A New Jersey man is facing down Verizon Communications after the company sent him a $2,345 bill for the company’s equipment lost in a devastating fire.

Jarrett Seltzer has been a Verizon FiOS customer for six years. A February fire destroyed virtually all of his property, including four Verizon cable boxes and a router installed six years ago. After notifying Verizon about the fire, Seltzer says Verizon continued to charge him for two additional weeks of service and then sent him a final bill for $2,345 to cover the lost equipment.

Seltzer called Verizon to complain about the bill and says he was transferred not less than 14 times during the call, which lasted about an hour and a half. At the end of the call, nothing was resolved.

“[Verizon] should be ashamed,” Seltzer said in a YouTube video describing his debacle.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon FiOS billed me 2,345 for my burned cable boxes 9-21-12.flv[/flv]

Jarrett Seltzer says a February fire left him with nothing… except a $2,345 bill from Verizon Communications for equipment that was destroyed in the fire.  (2 minutes)

Seltzer says he has spent more than $18,000 as a Verizon FiOS customer over the last six years, and is astounded the company is aggressively trying to recoup damages for six year-old equipment. He is now at the point where he would not accept a credit from Verizon even if offered.

“I’d rather pay $2,345 for [equipment] I lost in a fire, along with everything else I’ve ever owned, than not make people aware of this,” Seltzer said.

Stop the Cap! regularly covers stories about customers facing enormous bills for lost or damaged provider equipment. While most companies will forego billing customers fees in high profile cases, and Comcast claims it will not charge customers for lost equipment if they don’t have insurance, many other companies are less understanding. One cable company asked a customer to search their tornado-devastated neighborhood to unearth lost equipment. Others demand advance payment while the insurance companies sort out claims in progress.

Renters are traditionally the most likely to face lost equipment charges because many mistakenly believe a landlord’s own insurance policy will cover their losses. That  impression can leave customers with nothing after a fire. But even with a personal renter’s insurance policy, some insurance companies still refuse to cover lost cable equipment or only offer to pay the depreciated, actual value of equipment, not the full retail price most companies demand. That may be the case with Geico — Seltzer’s next target.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KDKA Pittsburgh Arson Victim Billed For Cable Equipment Lost In Fire 5-18-12.mp4[/flv]

KDKA in Pittsburgh got Comcast on the record — it will not bill people for lost or damaged equipment if they lack renter’s insurance — after this victim of an arson fire reported the company billed her more than $600 for lost cable equipment.  (2 minutes)

Despite perennial protests from pay television providers that programming costs are getting out of hand, this fall viewers will find an even greater number of costly sports channels that will fuel rate increases in 2013.

The biggest boost in sports programming comes from Time Warner Cable, which has finally signed a deal with the National Football League and will also launch a series of regional and sports specialty channels for subscribers already able to watch more than a dozen sports-related networks. When it comes to betting on televised sports, a site like 4D Result 8 can definitely be trusted. The deal also affects Bright House Networks subscribers. Time Warner Cable handles programming negotiations for Bright House.

This past weekend’s addition of the NFL Network to the company’s digital standard service lineup and the niche NFL RedZone channel, which is part of the company’s $5.95 Sports Pass specialty tier comes nine years after the NFL Network launched. Time Warner Cable was the last major holdout that refused to carry the network, which costs an estimated $0.95 per cable subscriber, per month. But as League officials began gradually increasing the number of season games on the network, enraged sports fans feeling left out increasingly pelted the cable operator with complaints.

The NFL has also consistently refused to allow its primary NFL Network to appear on a mini-pay tier, available only to those willing to pay extra, instead demanding it be a part of standard service.

Another holdout, Cablevision, relented and agreed to carry the two NFL networks in August, leading to speculation the cable operator will break its promise not to increase rates in 2012 and will raise prices while blaming the addition of the costly sports networks.

At nearly a dollar per month per customer, it is a virtual certainty much, if not all, of that cost will also be passed on to Time Warner Cable customers during the next round of rate increases.

But that is just the beginning, especially if you are a Time Warner Cable customer in southern California.

In mid-August, most Time Warner customers began receiving at least one Pac-12 network on the company’s Sports Pass tier. But in Los Angeles, customers are getting two channels, one devoted to the entire conference and an extra channel dedicated to USC and UCLA coverage that every local subscriber will receive.

