Filipinos looking for reasons why broadband providers want to limit their Internet usage can find all the explanations needed in the financial reports of companies enthusiastically supporting Internet Overcharging proposals.

As ABS/CBN News noted, “To say that 2010 was a difficult year for the Philippine telecommunications industry is an understatement.”

“Consumers are demanding an unlimited telecommunications experience,” says Renato Razón, an investor and telecom industry watcher for more than 30 years. “The wireless sector and the growth of the Internet, and the companies that compete to provide both, have turned telecommunications in this country on its head.”

Razón tells Stop the Cap! the privatization of telecommunications initially showed a lot of promise for investment and development to get the country on the Asian economic fast track.  But increasingly in recent years, companies have grown fat and lazy, trying to compete with existing networks in need of upgrades — in search of quick profits and no costly capital expenses.

“They learned what they think are important lessons from the huge amounts of money that were spent to build and upgrade wireless networks in the Philippines,” Razón tells us. “They were convinced it was worth countless billions to build wireless infrastructure and wait for the enormous profits that would come later, but then everyone wanted to get into the business and the big profits they thought they’d get never materialized.”

Razón says wireless competition that exploded across major cities in the Philippines was initially a boon to consumers, who today benefit from heavily marketed unlimited calling and texting plans at declining prices.  But now that profits are taking a hit, investors and company executives learned what they feel is a bitter lesson.

As wireless becomes a mature market in the Philippines — with more than 80 percent of consumers already using wireless devices, almost all of the marketing from existing providers targets customers of their competitors.  Customers threatening to switch force providers to offer steeply discounted retention deals that are often infinitely renewable.

Such fire sale pricing enrages investors, who are calling for greater industry consolidation among the three largest operators.  With a fourth provider possibly on the horizon, the chorus demanding that some of the players get out of the market through mergers and acquisitions for the “good of all” could soon grow too loud to ignore.

“Heavy competition is your worst nightmare — it results in price wars and everyone, except consumers of course, are hurt in the end,” he admits.  “I admit I have to divorce myself from the fact my family and I are also consumers — and we love the lower prices — but as an investor, I understand the loud demands to improve shareholder value.”

Razón says executive compensation, often tied to financial performance, delivers the ultimate incentive that executives answer first to shareholders, not customers.

“If a handful of customers get angry at you, that doesn’t cost you the company-paid vacation on the French Riviera and a healthy bonus — an angry compensation committee answering to a dispirited Board of Directors could,” Razón says.

Razón says it’s the same story wherever private companies control telecommunications with few regulations governing their operations.  He believes private market solutions without regulatory oversight helps him more than it helps you.

“I understand what the Philippine government wants — regulations to promote better broadband, but they are only hearing from industry people on how to accomplish that,” Razón believes.  “They answer to shareholders who think about short term results and the health of their investment, not the overall health of the broadband marketplace.”

With financial results for 2010 showing the impact of price competition and predictions of another year of anemic profits, providers are looking for new revenue streams.  Broadband offers one of the few major growth opportunities available to telecom companies in the short term, Razón says.

“At least half this country doesn’t have meaningful broadband, so if you can deliver service over existing infrastructure, keeping capital costs low, you couldn’t count the money coming in fast enough,” Razón says.  “DSL from the phone companies delivers it all — existing phone wires delivering a value-added service to existing phone customers.  It’s not fast, but it’s cheap.”

Rafael Aguado, the chief operations officer of Bayan Telecommunications, agrees the real revenue is in broadband:

“2010 was a challenging year for the telcos, as competition intensified and the Internet/social media and new technologies influenced the shift on consumer behavior on how to communicate, putting pressure on traditional revenue sources like voice calls and international long distance calls. Data and internet subscribers continued to increase and is expected to accelerate to the next level of sustained growth.  It was a difficult year for Bayan but performance was consistent with the industry trend. Total revenue decreased due to lower voice revenues but residential internet and corporate data services posted revenue growth. With sound operating expense management, we expect the year to end in double digit growth in EBITDA. Our growth drivers next year would continue to be data and internet services for both consumer and corporate sectors.”

