Stop the Cap! has obtained the audio from Wednesday’s Public Utilities Committee meeting that quickly pushed through H129, Time Warner’s custom-written, anti-competition and community broadband destruction bill.

Listening to the 44 minute hearing will be disturbing to anyone who supports open government and the concept of voting for or against a complete bill, not one Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) openly admits is going to be changed.  For her, that represents no reason to delay the bill — her good friends at Time Warner need this legislation passed today, not tomorrow or next week.

As you listen, we’ve included a voter’s guide with time-indexed comments to help draw your attention to some critical points, and some much-needed fact checking.  It will also help you identify the members of the legislature that need to stay, and those that need to go.

Our apologies for the distorted audio at times.  When a member leans into the microphone, as some clearly do, it creates significant audio distortion.  It gets worse in the last 10 minutes, so watch your volume.

North Carolina’s House Public Utilities Committee Meeting on H129 – Wednesday, March 2, 2011. (44 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Your Audio Guide to The Committee Meeting

2:50	Apparently Rep. Avila gets her research straight from the cable industry that wants to destroy community broadband.  Avila is factually wrong about citizens being on the hook for “high debt” for North Carolina’s fiber networks, all of which are financed by bonds that leave bondholders at risk, not taxpayers.  The only interests Avila wants to protect are her good friends at the cable company.
3:30	Rep. Avila is dreaming if she really believes the providers that have refused to provide service thus far are going to suddenly do so if her bill passes.  These communities were ignored before and they will be ignored after.  The only difference is that her legislation will guarantee no local community can do anything to fix it.  Avila admits openly her bill will stop competition between providers.
6:00	Rep. Julia Howard is more than willing to hold meetings with those already in the business, but there is no room for actual North Carolina consumers to make their needs known.
8:50	Rep. Avila pays lip service to the ongoing problem of lack of broadband availability in large areas of the state by saying it’s unfair, but ignores the reality that if communities don’t deliver the service, nobody else will.  The red herring of a “public vote” always carries with it loads of fine print.  For example, while the industry can spend unlimited amounts on lobbying and advertising campaigns to demagogue networks, local communities are almost always banned from spending one dime to share their views with the public, or respond to the propaganda the industry sends out.  In fact, Avila’s bill bans networks from advertising their services or advocating for them.  It’s like holding a public debate, but gagging one side so they cannot speak.
12:50	John Goodman, North Carolina Chamber of Commerce presents the pre-written talking points provided by the cable industry.  As you listen, ask yourself whether Mr. Goodman is aware of the details of community broadband, or simply the information handed to him on some sheets of paper from the cable lobby.  Then ponder how many times a community provider has forced a private player out of business with so-called unfair pricing and subsidies.
17:30	Catharine Rice is one of just a handful of speakers that talk about the real-world problems of actual North Carolina citizens.  She’s concerned about them, not the bottom line of Time Warner and AT&T.  Some examples:  Parents of schoolchildren have to drive their kids to a school parking lot so their children can access the school’s Wi-Fi network to complete their homework; A neighborhood of more than a dozen homes can’t get decent broadband because Time Warner demanded $50,000 to wire up cable service.  Meanwhile, just a mile away, a wealthy golf community got their service without a 9 iron to their wallets.
8:30	Jack Stanley from Time Warner Cable delivers the day’s ironic moment when he congratulates his cable colleagues and friend from the Chamber for the “eloquence” of their prepared remarks. And why not, when you consider who wrote them.  His brief remarks consist mostly of empty promises to find a “fair resolution.”  This, from the people who wrote the very unfair bill.
19:30	The North Carolina League of Municipalities delivers an important fact: Community broadband networks are not created on a whim.  They are launched where communities face inadequate or non-existent broadband service.  Most of the cities launching their own services tried the public-private partnership route by approaching companies about broadband problems.  They were shown the door out.  This is why networks like Fibrant and GreenLight exist today.  Community broadband disturbs Big Telecom because it represents competition Wall Street and shareholders never expected they would have.  Anything that challenges the enormous profits cable and phone companies earn must be eliminated.