Your cable bill is going up again.

Both channels do not come cheap. Sports Business Journal has reported that the Pac-12 is seeking more than 80 cents per subscriber to carry its channels, about the same price charged by the Disney Channel.

Cox, Comcast, and Bright House Networks subscribers don’t get a free pass either. They will also find Pac-12 Networks on their local lineups (and bills) soon enough.

Also for southern California, Time Warner Cable is creating two new sports channels, SportsNet and Deportes (Spanish), that will exclusively carry games featuring the Los Angeles Lakers, Galaxy, Sparks, and perhaps one day the Dodgers.

The networks’ broadcast territory includes all regions that previously broadcast Lakers, Galaxy and Sparks games. That area stretches from Fresno County to the north to San Diego and Imperial County to the south. It also includes Hawaii (Time Warner Cable Deportes not available in Hawaii) and Clark County, Nev. A full list of California counties that can receive the networks: Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura.

The Lakers signed a $4 billion, 20-year deal with Time Warner Cable for broadcast rights, taking them away from KCAL-TV, a free over-the-air station. Time Warner will want their money back, so they will get it from you, the subscriber. Ironically, while Time Warner complains about other sports programmers insisting their networks be carried on the standard service tier, it has no problem wanting the same for its own sports channels. Subscribers throughout the region may end up covering the nearly $4 monthly cost per subscriber for the two regional sports channels, whether they want them or not.

Comcast has agreed to provide cable service to 540 homes on Chappaquiddick Island, but only if residents agree to cover part of the cost, which Comcast estimates will be $1,526 per home, assuming everyone offered the service signs up.

Martha’s Vineyard, with Chappaquiddick Island to the east

The cable company has been at odds with town officials in Edgartown, which is responsible for negotiating franchise agreements for six Massachusetts island communities and Edgartown itself. Comcast said it would cost $1.58 million to wire up the small island, and it wants residents to pay $824,000 of that.

The cable company also wants residents to pay extra for connections if their homes lie more than 250 feet from the primary cable Comcast intends to wire across the island. Beyond that, customers will pay Comcast’s usual rates for cable TV, phone, and broadband service.

Edgartown wants Comcast to cover the island towns that surround it, and the company in turn has routinely claimed there were insufficient customers available to recoup the costs of the investment.  But attitudes have softened now that Comcast’s franchise is up for renewal.

Local officials issued a request for proposals in February, 2011 to a variety of cable operators that might be interested in serving Martha’s Vineyard, of which Chappaquiddick is a part. As anticipated, Comcast — the incumbent, was the only company that responded.

But after an extended back and forth, Comcast seemed willing to relent, if someone split the tab.

Local residents have had mixed reactions to the proposal. Some wonder why they should have to foot the bill for a company that will earn $8 million annually from customers on the various nearby islands. Others are willing to pay, but in installments.

Edgartown town administrator Pam Dolby wants a more detailed breakdown of the cost estimate of $1.58 million to wire just over six square miles of the island.

The last time Comcast charged less per day than the cost of a cup of coffee, they used this logo.

Comcast is raising rates on its Atlanta-area customers effective Oct. 1.

“Despite working hard to keep down our prices, we are continuing to experience increased costs, including rising programming expenses, while also investing in next-generation technologies that deliver new innovations,” said Brian Farley, a spokesperson from Comcast. ” This year alone, we’ve added 15 new channels in in metro Atlanta – including Disney Junior, ShopNBC and ESPN Goal Line – and made our programming available on additional screens.”

It is uncertain how many Atlanta area customers were clamoring for Comcast to add ShopNBC — a network Comcast now owns with the purchase of NBC-Universal, much less pay extra for it.

Comcast expects most customers will see increases averaging $3 a month on their October bills. But the cable operator also took time to remind customers of the incredible value cable television still offers Atlanta:

Comcast: $2.28 a day. A cup of coffee at the Atlanta Diner? $1.65

“At just a few dollars a day, cable is about the price of a cup of coffee and significantly less expensive than taking a family to the movies or a sporting event,” Farley said.

Perhaps, but not always.

