Home » Consumer News » Recent Articles:

Charter’s Latest Bill Padder: The $3 ‘Change of Service Computerized (Junk) Fee’

Phillip Dampier January 3, 2013 Charter Spectrum, Competition, Consumer News 1 Comment
Broadband Reports/User: "compuguybna"

(Broadband Reports/User: “compuguybna”)

If you are a Charter Cable customer looking to make some changes to your service, watch your bill because Charter may charge you up to $3 for the cost of doing business.

They label it the “Change of Service Computerized Fee.”

Broadband Reports found the fine print for the inconsistent fee, despite it not appearing on Charter’s website. A number of customers learned about it only recently because the cable operator informed customers it was going up by $1 effective Feb. 8.

Many customers report the fee does not always get levied after interacting with a customer service representative, but should it find its way to your bill, the company will usually reverse it if customers call and complain.

Cable operators have adjusted to the reality of slightly higher levels of competition by advertising lower prices but piling on junk fees and surcharges that can further raise customer bills. In 2012, new fees for cable modem rental, bill payment service fees, increases in returned check charges, and other surcharges have been introduced by several companies.

Some satellite companies also charge as much as $5 to upgrade or downgrade service.

AT&T’s Recipe for Success: Keeping U-verse Rollout Schedule Away from Predatory Competitors

natchezCable subscribers in Natchez, Miss. are scratching their heads wondering why AT&T will neither confirm nor deny whether its fiber to the neighborhood U-verse service is coming to a neighborhood near them.

AT&T says if it told customers where the service was coming, it would give away vital information to its competition — the cable and satellite companies.

AT&T spokeswoman Sue Sperry says her competitors will stop at nothing to hang onto current customers, even if it means using predatory below-market-rate pricing.

“We’ve learned from experience that if they know what our footprint is, they go in and do retention offers and pretty much give their service away for next to nothing and then we can’t compete,” Sperry told the Natchez Democrat.

But considering its biggest competitor is locally-hated Cable One, a lot of customers would still be ready to switch even if AT&T sent the cable company its detailed business plans in advance.

“Unless you spend your weekends at the Bondage Bordello, there is nothing enjoyable about dealing with Cable One in Mississippi,” says Stop the Cap! reader DeWayne. “Last summer when their system went up and died on the folks over in Columbus, even the guy running it couldn’t tell when it was coming back.”

Top secret.

Top secret.

DeWayne started reading Stop the Cap! when we covered Cable One’s massive failure in August 2012 that brought all of its services in Columbus down while the company incredibly waited for express delivery of a replacement part. When customers could not get answers from Cable One over the phone, they lined up outside the local cable office only to learn from company general manager David Lusby he had no idea how many customers were affected by the outage or when the cable system would be back up and running.

“I hate AT&T but I hate Cable One more,” DeWayne said. “It is annoying that they won’t tell us when U-verse is coming to our neighborhood.”

Sperry claims AT&T U-verse is more robust than cable or satellite because it is powered by phone lines.

“That was one of the things during the hurricane, U-verse didn’t go out,” she told the newspaper. “It’s delivered through a phone line, and the phones are the last to go out.”

But unfortunately for customers, AT&T says it only rolls out U-verse in “a measured and slow way,” forcing customers to continually visit att.com and manually check availability using their home address.

But Sperry told the newspaper once customers get the service, they remain loyal to it. That may be especially true in smaller communities in Mississippi that cope with second rate cable operators not known for offering robust or affordable service.

Comcast, AT&T Announce Rate Hikes for Chattanooga; Publicly Owned EPB Has Not

Phillip Dampier January 3, 2013 AT&T, Broadband Speed, Comcast/Xfinity, Competition, Consumer News, Editorial & Site News, EPB Fiber Comments Off on Comcast, AT&T Announce Rate Hikes for Chattanooga; Publicly Owned EPB Has Not
Image: schvdenfreude

Image: schvdenfreude

Chattanooga Comcast and AT&T U-verse customers will need to open their wallets a bit more in 2013 as both the cable and phone company have announced new rate hikes that are now taking effect. But not everyone will pay more. Customers of EPB Fiber, which offers up to 1,000/1,000Mbps broadband and is a service of the publicly-owned electric utility is keeping prices stable until further notice.