21:30	Mr. Trathen opens his remarks with a distortion, claiming cities are jumping into community broadband because they just want to compete with existing providers.  In fact, the record tells a very different story in North Carolina.  Cities and communities to this day are trying to get providers from Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, AT&T, and even Clearwire to deliver service to their citizens and they are being turned down, or delivered DSL service at speeds that will not even qualify as true broadband under the definition established in the National Broadband Plan.  That’s a simple fact.  How many community networks are competing against Verizon FiOS or other cutting edge broadband networks?  The reality is, anemic or non-existent broadband service has been the topic of complaints in local communities across the state for years and years.  Also, Trathen’s desire to “have a conversation” about serving unserved parts of North Carolina reminds me of the saying — talk is cheap.  Time Warner has been a part of North Carolina for years and years, and the cable company routinely bypasses any customers who do not live in a dense, populated area to this day. Trathen’s comments that there is nothing in the law today prohibiting public-private partnerships is very true, but as residents have seen, those are far and few between.  Trathen is also flat wrong when he claims nothing in the bill prevents a city from moving into an unserved area to provide service.  In fact, Avila’s bill prohibits cities from extending service outside of their boundaries.
24:00	Rep. Paul Luebke wonders why this bill is necessary, because local governments proposing these networks are already answerable to their citizens and to an oversight committee.  Leubke correctly points out the legislation is all about letting existing telecom companies decide for the people of North Carolina when/if they will get broadband service, at what speeds, and using what technology.  With no new competition on the horizon, H129 effectively delivers all of the state’s broadband interests into the hands of a cable and phone company cartel.  Leubke also expressed concerns that he (and others) are being asked to vote on a bill that has not been finalized yet.  Should negotiations between existing providers trying to extinguish community networks and the cities that run them fail to find a solution, the bill’s original language will guarantee financial disaster to existing community broadband services.
29:00	Rep. Alexander notes that the legislation establishes onerous conditions on community broadband networks that the private sector is completely exempt from.  Alexander notes these networks came about because communities were faced with last century broadband — the virtual equivalent of two cans with string between them.  This legislation assures those underserved communities will continue to be underserved.
32:00	Rep. Womble has serious concerns about how this bill is being rammed through the committee.  Just minutes before the hearing, Womble was handed a summary of the bill for the first time.  Womble is especially upset he is being asked by the bill sponsors to “trust us” when they say they will work out exemptions for existing providers.
37:00	Rep. Hager goes fishing and catches a number of red herrings about cities expanding their networks outside of their service areas and cross-subsidizing them with pilfered funds from city resources, “unfairly harming” their cable and phone company competitors. He presents no evidence to substantiate this claim.
38:30	Rep. Hastings falls into the trap of conflating middle-mile fiber backbone projects with delivering broadband to individual homes and businesses as he brings up the Golden Leaf Project, a very worthwhile fiber backbone, but one that will never extend to last mile homes and businesses.  Like so many middle-mile projects, this one will deliver service to institutions like schools, libraries and local government.  While all very noble, no funds are provided to directly wire service to individual homes that need broadband the most.  Private providers would have howled had this been the case. Instead, vague promises like “private providers are interested in leasing capacity” on the network leave consumers with the hope of better days, but they should not hold their breath.  Cable operators will not deploy service in rural areas, period, and phone company DSL’s largest impediment remains distance between the central office and individual subscribers.  While Golden Leaf may prove beneficial in incrementally moving residential broadband forward, it is not going to provide service to individuals.  In fact, H129 will ensure none of these communities can tap into Golden Leaf and directly deliver service to those that continue to be broadband-disadvantaged.
40:00	Rep. Warren doesn’t like voting on a bill just to find out what it will eventually contain later on.  “It gives me chills,” he told the committee.  He also dismisses claims the bill is about a “level playing field.”  He then directs several pointed questions to Ms. Avila about the financial implications her bill will have on state finances, its bond rating, and other considerations.  She dodges all of them with non-answer answers.
43:00	In less than 30 seconds, the bill is rushed to a committee vote by a motion from Rep. Brubaker, at which point Rep. Steen cuts off discussion (despite the fact more committee members were raising their hands to speak).  A voice vote clearly delivers a majority to the NO side, but not in the eyes of the committee chair, who claims the AYES have it, the bill is reported favorably out of the committee, and the meeting is adjourned before anyone has a chance to demand a recorded vote.