Comcast charges just under $70 for its popular Xfinity Digital TV Starter package — around $2.28 a day. Atlanta-area Regal Theaters charge around $11 a ticket — $44 for a family of four. The Atlanta Diner charges $1.65 for a cup of coffee (with free refills). Assuming you visited them for 30 days, your coffee tab would run $49.50, still much less than what Comcast charges every month.

More than a decade ago, cable operators used to claim their service was still less than a cup of coffee. It actually still might be, assuming your cup of coffee comes from Starbucks.

Despite industry propaganda touting an “unlimited broadband future” (possibilities, that is, not an end to usage caps) and good sounding headlines about robust competition in the broadband market, the reality on the ground isn’t as rosy.

Americans looking for a better deal for broadband are largely stuck negotiating with the local cable company or putting up with less speed from the phone company to get a cheaper rate.

That is hardly the “success story” being pushed by the Mother of All Broadband Astroturf Front Groups, Broadband for America. BfA, backed by money from some of America’s largest telecom companies calls today’s marketplace “dynamic” and “rapidly changing.” For them, competition is not the problem, the way we define competition is.

Tell that to San Jose Mercury News columnist Troy Wolverton, whose dynamic and rapidly changing Comcast cable bill has now reached $144 a month, and threatens to go higher still when his two-year contract expires.

Wolverton is a case study of what an average American consumer goes through shopping around for broadband service. Despite assertions of a vibrant, competitive Internet access paradise from groups like Broadband for America, Wolverton found very little real competition on the menu, despite being in the high tech heart of Silicon Valley.

Valley residents can typically choose between AT&T and Comcast, if they have any choice at all. Neither company offers a great deal for consumers.

Comcast offers faster speeds at considerably higher prices that can be reduced somewhat by signing up for a costly triple-play service. AT&T’s prices are lower, but its service is slower and is based on a technology that in my experience is less reliable.

So it goes for millions of Americans who face the same dilemma: take a higher-priced package from the cable company or settle for less from the phone company. With the exception of Verizon FiOS, most large telephone companies still rely on basic DSL service to deliver broadband. AT&T’s U-verse and CenturyLink’s Prism are both fiber to the neighborhood services that deliver somewhat faster speeds than traditional DSL, but also have to share bandwidth with television and traditional phone service, leaving them topped out at around 25Mbps.

Wolverton could not believe his only choices were Comcast and AT&T, so he visited the California Broadband Availability Map, one of the state projects earnestly trying to identify the available choices consumers have for broadband access. Despite California’s vast size, it quickly became apparent that even companies like AT&T and Comcast largely don’t deliver broadband outside of cities and suburbs. Several smaller, lesser-known providers emerged from the map that were open to Wolverton, which he explored with less-than-satisfying results:

In addition to Comcast and AT&T, it listed Etheric Networks, which offers a wireless Internet service directed at home users that’s based on Wi-Fi technology, and MegaPath, which offers Internet access through a variety of wired technologies, including DSL.

After further research I found that neither of those companies was a legitimate option. MegaPath can’t deliver residential service to my house that’s faster than 1.5 megabits per second. Etheric, which focuses on business customers, offers a service level with speeds of up to 22 megabits per second, but it costs a cool $400 a month.

Other non-options for Wolverton included the highly-rated Sonic.net, which in his neighborhood is entirely dependent on AT&T’s landlines for its DSL service. That was a no-go, after Wolverton discovered he would be stuck with 3-6Mbps service. Clearwire also offers service in greater San Jose, but not at his home in Willow Glen.

That left him back with AT&T and Comcast.

But that is not really a problem in the eyes of industry defenders like Jeffrey Eisenach, managing director and principal at Navigant Economics and an adjunct professor at George Mason University Law School. Navigant is a “research group” that counts AT&T as one of its most important clients. The firm provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues cover for clients trying to sell their agenda. Navigant’s “experts have provided testimony in proceedings before District Courts, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and numerous state Public Utilities Commissions.”