Philippines Long Distance Telephone Co.

Razón believes usage caps are just another mechanism to protect companies from performing costly upgrades.

“If you can limit usage, you don’t have to spend as much capital upgrading,” Razón says.  “Investors don’t mind if you spend to expand DSL into new territories, because the costs are relatively low.  They will get upset if your support and ongoing costs increase, however.”

That could explain the growing burdens of wireless traffic on the country’s cellular networks.  Some providers have been accused of deliberately overselling access to their networks while refusing to upgrade them to meet growing demands, because the return on “unlimited use” doesn’t deliver:

“The telco industry had a good year but its profitability was greatly reduced due to the highly competitive ‘unlimited plans’ that each provider offered its subscribers. This trend would continue this coming year,” said Ivan Uy, chairman, Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT). “What needs to be looked into is the deteriorating service availability or accessibility due to network congestion brought about by the unlimited plans. Customer dissatisfaction has been rising because of higher frequency of dropped calls, delayed SMS, and line unavailability.”

When given a choice how to solve this problem, most companies prefer to advocate for usage limits, not mass scale upgrades.

Even long distance companies, which played through a price war more than a decade ago, see the flow of investment heading into broadband.  Unfortunately, in their eyes, usage demands are coming along as well:

“Competition intensified in the cellular business. Broadband grew strongly. Margins came under pressure even as demand for more network resources increased. For PLDT, 2010 has been a year when it maintained its market leadership in the face of these challenges. Our focus has been managing this transition where traditional revenue sources such as fixed toll revenues like IDD and NDD were on the decline while new revenue sources such as broadband were on the rise. We preserved margins by strengthening cost management given the modest top-line growth.

“We expect the challenges of 2010 to carry into next year. Demand for bucket and unlimited offers in the cellular space will continue. We expect that broadband will keep growing given the growing popularity of social networking and new access devices such as tablets and smartphones. PLDT will continue to invest in its network in order to fortify its market leadership.” — Napoleon Nazareno, president and CEO, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.

For a long term investor like Razón who has seen this all before, there is a better answer: invest in your networks and grow them faster than your competitors.

“You have to spend money to earn money I have always found and there is a ton of money to be spent and made on broadband in this country,” Razón says. “The low hanging fruit has already been picked — now we must spend to get broadband into towns and villages and we should also be investing in content and products we can sell to broadband customers.”

Razón thinks Internet Overcharging schemes are a foolish mistake.

“You can’t create value-added services on an artificially limited network and expect consumers to buy,” Razón said.  “If you limit usage, you discourage people from using the services that get them addicted to using it in the first place.  Get them hooked, keep them happy and you have a customer for life.”

Internet users in the Philippines have reacted angrily to a government proposal to limit broadband consumption that turns out to have been written by the telecommunications companies that would benefit from it.

The National Telecommunications Commission’s (NTC’s) proposal would allow broadband providers across the country to establish usage limits of 5GB per day, both to “combat piracy” and to “improve service” across the country.  But critics charge, and at least one spokesperson for the Commission admits, many of the proposals in the draft document governing broadband were written entirely by the telecommunications companies themselves.

Much of the Philippines receives DSL broadband service from standard copper telephone wires.  The country’s broadband rankings are dismal, scoring 141st out of 185 ranked nations in a Speedtest survey.  Filipino Internet users suffer with slower average broadband speeds than users in Albania, Djibouti, Uzbekistan, and Libya.

Government efforts to improve service routinely run into well-manned roadblocks established by powerful, politically connected corporate interests.

What began as a pro-consumer reform measure to get providers to accurately depict their broadband speeds has been largely transformed into an industry wish-list fulfilled, according to TXTPower, a pro-consumer action group.