The shocking conclusion of this legislative travesty is the chairman adjourning before a recorded vote can be taken.  Without it, constituents can’t identify how their member voted and hold them accountable at the next election.

[Update 3:05pm Monday — Stop the Cap! misidentified Rep. Warren as Rep. Rowan at the 40:00 mark.  We have corrected the audio log above and regret the error.]

Suddenlink, one of America’s smaller cable operators, has been undergoing a transformation as it tries to meet expectations of today’s cable subscribers and match whatever phone company competition comes their way.  While some of the upgrades are customer-friendly, others pose ominous signs for the future — particularly with respect to Internet Overcharging broadband customers.

Let’s explore:

The Good — New Broadband Speeds, New DVR, New Investments

In parts of Suddenlink’s service area, particularly in Texas, the company is moving most of its cable service to a digital platform.  This transition is designed to open up additional space for more HD channels, keep up with broadband demands, and open the door for additional on-demand programming.

In Nacogdoches, Suddenlink announced it was adopting an all-digital TV lineup.  Starting this week, the company is offering subscribers free digital adapters — also known as “DigitaLinks,” to enable continued viewing on analog television sets that do not have a set top box or digital tuning capability.  Every subscriber purchasing more than the broadcast basic package (that only includes local stations and a handful of cable networks) will either need a digital tuner-ready television, a set top box, or a DigitaLink device to continue watching.

What is good about this transition is that Suddenlink is not charging customers a monthly fee for the adapters, either now or in the future.  That contrasts with other cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable that have handed customers a set top box or a digital adapter they will begin charging for after a year or two.

Suddenlink expects to invest nearly $120 million this year in Texas, and by the end of the year will have invested nearly a half-billion dollars in the state since 2006.

Texas is extremely important to Suddenlink.  The third largest cable company in Texas serves about 450,000 households and approximately 27,000 business customers in Amarillo, Lubbock, Abilene, Bryan-College Station, Midland, San Angelo, Georgetown, Tyler, Victoria, Conroe, Kingwood and Nacogdoches.

The company has also lit new fiber connections to handle data communications, primarily for business customers, and is upgrading its broadband service to fully support DOCSIS 3, which will deliver faster speeds and less congested service.

Customers in the state are also among the first to get access to a new and improved DVR box built on a TiVo software platform.  Suddenlink’s “Premiere DVR” service ($17/mo) is now available in Midland, Floydada, Plainview, Amarillo, Canyon, and Tulia.

The Bad — “Suddenlink Residential Internet Service is for Entertainment” Purposes Only

Do you take your broadband service seriously, or is it simply another entertainment option in your home?  If you answered the latter, this story may not be so surprising.

In Humboldt County, Calif., broadband users started noticing their favorite web pages stopped updating on a regular basis.  At one point, a blogger in McKinleyville noticed he couldn’t manage to post comments on his own website.  But things got much worse when several web pages started reaching customers with other users’ names (and occasionally e-mail addresses) already filled in on login screens and comment forms.

It seems Suddenlink started to cache web content in the far northern coastal county of California, meaning the first customer to visit a particular website triggered Suddenlink’s local servers to store a copy of the page, so that future customers headed to the same website received the locally-stored copy, not the actual live page.

But the caching software went haywire.

Web visitors began to receive mobile versions of web sites even though they were using home computers at the time.  Some were asked if they wanted to download a copy of a web page instead of viewing it.  And many others discovered websites were customized for earlier visitors.

While the caching problem was irritating, the privacy breaches Suddenlink enabled were disturbing, as was the initial total lack of response from Suddenlink officials when the problem first started in late January.

The Journal finally reached a representative who provided this explanation:

Suddenlink Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications Pete Abel knew that a cache system had recently been installed in Humboldt County, but was unaware of the particular problems reported by users. After speaking with the Journal and other Suddenlink employees, though, he released a statement explaining what appeared to have happened.

