a price protection plan;
• It’s a rate increase.

Stop the Cap! called Frontier this afternoon and was told it was designed to collect additional revenue to fund network expansion and was, effectively a rate increase.  Even customers on 1-3 year price protection agreements will eventually pay the “surcharge” as their agreements expire.  It is not a government-mandated charge or tax.

Effectively, this rate increase allows the company to advertise their Internet service at a deceptively low price, until customers discover Frontier’s modem rental fees and surcharges.  In 2009, during Stop the Cap!‘s flirtation with Frontier DSL, we found the “out the door” price for their 3.1Mbps service was actually higher than that charged by Time Warner Cable’s 10Mbps Road Runner service.

A 5.9 magnitude earthquake centered near Richmond, Va., felt as far north as Ontario, Canada, caused millions of North Americans to reach for their cellphones and call friends and family asking “did you just feel that?”  The result: cellular networks faced severe congestion for approximately 30 minutes just after the earthquake hit at 1:51pm EDT.

The earthquake, which lasted as long as 45 seconds, has been irresistible catnip for television media, as stations up and down the east cost interrupt regular programming in a breathless, hyped hunt for damage.  In the nation’s capitol, hundreds of thousands of workers decided to call it a day, and are currently clogging highways in an effort to get home.  They are talking on their cell phones, too.

WUSA-TV in Washington is covering building damage, mostly to older structures that have spewed bricks and concrete onto the sidewalks below.  Injuries so far appear to be minor.

Sprint is calling today’s earthquake the spark for a “temporary mass calling event,” causing a number of calls to fail.  But little, if any, permanent damage has been done to wireless infrastructure.

But it is another example of what happens to America’s communications infrastructure during any significant event, major or not: wireless clogs that only subside when customers get off their phones.

[For the record, at Stop the Cap! HQ in suburban Rochester, N.Y., we did not feel a thing.]

Their prices are sky high.

Back in May 2010, Stop the Cap! launched a debate with a few Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) that provide largely rural America with wireless access to the Internet over long range Wi-Fi networks.  The debate got started when Matthew Larsen, who runs the Wireless Cowboys blog, announced the arrival of an Internet Overcharging scheme at his WISP — Vistabeam, which serves residents in rural Wyoming and Nebraska.

WISPs are being increasingly challenged by the changing tastes of Internet customers, who are gravitating towards broadband multimedia content, saturating limited capacity networks and forcing regular infrastructure upgrades to keep up with increasing usage demands.  Unlike larger providers, many WISPs are independent, family-run businesses that lack easy access to capital and resources to rapidly respond to demand, especially when most have a rural customer base that numbers in the hundreds or thousands.

That’s one of the reasons why Stop the Cap! has not been as harsh on these providers when they implement usage limit schemes on their customers.  Because WISPs provide service where cable and phone companies usually don’t bother to serve, these wireless providers are the only option beyond satellite Internet, which we regularly label “fraudband” for claims of broadband speeds that are rarely delivered.  Still, we were not impressed last year with some of Larsen’s language about what his usage caps were intended to do (underlining ours):

I feel that these caps are more than generous, and should have a minimal effect on the majority of our customers.   With our backbone consumption per customer increasing, implementing caps of some kind became a necessity.    I am not looking at the caps as a new “profit center” – they are a deterrent as much as anything.    It will provide an incentive for customers to upgrade to a faster plan with a higher cap, or take their download habits to a competitor and chew up someone else’s bandwidth.

Ouch.

It’s been over a year, and Larsen is back with an editorial patting himself on the back for an Internet Overcharging success story well-implemented:

We have never raised prices on our services.    We still have a customer note on the wall that reads “Your bill was the only one I got this month that DIDN’T go up.   Thank you!”     I would have a hard time raising prices on this person because of their neighbors that are downloading 20x as much.   Usage Based Billing is a much fairer way to go, especially when the provider faces so much reinvestment cost to accommodate the heavier users.   After the first year of implementation, I am very glad that we took the time to implement it and intend to use the revenue to build a better network for all of our customers.

Larsen is also upset with those who believe in the concept of unlimited Internet:

Operating a broadband network is not free, and it is not a low-maintenance business.   I have a group of dedicated employees and subcontractors that have spent a lot of late nights and early mornings away from their families to build and maintain our network.   Anyone who thinks that unlimited broadband is a God given right should be forced to spend a few days in my lead tech’s shoes, getting a good look at what a broadband provider has to do to build a network and keep it running.

Larsen, like other WISPs are confronting the reality that Internet usage is on the upswing, and while we sympathize with the challenges faced by Vistabeam and other WISPs, his statements do not apply to every broadband network around.  And frankly, an increasing number of customers simply aren’t interested in Larsen’s challenges, especially if another provider can deliver service more cheaply and efficiently.  Vistabeam better hope nobody does, because their prices are simply not competitive if just about any other provider manages to work their way into his territory.