One consumer advocacy group isn't buying providers' arguments

The group lists the problems consumers routinely endure from telecommunications providers — issues the NTC proposal largely fails to address:

“Failure to deliver promised services, failure to address customer complaints, failure to compensate customers for poor or botched services, the imposition of long contracts and so-called termination fees are hallmarks of the telcos when it comes to broadband Internet connections,” the group outlines.

TXTPower wants the Commission to schedule a series of public meetings across the country to allow consumers to provide input on the draft reform law.  The group criticized an under-publicized December meeting that was attended largely by professional lobbyists for the telecom companies.

“We are sure that consumers nationwide will look forward to attending such consultations and tell the NTC what the so-called regulator should be doing,” the group says.

The group thinks setting a national minimum speed would be a good start.

“Up to now, the NTC has failed to follow the lead of telecom regulators worldwide in defining what broadband Internet is, whether delivered via dial-up, wired or wireless connections. For instance, the United States now defines “basic broadband” as Internet service with a download rate of at least 4 Mbps and an upload rate of 1 Mbps. Worldwide, the trend is to consistently raise the basic minimum,” said Tonyo Cruz, the group’s president and chief executive officer.  “Without such a definition, the NTC leaves telcos practically free to hoodwink end-users, including business and the government, regarding broadband services, the cost and pricing, and to keep Philippine Internet access among the slowest and most expensive in the region. At the same time, we cannot begin to estimate the amount of access fees charged or practically extorted by telcos for undelivered, under-delivered or poor services.”

Philippine broadband is as fast as dripping molasses on a cold January morning.

Instead, with the input of some of the Philippine’s largest telecom interests, the Commission has offered the country limited improvements based on rationing and full disclosure of the slow speeds most in the country endure. [Read about the experiences of one Philippine student who has endured bad broadband for most of his life.]

The draft law raised the ire of consumers with the insertion of clauses like this:

WHEREAS, it has been observed that few subscribers/ users connect to the internet for unreasonably long period of time depriving other users from connecting to the internet […] Service providers may set maximum limits on the data volume allowed per subscriber/user per day.

NTC Public Relations Officer Paolo Arceo readily admits this, and several other provider-friendly clauses came at the behest of the telecommunications industry.

“[This] particular clause was suggested by public and public telecommunications entities to prevent network abuse by unscrupulous subscribers who violate intellectual property laws, particularly on copyright, by downloading movies and software, similar to abusive subscribers of unlimited call/text promotions which were primarily designed or person-to-person use but used for voluminous commercial undertakings,” he said.  “These types of network abuse limit accessibility to a few instead of providing adequate access for all of the subscribers. Commercial or high volume users may avail of other internet connection packages which have committed higher speeds and allow heavy data exchanges.”

But critics of the proposal warn broadband companies will seek to impose limits starting at 5GB of usage per day, with no limit on how low those caps could ultimately go to help guarantee performance requirements also included in the proposal.

How low can Philippine caps go?

“The proposal demands broadband providers live up to their advertised speeds and be up and running with satisfactory performance at least 80% of the time,” writes Quezon City resident Jose Albas, one of our readers. “Since providers blame ‘heavy users’ for performance problems now, imposing more drastic limits is the cheapest way to hit performance standards without spending money upgrading facilities.”

Cruz from TXTPower believes the usage cap proposal doesn’t adequately address the Philippines’ dreadful broadband experience.

“The NTC misses the entire point of the problematic broadband Internet connections in the Philippines: They are slow, unreliable and expensive compared to other countries in the region. But the NTC would not know this because the agency has not, up to now, sat down, studied and resolved to define what broadband really is,” Cruz said.

Popular Philippine blogger ‘Cocoy’ wrote a letter to Philippine President Benigno Aquino arguing the telecommunications authority is catering more to the business interests they regulate than the consumers they are supposed to represent, and for naught:

The NTC draft memorandum to put caps on Internet usage is regressive. It does both business and consumer no good. It will not encourage telecoms to reinvest to improve their service, and help the broader market unlock our potential.