According to the release, the cache system was installed in Humboldt County on Thursday, Jan. 27 — the very day that users began experiencing problems — and was intended as an interim solution to relatively low Internet speeds in Humboldt County. The system, it said, was able to cache only unsecure websites — those which, unlike almost all reputable banking or commerce systems — do not encrypt communications. But the company eventually discovered the problems that its customers had been reporting and, having fruitlessly worked with its vendor to find a solution, turned the system off on Monday.

“The good news is that secure Web site pages will not have been cached,” Abel said in a follow-up call to the Journal. “And I have been assured 100 ways from Sunday that never would have happened.”

Andrew Jones, who runs a blog with his Suddenlink broadband account, tried to opt out of the web caching and received an interesting response, in writing, from a Suddenlink representative.  He was told he could not opt out of cached web pages with a residential account because, “the residential service is for entertainment only.”

Jones was told he would have to upgrade to a business account to escape the cache.

“If a small local radio station intermittently went off air for multiple days, the radio host would be apologizing and explaining the situation,” Jones wrote the Journal. “If a large utility company experienced sporadic power outages, people could hear a recording on a toll-free number to learn the cause and about ongoing repairs. What does an Internet provider do when web access becomes spotty and begins serving customers old copies of web pages? The company gets back to you in a couple days and suggests you pay more if you don’t like its recently degraded services.”

The Ugly — Suddenlink’s New Usage Meter Suggests 43GB is An Appropriate Amount of Usage for Standard Internet, 87GB is Plenty for Their $60 Premium Package

Although Suddenlink has not formally adopted an Internet Overcharging scheme of usage caps or metered billing, the company is sending automated e-mail messages to customers who exceed what they call “typical monthly usage for customers in your package.”  The e-mail tells customers they may be infected with a virus or someone else could be using your connection without your permission.  Boo!  For the uninitiated, this kind of message can bring fear that their computer has been invaded, either with malicious malware or the neighbor next door.

Customers have also received letters in the mail from the company telling them to check out their new “usage meter.”  Several have been sharing how much they’ve racked up in usage during the month on Broadband Reports.  One customer managed 243GB while another looking at the company’s super premium 107/5Mbps package managed a whopping 786GB.

Although the wording of the message has strenuously avoided telling customers they are wrong for this amount of usage, the implication is clear to many: they are counting your gigabytes and identifying the outliers.  One customer called it Suddenlink’s “You’re actually using your connection, and we really wish you wouldn’t”-message.

“No one with an ounce of sense would pay for a 20/3Mbps connection and only use 78 GB in a month. Let’s hope they’re just making cute suggestions, not easing us into a cap, because that just won’t fly,” wrote one West Virginia customer.

Another in Georgetown, Texas did the math and made it clear 43GB better not turn out to be a cap because it means customers can barely use the service they are paying for.

“It’s way too low. I got 10Mbps [service] because of price/value and not because I use less than 43GB,” he writes. “[Even] if I downloaded at 1.25MB/s for 30 days straight (1.25 * 2592000 seconds) I could [still] grab 3.164TB.”

Meanwhile, some controversy over the quality of Suddenlink’s service during the upgrade process had some residents in Cushing, Okla., up in arms at a recent city meeting.  Lorene Clyde complained Suddenlink’s “new and improved” service is worse than ever.

“I’m tired of paying for a service I’m not getting,” Clyde said.  “And the Suddenlink commercials – they are like rubbing salt in a wound.”

KUSH-AM reporters were on hand to cover the event, noting Clyde was not the only one complaining.  The radio station noted that “the buzz around town echoes her sentiments – from the ‘mildly irritated’ to the ‘downright mad’ – citizens have been complaining.  Not only have they been complaining to Suddenlink – as difficult as that may be (the call center is in Tyler, Texas) – but to city leaders.”

What Clyde and others may not have realized is that Suddenlink officials were in attendance and were able to apologize for the problems, but a growing consensus among consumers and city leaders is that a broad-based refund for the poor service was warranted.

