Phillip “The Company Paid by Suddenlink to Issue a Third Party Guarantee Makes All the Difference” Dampier

When Stop the Cap! and Broadband Reports reader Simon contacted us about Suddenlink’s fact-free usage measurement tool that managed to rack up nearly 23GB of usage for one West Virginia customer on the same day his service was out for most of the evening, he probably did not think one customer catching the cable company’s fingers in the usage cookie jar would make much difference.

But it did.

Suddenlink spokesman Pete Abel, initially responding to complaints about the usage tool’s accuracy, told Light Reading last week its meter was “consistently accurate, as was demonstrated in the tests we ran before we launched this program.”

Four days later, the company effectively disavowed that, put the meter’s built-in overlimit fee scheme on hold and plans to hire a third party company to “validate the accuracy of its system,” after finding it was faulty after all.

Suddenlink won’t say what is causing the inaccuracies, but blamed “unusual” circumstances for the problem. The company is now refunding customers billed overlimit fees of $10 per 50GB and waiving future charges until its system is reviewed and validated by “a trusted third party.”

Stop the Cap! believes that does not come close to satisfying the company’s responsibility to its customers for accurate billing.

Suddenlink has never demonstrated it actually needs an Internet Overcharging scheme with usage limits and overlimit fees. The company proves that when it claims only a “relatively small number of customers” were ever billed overlimit fees. With no demonstrable usage problem, the company’s need to implement its Project Imagine “Allowance Plan” is sorely lacking.

Easy as counting anyway we like.

Additionally, the accuracy of providers’ usage measurement tools has proven highly suspect, and not just with Suddenlink. All of the companies caught with inaccurate meters always strongly defend them, until overwhelming evidence suggests they should not. Even super-sized companies like Bell Canada (BCE) and AT&T have enforced usage limits with meters the companies later had to disavow. Suddenlink is only the latest.

The scale in your grocery store is checked and certified. So is the corner gas pump, your electric meter, water meter, and gas meter. Why should broadband usage be any different?

Consumers are right to suspect Suddenlink’s usage meter. No official regulatory body verifies the accuracy of usage measurement tools and whatever company Suddenlink chooses to “verify” its meter has a built in conflict of interest — it works for a company that depends on a certain result in its favor. Suddenlink clearly has no business in the usage measurement business when it insists on the accuracy of a meter it disavows just a few days later.

With only murky details available to consumers about what caused the problem and why Suddenlink did not see it until a customer managed to catch them in the act, there is little confidence the company will actually solve a problem it never realized it had. There is also nothing to assure us — “third party guarantee” or not — it cannot happen all over again.

Suddenlink customers need to reach out and tell Suddenlink its “Allowance Plan” is completely unacceptable. Tell the cable company you don’t want to worry about their unverifiable and proven-inaccurate metering program. Ask them why you should remain a customer when they spend time and money on a scheme that the company itself admits is not really needed — targeting just a small number of “heavy users.”

Suddenlink’s customer service team does not think much of customers who use their broadband service a lot, as this recent “Who’s On First” exchange illustrates:

Lisa (Suddenlink): “Well, you show heavy OVERUSAGE of the Internet, you drew 14GB of data yesterday.”

Customer: “Okay, let’s back up, explain to me how I drew 12GB of data when my power was off and I wasn’t home on June 30.”

Lisa: “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “If you have sooo much faith in your meter, explain to me how I drew 12GBs of data on June 30, while I didn’t have power, and wasn’t home.”

Lisa:  “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “I’m asking, how did I draw 12GB of data without power to my house?”

If Suddenlink has a problem with a handful of users creating problems for other subscribers on its broadband network, it has always reserved the right to contact those customers directly and work out the problem one on one. That is a far better solution than inconveniencing all of their customers with endless rounds of “usage roulette,” where the big winner could find themselves with Bill Shock from overlimit fees, whether they actually deserve them or not.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Internet v. Cable 8-20-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC interviewed Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent in August 2010 on how his company intends to deal with “invasive online video,” threatening to erode cable-TV profits. Kent proved Suddenlink doesn’t really need any extra money from overlimit fees — the days of big spending on capacity are over, but the money is nice to have anyway.  (8 minutes)

Outside of a handful of consumer groups, just about everyone — including one “anti-tax” Republican on the Federal Communications Commission — favors the imposition of a new broadband tax on your Internet connection.

It is all a part of the Federal Communications Commission’s effort to transform a badly-outdated Universal Service Fund (USF) into the Connect America Fund (CAF) — an ongoing project to help defray the costs of wiring rural America for broadband service.

Phone and cable companies are on board. So are several state regulators. Even search engine giant Google favors applying a surcharge to consumer bills to retire a funding formula currently dependent on declining landline phone revenue.