Broadband in the Philippines has become increasingly important in a country with a troubled economic and political past now re-inventing itself in the new digital economy.  The country’s broadband rankings in Asia, a hotbed of broadband development, has proved an embarrassment for the Aquino government.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>Draft NTC Memo Order for telcos on Minimum Speed of Broadband Connection, December 2010

The World Economic Forum’s Global Information Technology Report ranked the Philippines 85th out of 133 countries, right behind Trinidad and Tobago, Russia, El Salvador, Ukraine, Guatemala and Serbia. To compare, Vietnam ranks 54th — Thailand ranks 47th.

Cutting users off after their daily ration is reached delivers a range of consequences, from from the annoying to a fundamental challenge to free speech.  Jed Mallen illustrates what happens when providers protect their profits at the expense of their customers:

I was downloading the new Slackware release about a month ago via Globe Tattoo and after a while got an SMS message via their app that goes something like — fair usage policy is imposed. 800 mb is the limit. I was using their Php 50/24 hours promo. Yes my download stopped.

How about that? That’s not piracy. That’s a free operating system that I have been using for the last 10+ years.

International rights lawyer Romel Bagares warned that the implications of high volume data caps and other Internet Overcharging schemes had even greater implications: impeding consumers’ basic rights to online information.

“Whistleblower sites such as WikiLeaks process large amounts of information. Also, especially in the Philippines, you have many public schools that use the Internet heavily for educational purposes. Putting in caps would prevent people from sharing as well as receiving information,” Bagares said.

“This is against consumers’ interests, because you have people suffering from ‘bill shock’ as well as denying their right to information,” he told GMANews.TV.

Bagares doubts pirates are the real reason behind the proposed usage caps.

“Konti lang ang pirates! (There are so few pirates!) You’re punishing the majority [of the public] for the actions of a very few tech-savvy individuals,” he said.

Salalima

Bagares’ views seem to be backed by the Commission’s own staff.

NTC Common Carriers Authorization Department Director Edgardo Cabarios told GMANews.TV that the entire scheme originated from the Philippines’ major phone companies.

“There were apprehensions raised [by telcos] over abusive users. This [data cap] is meant to discourage unfair use, to give everyone a chance. The idea is to protect the majority of consumers,” Cabarios said.

But Cabarios also admits that the “abusive users” the Internet Overcharging scheme is supposed to target account for just one to two percent of Filipino broadband consumers.

Unsurprisingly, the companies that proposed the usage limits are publicly praising the Commission’s willingness to insert them into broadband reform proposals.

“[The clause] is consistent with the demands of fair use. This guarantees that abusive consumers of broadband/internet service do not monopolize available capacity to the detriment of other paying customers. The definition of the volume cap can be left to the individual telecommunications providers to define based on the different service plan offers they provide, all in the spirit of competition,” said Philippine Chamber of Telecommunications Operators president Atty. Rodolfo A. Salalima in a letter to NTC commissioner Gamaliel A. Cordoba.

What would you do if your broadband bill was the same as your monthly rent?

That’s a question 21-year-old Notre Dame de Grace resident Amber Hunter has been dealing with since the neighbors began hacking their way into her wireless router, gaining access to her cable modem service from Videotron, Ltd., and running her bill into the next province.

It’s the predictable outcome of what happens when Internet Overcharging schemes gain traction, leaving ordinary consumers literally holding the bill.

Videotron sells usage limited broadband service across Quebec, but heavy users who routinely exceed their arbitrary usage caps knew there was a limit on the overlimit fees Videotron charged.

Not anymore.

Videotron left the usage caps on, but removed the limit on how much they can charge customers who exceed their monthly usage allowance.