Commissioner Joe Manning said while he appreciated the promise to figure out the problem, it wasn’t good enough to just apologize and promise – that subscribers’ bills should be adjusted to reflect the poor service.

Commissioners Carey Seigle and Tommy Johnson agreed with Manning.  Seigle pointed out it would be “good P.R.” to give some sort of rebate across the board to subscribers while Johnson complained that the original “upgrade” was only going to take a few weeks and now 8 months later – things are not better, but worse, noted the radio station.

Suddenlink officials on hand said they did not have that kind of authority, but continued to promise things are going to get better.  “I pledge to you,” one said, “We will find it [the problem] and fix it.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJTV Lubbock Borrowing Wi-Fi 2-7-11.flv[/flv]

KJTV-TV in Lubbock, Texas talked with Suddenlink about the growing trend of neighbors “borrowing” neighbors’ unsecured Wi-Fi networks.  Other than the accidental recommendation that consumers should “invest in Internet spyware” to keep your computer safe, the report does a fair job of shining a light on a practice that could have financial consequences if the provider implements an Internet Overcharging scheme.  (2 minutes)

With all of the tumultuous events in the Middle East, the debate over whether to allow Al Jazeera’s English language service on America’s cable systems has begun again, with commentators on the right accusing the channel of being the next best thing to Osama bin Laden anchoring the six o’clock news, and some on the left demanding carriage just to make a point.  But the real question left unanswered is, “how much is this channel going to cost cable subscribers?”

Al Jazeera English managing director Al Ansteys has been negotiating with Comcast and Time Warner Cable, America’s largest cable operators, to find out — and ultimately win carriage of the 24 hour English-language news network on both cable systems.

Arriving at Comcast headquarters in Philadelphia with 13,000 signed petitions for Al Jazeera English, Ansteys said the sheer number of requests should extinguish any doubt that Americans want better coverage of events in the Middle East from the network.

Nearly 8,000 Time Warner Cable subscribers signed petitions and another 1,000 Cablevision subscribers echoed the sentiment.

Time Warner Cable already has experience carrying international news outlets.

The company recently expanded the reach of Russia Today (RT), a 24-hour news network in English based in Moscow and funded by the Russian government.  The channel is the equivalent of an external television service to compliment The Voice of Russia (formerly Radio Moscow), a station familiar to every shortwave radio listener.  Although the Russian government goes out of its way to declare the RT’s journalistic independence, the firewall between the Kremlin and channel’s newsroom has been tissue-thin at times.  Reporters have learned how to cover certain stories, and which ones to avoid.  RT’s news and current affairs programming compliment the foreign policy priorities of Kremlin.

RT’s coverage of the Middle East is occasionally anti-American to the point of stridency.  Some reports on the channel infer the United States government has thrown its former allies under the bus, others claim everything Washington does in the region has to be reviewed by Jerusalem before passing muster.  Message: the Obama Administration’s policies are out of touch, unreliable, and incoherent.  You can get much the same view from Sean Hannity any evening on Fox News, but RT is no right-wing paradise.  Liberal American talk radio host Thom Hartmann has a regular show on RT — The Big Picture.  The news channel also devotes a considerable amount of time talking to fringe commentators across the ideological spectrum, and even has spent time with 9/11 conspiracy theorists.  When that is finished, it’s time for the weather in Minsk.

The presentation is light years ahead of the shortwave service, whose studios still have all the acoustical qualities of a subway station restroom.  Posh British accents and modern graphics make the channel blend in nicely with other international news operations like France 24, CBC Newsworld, BBC World, or CNN International.

But the bigger question is why I, and other Time Warner customers are getting another channel few asked to receive.  Quietly “soft-launched” in western New York on a digital channel in the 100’s, RT’s sudden presence wasn’t likely to draw much attention — and it hasn’t, — all part of its larger plan to expand cable carriage nationwide. If the channel (and others) succeed, it will be able to directly reach American audiences with a Russian point of view, without an American gatekeeper.

As of last month, the effort expanded on radio as well.  New York City area radio listeners can now receive The Voice of Russia 24 hours a day on their AM radio dial, thanks to an agreement with WNSW 1430-AM in Newark, N.J., which has effectively leased out the station to Moscow.