In April, the FCC began accepting comments on its proposal to expand the number of telecommunications services subject to the surcharge, currently found on telephone bills. The FCC has proposed a number of possible taxes including the new broadband fee, a tax on text messages, or moving to a flat fee for each phone line instead of a variable tax rate (currently around 18%).

Virtually every major telecommunications company provisionally supports the new tax, for at least three reasons:

1. Most can benefit from future CAF funding opportunities, dipping into the fund to help subsidize expanding broadband into areas where current “return on private investment”-standards make deployment unprofitable;
2. Consumers will pay the tax, not providers;
3. The companies are confident their fierce lobbying will get the FCC to drop a proposed requirement the fee be included in the advertised price of broadband service. They want the fee broken out separately on customer bills, in part because they fear higher-advertised-prices for broadband will discourage customers from buying.

Google also supports the new tax because they profit from a larger broadband audience accessing their web pages and services. If the FCC were to tax online services, as Google fears, it would be bad news.

“Saddling these offerings with new, direct USF contribution obligations is likely to restrict innovative options for all communications consumers and cause immediate and lasting harm to the users, pioneers, and innovators of Internet-based services,” Google argued.

The Fiber to the Home Council, another industry group, was disturbed by one FCC proposal that would levy an increasingly higher percentage of the new tax on customers with progressively faster high speed connections. Although the Council agreed with many consumer groups that any new broadband tax would discourage broadband adoption, it was alarmed with the proposition of taxing consumers the most for selecting the highest speed broadband tiers.

“The Commission should not impose a fee that increases with greater performance capabilities (capacity/speed) because that would discourage plant and service upgrades and hinder the expansion of critically important high-speed broadband services,” the Council wrote in its comments to the FCC.

The Fiber to the Home Council is concerned about one proposal that would levy increasingly higher taxes the higher your connection speed.

With 19 million Americans currently unable to obtain broadband service, adding a new tax on existing broadband customers’ bills would bring in millions that the CAF will ultimately award to rural landline providers and cable operators to encourage them to expand their broadband networks.

But consumer groups including Free Press worry the new tax would rob Peter to pay Paul, and further discourage poor Americans who can’t afford current broadband prices from ever signing up for service.

“In other words, as the Commission reforms the overall USF system in the name of greater broadband adoption, particularly among rural, poor and elderly consumers, assessing [a broadband tax] could lead to an overall lower level of broadband adoption, despite the availability of new broadband subsidies,” writes Free Press research director S. Derek Turner in an official filing with the FCC.

Free Press called the current comments from industry players largely as expected.

“Industry commenters simply offered self-serving proposals that will ensure that their (but not necessarily their customers’) contribution burdens are as low as possible,” Turner wrote. “We instead are strongly encouraging the Commission to conduct actual cost-benefit analysis prior to adopting rule changes that could have massive unintended consequences for consumers.”

Thinks a broadband tax will reduce broadband adoption.

Outside of a small handful of remarks from end users, the overwhelming majority of comments received by the FCC are from providers, industry groups, and telecommunications regulators. Almost none come from actual consumers, who will ultimately pay the proposed tax.

Some conservative anti-tax groups have been alarmed by the tax expansion and Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell’s apparent support of it. McDowell issued a statement in April declaring his support for reform of the USF system to broaden the tax to additional telecommunications users:

[…] “To put the importance of contribution reform into perspective, the contribution factor, a type of tax paid by telephone consumers, has risen each year from approximately 5.5 percent in 1998 to almost 18 percent in the first quarter of this year. This trend is unacceptable because it is unsustainable. Furthermore, the cryptic language on consumers’ phone bills, combined with the skyrocketing “tax” rate, has produced a new form of “bill shock.” We must tame this wild automatic tax increase as soon as possible.

[…] “Controversy, however, should not deter us from lowering the tax rate while broadening the base according to the authority granted to us by Congress. The current pool of contributors is shrinking. It must be expanded, but we must do so only within our statutory authority while keeping in mind the international implications of our actions.”

Comcast unnecessarily worried suburban Philadelphia customers about a “fake Comcast employee” going door to door in Warrington, Pa., that ultimately turned out to be an actual employee of Comcast.

Warrington police issued a media alert warning residents about a suspicious man going door-to-door carrying a clipboard asking to inspect the wiring and company-owned cable modems.

One Deep Path Drive customer reported a visit on a recent Sunday morning by a man with a Comcast ID badge around his neck, driving a pickup with a Comcast sign on it. At the end of the inspection, homeowners were given a questionnaire to be submitted to Michael Birch, a senior director of accounts, that included his phone number and address.

When police called Comcast, they denied anyone was conducting follow-up checks in the area and the man asking to enter customer homes was not a Comcast employee.

But after an extensive investigation (they called the phone number on the questionnaire during regular business hours and followed up with Comcast management), police have now learned that both the mysterious man and Birch were legitimate Comcast employees auditing recent installation and service work done by third party contractors.