Videotron sets prices like the OPEC of the Internet -- the sky is the limit

“The sky is the limit, or at least your bank account,” writes our Montreal reader Hei.  “The only thing unlimited with Videotron are the overlimit fees.”

Hunter had no idea she was being hacked.

“I had no idea what a gigabyte was, so when I started getting higher bills, I just assumed it was from watching TV shows online,” Hunter says.

Her boyfriend told her otherwise, making it clear it was impossible for her to be running up 350GB a month in usage just from watching a few movies and TV shows.

Since August, Hunter has accumulated more than $1,800 in broadband bills stemming from parties unknown who hacked their way into her wireless router and “borrowed” her Internet account.  Videotron itself is directly responsible for part of this debacle, encouraging Hunter to upgrade to a higher tier of service that upgraded her from a 30GB usage allowance to a 100GB usage allowance, with a major catch.

Hunter had become accustomed to paying her usual broadband bill plus the $50 maximum penalty charged for her “overuse.”  So a Videotron representative suggested a higher usage allowance plan might lower her bill.  But somehow, the Videotron customer service agent forgot to mention that the new plan no longer included a limit on overlimit charges.

When Amber switched plans, her broadband bill exploded.  Now the waitress hands over most of her weekly salary to Videotron.

“I’m a student, and I work at a bar, and now most of the money I have goes to pay my Internet bill,” Hunter told the Montreal Gazette. “It’s more than I pay for school and books, and I don’t have a lot of money left for food.”

She still owes the cable company $506 and they aren’t interested in providing her any service credits beyond the $313 they gave her a few months ago.

It took a Videotron help desk employee to finally unravel the mystery of the Internet Overcharges — someone was hacking into her wireless network.  Exactly who has been living their online life usage-limit free at Amber’s expense may never be known. Those living in apartment complexes and other multiple dwelling units can often find a dozen or more wireless connections, some password protected, others not.

Hunter’s wireless network was secured with a difficult to guess password using a four year old Linksys router.  Unfortunately, older routers often lack robust security and are easily hacked.

A handful of Canadian ISPs still offer unlimited broadband accounts.

As far as Videotron is concerned, it’s all Hunter’s fault — she should have understood what a gigabyte was, how many she was supposed to be using, what the security capabilities of her router were, that they were properly enabled, that she checked her usage on a daily basis looking for anomalies — investing her time, effort, and energy to stop the cable company before it billed her an enormous amount… again.

Speaking for Videotron, Isabelle Dessureault said, “It’s a case where Videotron showed some understanding and listened to what happened. We’re well-renowned in the industry for our technical support team. We credited her account for $313, but at a certain point, we need to share the responsibility. We don’t like these kind of situations.”

Videotron’s responsibility to their customers stopped where their profit margin began.  The company could have sent Amber a bill for the wholesale cost of her Internet usage, which she could have paid with a few of her bar tips.

Because Hunter’s broadband bills were now rivaling her monthly rent she decided to invest in her financial future, buying a new router and making sure the wireless was turned off.  Today she runs dozens of meters of Ethernet cable between all of her computers, just to keep the neighbors off her connection.

Although Videotron has become intractable, demanding Amber pay up, one of their competitors used the opportunity to score public relations points that Videotron sacrificed.

Jarred Miller, the president of the Internet Service Provider YOUMANO offered to cover all of Hunter’s overage fees amassed over the past year that also includes a free year of Internet service with his company, a generous offer Hunter will take.

YOUMANO is one of a handful of Canadian ISPs still offering unlimited Internet access, and do not think of themselves as the OPEC of the Internet.

The entire affair is a warning to Americans.  If you think Videotron is an Internet evildoer, imagine what Verizon, AT&T and Comcast could do to your bank account.  If they have their way, you’ll need to become intimately familiar with your router, the concept of a gigabyte, and take a class in “negotiating to win” when fighting over your future enormous broadband bills.