This is the dream many international broadcasters have had for years — reaching an American audience that routinely ignores international voices.  During the Cold War, literally millions of watts were thrown back and forth as western stations fought eastern bloc jamming to deliver the Voice of America and Radio Liberty.  The Soviet Union and their satellites carpeted the shortwave bands with English language programming from stations as diverse as Radio Moscow, Radio Tirana, Albania and the Voice of Mongolia.  But it was a battle few Americans paid attention to, content to listen to local AM and FM stations.

As for Al Jazeera English — it is a credible news operation measured against today’s definition of “cable news” and delivers top rate coverage of the Arab Spring — the ongoing transformation of governments across the region.  If anything, their coverage revels in the new democratic possibilities open to the region. It’s not the BBC, but then again what passes for cable news in the United States these days isn’t either.

Al Jazeera makes the assumption you are already familiar with the region, and risks talking over the heads of those who are not, but wild claims that the network is some propaganda arm of Osama bin Laden or other assorted Islamic extremist groups just don’t match the programming.  In fact, one is much more likely to see anti-American rhetoric on RT than on Al Jazeera English, which is completely preoccupied with events closer to the Arab world.

The tone is far more Fareed Zakaria than Glenn Beck.  If you don’t know who those people are, you aren’t going to watch the channel anyway.  And there is the larger point — do we need more channels on the budget-busting cable dial?

Should Al Jazeera be allowed on America’s cable and satellite lineups?  Of course, especially if there is room for channels like RT or CCTV9, the Beijing-based 24-hour English language network from the People’s Republic of China, both seen on many Time Warner cable systems.  But they’d better come free of charge or sold a-la-carte if they are not.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTXF Philadelphia Comcast Al Jazeera Debate 2-24-11.flv[/flv]

WTXF-TV in Philadelphia aired this screamfest debate over Al Jazeera English in the United States that completely misses an important point: who is going to pay for it? (6 minutes)

A couple from Merritt, B.C. has received bills from Bell for more than $5,000 in data usage, even after the skyrocketing bills made the family so frightened of their phone, they turned it off.

This is the story of Daniel and Kate Methot, who purchased a smartphone from Bell in October of last year.  When the first bill arrived, it contained more than $1,000 in data charges.

“My wife looked at me and I thought ‘Oh boy, what did I do that I didn’t know that I had done? I am in trouble’,” Daniel told CBC News.

When Internet Overcharging of this magnitude occurs, most people first blame themselves, assuming they did something wrong.  The Methot family figured they downloaded a malfunctioning or data hungry app or left something running on the phone.

“We never thought we would be billed for something we weren’t using. That was sort of a new concept for us,” Daniel said, but the family still sought guidance from Bell on how the charges could get that high.

“They really couldn’t give us an answer,” Kate said.

The family deleted everything they could find on their new Samsung Galaxy phone in hopes of stopping the surprise charges.

But when the December bill arrived, the couple was horrified to discover their new bill was more than $3,500 — almost entirely for data usage that literally cost Bell pennies to provide.  In fact, the phone company managed to bill the couple for 30 hours of usage during one 24-hour day, a clear warning sign there was a severe billing problem at work here.

But when it comes to protesting charges with Bell, the Methots discovered customers are guilty until proved innocent.

“I felt like I was being treated like a criminal — like we were trying to essentially steal from them,” Daniel said. “When you call in to argue a bill, that’s what they do. They tell you to pay — and don’t ask questions.”

Kate got a stern lecture from Bell telling her to quit watching videos on her phone all day long.

Of course, the couple denied doing any such thing.  In fact, by the time January arrived, both Daniel and Kate became afraid of even going near their phone, much less using it.  The couple routinely shuts the phone off when they are not actually using it for calls, but still the data charges kept coming — more than $5,200 to date.

CBC News asked Bell several times for a response to the Methot’s complaint. While refusing an in-depth interview on the topic, Bell told CBC News it cannot yet explain what is happening with the account.