Sorry about your loss, but you still owe us for the equipment that melted in the fire.

An Antioch, Calif. woman on Social Security disability faced a substantial bill from AT&T for equipment lost in a recent house fire that left her with nothing but the clothes on her back, until the local media helped the company change its mind.

Her TV melted into a plastic mess, along with the box for AT&T. Now AT&T wants payment for the equipment. I have written them to inform them that everything, including the AT&T equipment, was destroyed in the fire. The company still wants to be paid for the destroyed parts. The landlord’s insurance did not cover tenant’s loss.

I want to let your readers know that if they lose their AT&T equipment due to a disaster beyond their control, they will have to pay for the equipment.

But once the San Jose Mercury News reached out to AT&T, they changed their mind.

AT&T spokesman John Britton:

“We are sorry to learn about the fire. We are glad our customer was able to get out of the burning house safely. We have adjusted the charges. Our policy is to be sensitive, listen to customers and to evaluate these claims on a case-by-case basis.”

AT&T would have dealt directly with the insurance company, if the customer kept and maintained renter’s insurance.

Most cable and phone companies maintain policies that require customers to compensate them for equipment either lost or damaged in natural disasters or fires. Problems arise most frequently when renters discover that whatever insurance a property owner maintains only covers damage or loss to the building itself. Renters need renter’s insurance to cover theft or damage to their property. The coverage is often overlooked, despite the fact it is very inexpensive.

Damaged cable television set top boxes can cost $300-500 or more each, no matter how old. Companies also routinely charge full price for damaged remote controls, cable modems, and company-supplied wireless routers.

Media attention regarding losses that were not the fault of customers often gets companies to waive fees, and some will issue blanket waivers where neighborhoods are affected by fire, flood, or tornadoes, but not always.

Insurance companies will usually handle matters directly with the cable, satellite, or phone company once the damaged equipment becomes part of an insurance claim. Some insurance policies will not cover the full replacement cost of equipment, but in such cases providers typically agree to accept the depreciated value to settle the matter.

In a new twist, Comcast has announced rate increases for cable television that are roughly at the rate of inflation (2.3%) — the lowest rate increase for the company since 2001 — but is also hiking rates for Internet service at a substantially higher rate.

The company claims the Internet rate increase is partly due to the increased number of channels on its cable systems in Oregon and southwest Washington, as well as the cost to launch new interactive applications and multi-platform content that customers want and value.

Comcast’s rate increase for video represents the new reality for the cable business — companies continue with 7%+ increases in cable TV rates at the risk of cord cutting, analysts say. With cable television packages increasingly seen as ripe for cutting as they grow more expensive, cable operators are turning to broadband — a service customers can’t live without — to make up the difference.

Comcast had not touched broadband rates in the Pacific Northwest for seven years, until the company began hiking them in 2011. Monthly rates for the popular “Performance” Internet service (15Mbps) are going up again this year, from $48.95 to $51.95, according to The Oregonian. Prices are higher for standalone broadband service. Comcast’s Digital Starter TV package is increasing to $67.49 a month. Rates for customers on promotions will not  increase until those offers expire.

But some customers complain Comcast is now charging nearly $200 a month for its triple-play package.

One customer told the newspaper after his introductory triple play promotion expired, the bill rose to $190 a month for phone, Internet, and cable service with two DVR boxes. The customer does not have any premium movie channels.

The Oregonian has tracked Comcast’s rates in the Pacific Northwest for almost a decade. The staircase of climbing prices for cable television is leveling off as Comcast makes up the difference from its Internet rates.

The newspaper noted Frontier Communications, which provides competition for Comcast in the suburbs of Portland, has given Comcast only a slight headache.

Frontier continues to offer its barely-advertised FiOS television package for around $65 a month, but customer complaints about Frontier’s service in the area have been reflected by Comcast’s growing subscriber numbers.

One Oregonian reader summed up his feelings about Frontier:

Frontier was atrocious. I don’t just mean bad, I mean an embarrassment to humanity […] which chimpanzees and dolphins laugh at us for putting up with. I’ve had Frontier service for a little over a year now only because there is nothing else where I live.

The nightmare started with them coming out hook up DSL at my new house, but instead of hooking me up, [they tore] out the demarc box on the house and left with it,  lost all records of ever having talked to me, much less scheduling an appointment.

After finally getting Internet service a week late, the original [service order] showed up leading them to bill me for multiple accounts, which took five months to  resolve. They never were able to prove to me I actually owed what I ultimately paid (I got them to within one bill’s worth of my calculated value and gave up).

Half of the time I’ve held off paying my bill until a day or two before the due date so it’s too late to mail a check and their online payment system is down, forcing me to call in my payment and pay a $3 service fee.

All of that is on top of the blatant theft of forcing customers who already own modems to pay a “modem rental fee” for a modem they aren’t renting.