Eisenach goes all out for the broadband industry in his paper, “Theories of Broadband Competition,” which throws in everything but the kitchen sink to defend the status quo:

• The cost of broadband service is declining;
• The duopoly of cable and phone companies are still competing for customers and introducing new services;
• Competition can take the form of provider innovation (ie. providers compete by offering a better services, not lower prices);
• Wireless competition is accelerating, citing LightSquared and Clearwire as two conclusive examples of competition at work;
• The cost of service on a per-megabit basis has declined.
• Competition in today’s broadband market delivers ancillary benefits not immediately evident when only considering the customer’s point of view;

Eisenach’s pricing proof stopped in 2009, just as cable providers like Time Warner Cable began raising broadband prices. TWC’s Landel Hobbs to investors: “We have the ability to increase pricing around high-speed data.” (February, 2010)

Eisenach has appeared at various industry-sponsored evidence touting his views of broadband economics and competition that later turns up as headline news on Broadband for America’s website. But just as Wolverton’s initial optimism finding other choices for broadband faded with reality, so do Eisenach’s conclusions:

1. Eisenach’s evidence of broadband price declines stops in 2009, coincidentally just prior to the recent phenomena of cable broadband rate increases, which have accelerated in the past three years;
2. Competition still exists in urban and suburban markets, as long as phone companies attempt to stem the tide of landline losses, but it’s largely absent in rural markets and in decline in others where companies “reset” prices to match their cable competition. AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon’s FiOS both effectively ended their expansion, leaving large swaths of the country with “good enough for you” service. Cable operators have even teamed up with Verizon Wireless to cross-market their products — hardly evidence of a robustly competitive marketplace;
3. Innovation can take the form of services customers don’t actually want but are compelled to take because of bundled pricing or, worse, the decline in a-la-carte add-ons in favor of “one price for everything” models. Verizon Wireless set the stage for providers of all kinds to consider mandatory bundling for any product or service that can no longer deliver a suitable return on its own. For customers already taking every possible service or fastest speed, this pricing  may deliver lower prices at the outset, but for budget-focused consumers, compulsory packages or high prices on a-la-carte services assures them of a higher bill;
4. Eisenach’s examples of competition are a real mess. LightSquared is bankrupt and Clearwire has shown it cannot deliver an equivalent broadband experience for customers and throttles the speeds of those perceived to be using the service too much. Other wireless providers typically limit customer usage or cannot deliver speeds comparable to wired broadband;
5. While the cost per megabit may have declined in the past, cable providers are still raising prices, and as Google and community-owned providers have illustrated, delivering fast speeds should not cost customers nearly as much as providers continue to charge, with no incentive to cut prices in the absence of equally fast, competitive networks;
6. While broadband may open the door for additional economic benefits not immediately apparent, competitive broadband would further drive innovation and reduce pricing, delivering an even bigger bang for the buck.

Wolverton recognized taking a promotional offer from AT&T will temporarily deliver savings over what Comcast charges, but he would have to set his expectations lower if he switched:

I’m reluctant to switch to AT&T. [U-verse] Max Plus is the fastest level of service it offers at our house, but with a top speed of 18 megabits a second, it’s significantly slower than Comcast’s Blast. Speed matters to us, because my wife and I often share our Internet connection, and we frequently use it to transfer large files such as apps, videos, photos or songs to or from the Net.

[…] What’s more, as the FCC outlined in another recent report, Comcast does a better job of delivering the speeds it advertises than does AT&T.

What’s worse in my book is that AT&T’s U-verse’s Internet service is a version of DSL. It’s faster than regular DSL, because the copper wires in your house and neighborhood are connected to nearby high-speed fiber-optic cables. Even with that speed boost, though, I’m hesitant to go back to any kind of DSL service, because my wife and I suffered through years of unreliable DSL service from AT&T predecessor PacBell and then EarthLink, which piggybacked on AT&T’s lines.

Wolverton also objected to Comcast’s bundled pricing scheme, which delivers the best value to customers who sign up for broadband, television and phone service. Wolverton does not need a landline from AT&T or Comcast, and would like to drop the service. He’s not especially impressed with Comcast’s TV lineup (or pricing) either. But he noted if he switched to broadband-only service, Comcast would effectively penalize him with a broadband-only rate of $72 a month, exactly half the current cost of Comcast’s triple-play package.

In a later blog post, Wolverton confessed he liked Comcast’s broadband service and speeds, and with the carefully-crafted pricing the cable and phone companies have developed, he expected to remain a Comcast customer given his choices and pricing options, which are simply not enough.