Listen to an interview with Amber Hunter. She appeared on this morning’s Daybreak on CBC Radio Montreal to discuss her experience with Videotron Internet Overcharging. (8 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

"Too rich for my blood."

Former Verizon FiOS customers now served by Frontier Communications in Oregon and Washington are receiving word of astonishing rate increases of as much as 46 percent from the phone company.  The massive rate increase is being blamed on “increasing programming costs” charged by the cable networks carried on a cable system that competes with Comcast, which charges far less for the same channels.

Frontier’s rate hikes are so dramatic — $30 a month for the popular standard 200-channel package, some customers are wondering whether the company is trying to sabotage their own fiber-to-the-home service.

“They sent us a rate increase letter stating our former standard package, priced at $65 a month, is now going up to a ridiculous $95 a month for basic cable,” says Tom, a regular Stop the Cap! reader. “That’s a rate increase only my health insurance company could love.”

New customers face the new rates immediately, but existing customers have until Feb. 18 before the new high price kicks in.  Many are preparing to move back to Comcast, which raised rates this year as well — but is now a relative bargain at $63 a month for a similar package.

“As much as I love FiOS, Frontier has managed to screw it up as badly as the rest of their services and now I am going back to Comcast,” Tom says. “You have to wonder if they are purposely incompetent or if it’s part of a larger plan to sabotage the Verizon FiOS network they inherited.  Either way, they’ve priced their service out of the market.”

When Tom called Frontier to complain, the company offered to rip out the advanced fiber network Verizon installed and stick a DirecTV satellite dish on his roof instead.

“Frontier is a real ‘Back to the Future’ kind of company — they just don’t get it,” Tom said.  “The operator actually told me she couldn’t understand why I would want to cancel service.”

Customers receiving new customer promotional discounts will get a real case of sticker shock when Verizon’s original promotional rates reset to Frontier’s new regular price.

“Washington County better beef up their hospitals because there are going to be a lot of heart attacks when that bill arrives,” Tom says.

The Oregonian newspaper reports customers are not the only ones to be shocked by Frontier’s enormous rate increase.  Regulators promised more competition and cheaper prices as part of Frontier’s purchase of Verizon landlines feel had as well.

“[Frontier’s rate hike] is essentially a white flag surrender and an exit from the head-to-head video competition,” lamented David Olson, director of the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission.

That’s a far cry from what Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter told the newspaper in September when asked if the company would raise FiOS rates.

“That is not our plan. If I look across the board at our basic service pricing, I don’t think we’ve raised prices anywhere in the last four or five years,” she said.

The Oregonian quotes a Frontier representative who says the company’s relatively small customer base disqualifies them from volume discounts Verizon used to receive.

“Part of the challenge we have, compared to other providers, is that our footprint is so small,” said Frontier spokeswoman Stephanie Beasly. “They’re able to spread it out over a much larger customer footprint.”

That can’t be the whole story, said Fred Christ, policy and regulatory affairs manager for the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission, which regulates cable TV in Washington County.

“There’s more to it than programming costs. Anybody in the industry can pretty much figure that out. What more there is, we don’t know yet,” he said. “Unless programmers are trying to run Frontier out of business, why would they jack their rates that much?”

Smaller companies like Frontier generally do not try and buy programming on their own, but join group-purchasing plans like those offered by the National Cable Television Cooperative.  Municipal providers routinely purchase programming at substantial discounts.  It is not known if Frontier is a member, but they could be.

No rate increases are planned for broadband or telephone service.

Verizon FiOS pricing increased at less than half the rate Frontier will demand from subscribers in 2011. (Source: Metropolitan Area Communications Commission, Tualatin Valley, Ore.)

Seconds count. If your house was on fire, would you wait a minute or more for Time Warner to handle your 911 call?

Time Warner Cable’s digital phone service may be risking lives of the customers who use it to call 911 for emergency services.