That hardly inspires confidence for the Methot family.  Despite Bell being unable to explain the charges, they continue to insist on being paid for at least some of them.

The couple even hired a lawyer for $400 to send a letter to Bell demanding better answers or the couple would not continue to pay the unexplained charges.

In that case, Bell would simply turn their account over to collections, and potentially ruin their credit rating.

Bell’s theories about the stratospheric bills include:

• They are running up the bill themselves and now trying to run away from the charges they incurred;
• They are using the phone’s Wi-Fi hotspot feature, inadvertently allowing the entire neighborhood to share their connection;
• They are watching Netflix all day and into the night;
• They ran across the border into the United States and are incurring roaming charges;
• They are tethering their computer to the phone and that consumes massive amounts of data.

The one explanation Bell hasn’t imagined is that their billing system is completely fouled up and their usage meter cannot be trusted.  One might imagine Bell could actually determine where the phone is being used, to dismiss the roaming theory.  Plus Daniel reports he is incurring data charges even when the phone is completely powered off.

Finally, Bell admitted they were responsible, credited the account for more than $3,000 of the charges, and the Methot family thought their long nightmare was over.

Only it isn’t.

Days later, though, they received a bill with $1,204 in new charges.

“It was just a temporary relief and then the stress is back again,” Kate said.

“At that point I wasn’t interested in being a Bell customer anymore,” Daniel added.

On top of that, Bell has reneged on their apology, now claiming they were not responsible for the faulty charges after all.  The Methot family can pay their $1,200 phone bill with cash, check, money order or credit card.  And if they plan to leave, they better be ready to cough up the early termination fee as well — another several hundred dollars.

Isolated incident?  Don’t bet on it.

“These customers are not alone,” Howard Maker, the head of the federal Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services told CBC News. “Unfortunately, Canadian telecom consumers do suffer from many billing errors from their providers.”

Maker said his office received more than 1,900 complaints about wireless providers last year, and 40 per cent of them were about overcharging.

With Bell insisting customers can trust their usage meter — the one that generates $5,000 in data charges for one family alone — Canadians should prepare themselves for the bills that will follow. With no oversight agency able to monitor the accuracy of the meter, Bell customers will just have to take their word for it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Couple’s huge bills unexplained by Bell 3-1-11.flv[/flv]

CBC News talks with the Methot family about their Internet Overcharging experience.  (5 minutes)

Shaw Communications is selling broadband service promising 15Mbps and delivering only 1Mbps to some of its customers.

Shaw’s ‘Extreme’ speed tier, priced at up to $57 a month, turned out to be a very bad deal for Ron Kitamura.  After discovering Shaw’s Internet speed test, he learned he was paying for 15Mbps service and only getting 1.5Mbps results.

“That is in the range of their ‘Lite’ speed tier,” Kitamura told CTV News.

Shaw’s High-Speed Lite service is priced as low as $25 a month and delivers 1Mbps service for customers on a budget.  If Shaw is unable to deliver broadband service at the speeds advertised, customers are throwing money away buying premium speeds they will never receive.

After a Shaw technician visited Kitamura’s home and replaced some equipment, his speeds improved, but still don’t reach the 15Mbps advertised.  Even worse, at night his speeds often drop to a crawl — as low as 1-2Mbps, because Shaw has oversold its broadband service.

CTV News tried to contact Shaw about Kitamura’s problems and western Canada’s cable giant isn’t talking.  They did not respond to repeated calls and e-mail contacts.

Kitamura has been offered compensation by Shaw — first a free month of service, which he refused, and then $225 in service credits — 50% off his service for the past nine months, but Kitamura still isn’t satisfied.

He, like many other Shaw customers, just wants the broadband speeds the company advertises, but apparently cannot or will not deliver.

Kitamura is done talking to Shaw.  He just filed a complaint with the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, an industry-funded ombudsman for consumers buying deregulated telecommunications services.

“Apparently, if you don’t complain, nothing gets done,” he said.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV British Columbia – Are you getting the internet speed you paid for 2-17-11.flv[/flv]

CTV British Columbia investigates if Shaw’s customers are getting the speeds they were promised.  (2 minutes)