Comcast customers face new increases averaging 4% in 2013 — $5 a month for Triple Play customers, several dollars more for broadband, and around $1 for basic cable service. Customers on promotions are unaffected until the temporary pricing expires.

AT&T U-verse customers will see price increases as much as $9 a month for television and broadband service.

Chattanoogans who ditched both private providers for the public option are sitting pretty with absolutely no rate increases to pay at this time. Although negotiations with programmers are ongoing, and costs are rising, EPB says it won’t raise any rates unless it becomes absolutely necessary. The utility takes rate increases very seriously, bringing them directly to its board of directors for approval.

Comcast and AT&T said the introduction of new services and increased programming costs contributed to their need to increase rates. Comcast says it has kept rates for its Xfinity service stable since 2010, a claim that doesn’t explain away its 4% rate hike in January 2012. AT&T said its supplier and labor costs also contributed to price increases, which also includes a broadband television surcharge.

If this seems like déjà vu, it could be because both AT&T and Comcast raised rates exactly one year ago this month. AT&T was the worst offender last year, boosting TV prices between $2-5 a month, equipment fees by $4-7 a month for broadband, and a $3 rate hike for its unlimited calling landline service. In comparison, EPB said it had no immediate plans to raise TV, broadband, or phone prices last year either.

epb_fiber_optics

EPB Fiber is the only Chattanooga telecom provider not raising its prices.

Customers facing rate increases can find an easy way to avoid them: threaten to take your business somewhere else. Retention agents are on the lookout for customers considering moving to another provider, and will usually slash rates to keep your business. Don’t want to argue your way to a lower rate or just want to say goodbye to Comcast and AT&T? Stop the Cap! highly recommends EPB Fiber, the most technologically advanced option in Tennessee, priced fairly with a proven track record of reliability.

A lot of Chattanooga area residents have already considered their options:

“Comcast is complete garbage,” writes one former customer. “Horrible product, even worse customer service. My Internet went out daily. I switched to EPB as fast as I could and have never been happier. I wouldn’t have Comcast again if it was free for the rest of my life.”

Another former cable customer reminds Comcast competition makes all the difference. He switched to EPB as well:

“Keep your Xfinity Comcast, you treated me like dirt when there was no other choice for cable. Now that I have that choice, I’ll never consider you again.”

Time Warner Cable Buys Independent Princetown Cable in $1.2 Million Deal

Phillip Dampier January 3, 2013 Broadband Speed, Competition, Consumer News, Public Policy & Gov't, Rural Broadband Comments Off on Time Warner Cable Buys Independent Princetown Cable in $1.2 Million Deal

logo_princetownTime Warner Cable is expanding its footprint in the capital region of New York with the acquisition of independent Princetown Cable Company, which serves around 600 subscribers in Princetown, Duanesburg and Rotterdam in Schenectady County.

Time Warner already manages cable service for most cable subscribers around the Albany-Schenectady region, but bought Princetown Cable to further solidify its holdings.

Princetown Cable began service in 1990 serving rural areas ignored by then-dominant TCI Cable (later AT&T Cable, then Comcast).

Most customers signed up to get better reception of television signals from nearby Albany and Utica.

Princetown Cable’s lineup of around 100 channels ($82.50/month for digital cable) is dwarfed by Time Warner, and its broadband service is comparatively slow and expensive:

Princetown Cable’s SpeedZone Internet Speeds & Pricing:
SpeedZone Lite Speeds up to 768kpbs download $19.95
SpeedZone Regular Speeds up to 1mbps downloads $32.95 with Cable
$42.95 w/out cable
SpeedZone Express Speeds up to 5mbps downloads $44.95 with cable
$54.95 w/out cable
SpeedZone Turbo Speeds up to 10mbps downloads $64.95 with Cable
$74.95 w/o Cable

Time Warner Cable agreed to pay $1.2 million for the system, which breaks down to around $2,000 per subscriber.