That statement from Madison County, N.Y. 911 Director Paul Hartnett comes after the cable company bungled the handling of an emergency call reporting a house fire in the town of Clayton, Jefferson County, causing delays for emergency responders.

Even worse, the problems could be wider in scope, potentially putting many Time Warner Cable phone customers at risk of a delayed 911 response when seconds count.

At issue is an ongoing upgrade of the cable company’s E-911 database, begun after Time Warner dropped Sprint as their 911 vendor in favor of Intrado.  As the slow upgrade continues, customers dialing 911 could end up having their calls routed to a national 911 call center Intrado runs in Colorado.  The process often takes several minutes from the time the caller dials 911, someone in Colorado answers, and the call is eventually transferred back to the originating county, at which point the caller has to repeat information to a local 911 operator they could not reach directly.

Jefferson County’s 911 Director John Pumber told WSYR-TV news they first noticed the problems about a week ago. “I can see this thing escalating extremely fast, in talking to other cohorts around the state, some of the other centers, it’s becoming more and more of a problem,” he said.

Monday, a 911 call reporting a house fire in the Jefferson County town of Clayton was re-routed to the call center in Colorado. The call was eventually forwarded back to Jefferson County’s 911 center, 44 seconds later. By the time the nature of the emergency was given to the local operator, the house was fully involved in fire.

“If your house is on fire, and especially this individual was calling from his house, so we are leaving him in harms way to get the information and get him help [for] whatever the amount of time it took to get through the call center in Colorado and then through our procedures here,” said Plumber.

“Whether it’s medical, fire, law enforcement related – seconds do make a difference,” said Hartnett. “They’re putting public safety in jeopardy because they’re delaying calls. We’ve had medical calls, and other calls. We’ve dodged a bullet so far.”

This call, recorded by Madison County 911 last week, illustrates the problem:

911: Police communication?

Intrado: I’m calling from Intrado, a call center for Time Warner Cable, I have a subscriber on the line that dialed 911. They’re trying to get through to you, they have a medical emergency.

911: Okay, what’s the address madam?

Intrado: They need an ambulance at 4289 Canal Street.

911: Could I speak with them, or?

Intrado: You sure can, it’s going to be a female with difficulty breathing. Do you want their call back or mine?

911: If I’m going to talk to her, I’ll get it from her.

Intrado: You’re going to talk to her husband, his name is John. John your dispatcher is on the line.

911: Hi Sir, how are you?

Caller: Not good, you need to get a f***ing ambulance here right now!

Time Warner Cable Regional Communications Manager Stephanie Salanger released a statement last week addressing the issue:

“TWC has deployed a state-of-the-art E-911 system that offers several key advantages over more traditional systems, including real-time address validation. Our solution complies fully with FCC rules and industry standards, and it also is based on the same technology the federal government is considering mandating for “Next Generation 911″ services, so we will be well-positioned to comply with any new rules as soon as new standards are implemented.

In the very rare cases where errors in routing 911 calls or when errors in the 911 address database occur-which happens from time to time under any 911 system-calls are routed to the Emergency Call Relay Center managed by TWC’s E911 partner in Colorado, rather than to the default or incorrect 911 answering location. This call center allows TWC to determine the customer’s location and route the call to the appropriate emergency answering center. This has happened only in a extremely small number of cases since TWC began transitioning to its new 911 system. TWC has been continually working with local 911 authorities to ensure they understand the details of TWC’s 911 system and will continue to do so.

TWC has always been and remains committed to providing the highest quality E-911 services for its customers. We will continue to work with local E-911 officials and agencies to ensure they are aware of, understand and are satisfied with TWC’s E-911 system and all of its functionalities.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse TWC phone glitch delays emergency responses 1-4-11.flv[/flv]

WSYR-TV in Syracuse ran two reports over two nights documenting more than 40 recent incidents where Time Warner Cable dropped the ball in properly managing 911 calls from their customers.  Warning: Loud Audio! (8 minutes)