Vistabeam prices start at $29.95 a month for 384kbps/128kbps service with a monthly usage limit of 10GB.  Exceed that and you will pay an additional $1 per gigabyte.  Customers who need more speed pay dearly for it.  A tier providing 4/2Mbps service will run you $99.95 a month with a 60GB monthly usage allowance.

As of late, Larsen has been railing against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over recent broadband stimulus awards designed to improve coverage of broadband Internet in the same rural regions of the country Vistabeam serves.  He’s upset the USDA has awarded a $10.2 million infrastructure loan to the Hemingford Cooperative Telephone Company, which provides service in western Nebraska under the name Mobius Communications.

Larsen speaks highly of the fact Vistabeam delivers service in the absence of government funding or stimulus. But average consumers are not likely to care when they compare prices and consider the fact Mobius doesn’t appear to limit customers’ usage.

Mobius DSL Prices:

• 500kbps – $35.00
• 1.5Mbps – $40.00
• 3Mbps – $50.00
• 5Mbps – $60.00 (Currently available in Alliance and Chadron.)

Mobius charges effectively half the price Vistabeam charges, and offers faster tiers of service in some areas, without fear of overlimit fees.  It’s also important to recognize the “award” was actually a “loan,” which must be repaid.  Larsen seems less upset with the fact there are broadband stimulus programs than with the reality industry lobbying has effectively cut out many Wireless ISPs from standing any chance of winning one.

I get especially frustrated by loan awards like this one because I have operated two ISPs that have had to compete directly with Mobius and did not have access to any federal grant or loan programs.   The USDA Broadband and Loan programs are essentially only available to [regional phone companies].   When I made inquiries into the programs several years ago, I found that they would only loan to a single recipient in a region so that they were not funding competing projects.

Phillip Dampier

For Stop the Cap!, our constituents are consumers interested in obtaining the best possible broadband service at the best price.  Larsen’s views, understandable from the perspective of a business owner, would leave a number of consumers paying effectively double the price for usage-limited broadband. That would, however, satisfy a business argument that self-funded private providers should not face competition from other providers that can extend faster, unlimited DSL, cable, or fiber service with low interest loans.

Wouldn’t a better solution be to form a coalition to force open the same beneficial loan programs to Wireless ISPs who can more readily and affordably build up their networks and ease the Internet Overcharging that too often comes along for the ride?  We’re not accusing Larsen of gouging his customers for fun and profit, but we would like to see WISPs like Vistabeam develop win-win strategies that deliver success for their innovative efforts and lower priced, faster service for their customers.

The alternative may be the eventual arrival of those rural phone companies, increasingly equipped to deliver faster and cheaper service to Vistabeam’s current customers, eventually spelling disaster to that company’s business plan.  It has happened before.  Anyone remember the “wireless cable” industry that delivered a few dozen cable channels over microwave signals?  That’s a service whose time came and went, largely replaced with satellite television and rural telephone cable TV, better equipped to provide the kind of service consumers actually wanted, but wireless cable was ill-equipped to provide.

Accidents can be forgiven, but when AT&T’s repair crews take nearly a week to fix them, they are rarely forgotten.

More than 350 residents of Burbank, Calif., learned that first hand when they lost their AT&T landlines for six days, after an unrelated construction crew accidentally cut a telephone cable.

For more than a few impacted residents, AT&T took their sweet time fixing the problem, costing area businesses thousands of dollars and leaving hundreds of customers mystified.

The accidental cable cut on Front Street Aug. 13 left consumers reaching for their cellphones and local businesses trying to convince their own customers they had not gone out of business.

The Glendale News-Press shared the misery:

Brian Schneider of Schneider & Associates Claim Services said he has been without phone service since Monday morning.

“It’s really destroying my business, I feel very helpless,” Schneider said. “I feel like I’m living in a Third World country with no telephone.”

He estimated a loss of $6,000 to $7,000 a day because customers cannot reach him.

“Customers are sending emails asking if we’re still in business,” Schneider said. “I have 25 employees who are going to be adversely affected by this.”

Compounding matters is the fact that he just rolled out a marketing campaign to attract new customers.

“It’s not easy to get new clients in this environment, and then they call and the phone just rings and we don’t pick it up — bye-bye new client.”

AT&T claims they had to dig down at least 12 feet to reach and repair the affected cable, and told the newspaper it would take up to a week to restore service, and it did.  But many customers were infuriated they were kept in the dark on the company’s progress, and others had trouble convincing AT&T to forward affected calls to unaffected cellphones and other working numbers.

AT&T said reimbursements for lost service, finally restored six days after the cable cut, were not automatic.  Customers seeking a refund have to call the company’s customer service line and request one.