NYC Building Owners Tell Verizon Their Tenants Don’t Care About Getting FiOS; Refuse Entry

Phillip Dampier January 3, 2013 Consumer News, Public Policy & Gov't, Verizon 4 Comments

lockedWhile a lot of people would love to get Verizon to wire their communities for the company’s fiber optic network, at least three New York City multi-dwelling unit property owners have told Verizon to get lost, in some cases telling the company none of their tenants were interested in the top-rated fiber to the home network, even as they remain without phone service three months after Hurricane Sandy damaged Verizon’s facilities in the city.

Verizon Communications has now had to force the issue, filing an official complaint with the New York Public Service Commission to get owners to open their buildings for the fiber upgrade which will also restore telephone service. In one case, a property owner allegedly demanded financial compensation from Verizon to gain admittance to the building to begin repairs.

“I have been complaining about Verizon’s lack of FiOS work in my building for a long time and I had no idea Verizon was banging on the door all along only to be told by the exclusiveboneheads that own my building that nobody was interested,” says Brad, a Stop the Cap! reader in Manhattan. “The morons at the property management company don’t have a clue or they want money from Verizon in return for the keys. Meanwhile, there is no dial tone and Verizon says they are at an impasse until the property owners, who obviously don’t care, let them in to do repairs.”

Indeed, Verizon sent certified letters to all of the affected property owners informing them, if they didn’t already know, that tenants in their buildings were without telecommunications service after Sandy wreaked havoc on Verizon’s infrastructure:

Locked out.

Locked out.

In addition, you should be aware that residents at your Property are currently out of service as a result of damage to Verizon’s network caused by Hurricane Sandy. Providing Verizon with access to install FiOS, a fiber-based network that is less vulnerable to weather-related damage, will allow Verizon to restore those residents’ services. Verizon intends to install FiOS facilities at your property to provide both cable television service as well as voice telephone services. If you do not provide Verizon with access to your Property, your residents will continue to remain without telephone service from Verizon. In addition, you should be aware that residents at nearby properties are currently out of service as a result of damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. Verizon needs access to your Property in order to bring FiOS – its fiber-based network that is less vulnerable to weather-related damage – to those nearby properties. If you do not provide Verizon with access to your Property, nearby properties will continue to remain out of service.

The excuses for denying entry have been documented by Verizon and made public in its filing with the Albany-based regulator:

  • TF Cornerstone’s properties at 2 Gold Street and 201 Pearl Street are out of service even as property management informed Verizon that “the owners do not want FiOS in the building.”
  • Rockrose Development’s buildings at 200 Water Street and 22 River Terrace are without service because property management tells Verizon “they are not interested in FiOS.”
  • Verizon reports DSA Management required “compensation in exchange for allowing Verizon access” to its building at 11 Maiden Lane and also refused Verizon entry to 700 E. 9th Street because “the property management is having a problem with Verizon at another location.”

New York State law is very clear on the subject:

PUBLIC SERVICE LAW
§228. Landlord-tenant relationship
1. No landlord shall (a) interfere with the installation of cable television facilities upon his property or premises, except that a landlord may require: 
(1) that the installation of cable television facilities conform to such reasonable conditions are necessary to protect the safety, functioning and appearance of the premises, and the convenience and well being of other tenants; 
(2) that the cable television company or the tenant or a combination thereof bear the entire cost of the installation, operation or removal of such facilities; and
(3) that the cable television company agree to indemnify the landlord for any damage caused by the installation, operation or removal of such facilities.
(b) demand or accept payment from any tenant, in any form, in exchange for permitting cable television service on or within his property or premises, or from any cable television company in exchange therefore in excess of any amount which the Commission shall, by regulation, determine to be reasonable; or
(c) Discriminate in rental charges or otherwise, between tenants who receive cable television service and those who do not.
2. Rental agreements and leases executed prior to January first, nineteen hundred seventy-three may be enforced notwithstanding this section.
3. No cable television company may enter into any agreement with the owners, lessees or persons controlling or managing buildings served by a cable television company, or do or permit any act, that would have the effect, directly or indirectly of diminishing or interfering with existing rights of any tenant or other occupant of such building to use or avail himself of master or individual antenna equipment.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!