Phillip DampierJanuary 19, 2011Consumer News, VideoComments Off on Time Warner’s Telephone Tragedies Continue in NY/Mass. – 3rd Problem This Month (Get Credit!)
If you are a Time Warner Cable “digital phone” customer living in New York or western Massachusetts, you can get a few dollars of your money back thanks to serious outages that have plagued the cable company for the past two weeks.
The worst problems occurred yesterday, when customers across the entire region couldn’t make or receive calls in many instances.
“My wife said it was like the whole system crashed,” reports Stop the Cap! reader Marcus, who lives near Syracuse. “A lot of people here are very upset.”
Marcus reports he couldn’t even work around the outage by trying to set up call forwarding to send calls to his cell phone or another Voice Over IP provider.
“I tried to forward my Time Warner calls to a Vonage number I have and that didn’t work either,” Marcus writes.
We heard from several readers in Rochester, Albany, Syracuse, and even into western parts of Massachusetts that calling a Time Warner Cable customer from a cell phone or a landline from Verizon or Frontier was nearly impossible without getting a recording or busy signal.
Small business customers using Time Warner’s phone service were also impacted in some cases.
Lakeview Deli in Saranac Lake posted a message on its Facebook page just before noon, advising its customers to call in their lunch orders using a cell phone number because of the problems with its main phone line. Owner John Van Anden said he normally gets 30 to 40 calls around the lunch hour; he got only four on Tuesday.
“It hurt (business) quite a bit just because you can’t get phone calls from customers,” he said.
The outage, which lasted more than 12 hours, was reportedly finally fixed by the cable company last evening at around 11pm. No explanation for the outage was given by Time Warner Cable.
This is the third major service problem for Time Warner’s phone service this month:
Yesterday’s collapse of Time Warner’s phone network.
“Wow, this is starting to make Frontier look good again,” says our Rochester reader Kevin. “I’ll be dropping my phone service with the cable company when my promotion ends and sticking with my Verizon cell phone.”
With all of these service outages, you know what that means — it’s time to go grab those service credits. Customers in central New York can apply for at least a week of service credits because of the ongoing problems the company faces handling call volumes. Everyone else in the region with “Digital Phone” service qualifies for a day’s worth of credit. But you won’t get it unless you ask. We’ve made asking simple, with our cut and paste process:
Stop the Cap! Presents Your Easy Service Credit Request Menu
Customers in the northeast can request one day of credit for yesterday’s phone outage. Residents in central New York, including Syracuse — can ask for one week of credit for ongoing call congestion problems.
Sample Request You Can Cut and Paste:
I am writing to request one day service credit for the phone service outage that occurred in my area yesterday, Tuesday Jan. 18th. Please credit my account.
[Central NY Residents ONLY]: I am writing to request a credit for one week of telephone service to cover the company’s ongoing intermittent call connection problems in our area as well as yesterday’s (Jan. 18) more widespread service disruption. I am concerned about the repeated problems Time Warner seems to be having in correctly servicing my telephone needs. Please credit my account.
Use the Online E-Mail form, select Billing Inquiry, and send a message requesting credit.
[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Another Phone Outage 1-18-11.flv[/flv]
WSYR-TV in Syracuse is spending plenty of time covering Time Warner’s phone outages and other problems. Here’s the fourth report this month, covering yesterday’s widespread problem. (Warning: Loud Volume) (2 minutes)
Talk. Watch. Surf. Cancel. -- Major price increases on the way for Frontier FiOS customers in Indiana.
When is a rate increase not just a rate increase? When it’s also “an attractive offer.”
Frontier Communications is getting heat from consumers in Fort Wayne, Ind., with news their Frontier FiOS TV bill will skyrocket $12-30 higher in the coming month.
To distract from the disaster-in-the-making, Frontier representatives are waving shiny keys to customers preparing to depart, trying to “upgrade” Indiana residents back to satellite TV.
Don Banowetz, president of Frontier’s Midwest division, told Fort Wayne customers he was personally excited by the satellite offer, because customers can get free programming services for the remainder of 2011, a $700 value according to Banowetz.
“It’s not just a price increase, it’s an offer — a quite attractive offer,” Banowetz told INC Now.
Frontier is also pitching a free 32-inch “web-capable” digital television for customers signing an extended length contract.
Frontier says these televisions are going to revolutionize the way Americans watch TV over the next five years, and they believe their offer will be well-received by customers.
Not so much.
"It's not just a price increase, it's an offer!"
“I’ll bet their letter will leave out the part about how Frontier rations the Internet to their customers,” writes Fort Wayne resident Irv, who has been closely following Frontier’s Internet Overcharging antics in the Sacramento area. “Will the coin slot be on the top or side of their television, because after you start watching, you’ll have to start paying.”
Frontier has sent letters to customers in Minnesota and California demanding up to $250 a month for residential broadband access because they used the company’s DSL service “too much.”
“Who wants to sign a two or three contract with Frontier, raise your hands,” Irv asks. “They have just destroyed their FiOS TV service in Indiana — my fingers couldn’t dial the cable company fast enough as I take my business somewhere else.”
Another Fort Wayne resident — Nick Behm, has been following Stop the Cap! ever since Verizon announced it was selling Ft. Wayne’s phone lines to Frontier.
“You guys had this company nailed — Indiana’s regulators should hire you folks and some other actual consumers to review these deals before they get rubber-stamped, because Frontier is going to put themselves out of business and risk landline service throughout our area,” Behm writes. “How can you ruin a fiber service that sells itself? Let Frontier run it.”
Neither Behm or Irv will be taking up Frontier’s offer, although Behm still has a term contract of his own — with Verizon.
“I am protected from Frontier’s cash grab for several more months, so at least I have time to prepare for the forthcoming cancellation — bye, bye Frontier.”
[flv width=”432″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/INC Now Ft Wayne New Charges for Frontier Customers 1-18-11.mp4[/flv]
INC Now delivers the bad (and according to Frontier – good) news to Fort Wayne, Ind., FiOS TV customers — your rates are going up as much as $30 a month. (1 minute)
Does today's decision assure the birth of Comzilla, ready to destroy anything or anyone in its path, or is it the next colossal big media deal flop worthy of AOL-Time Warner?
The wedding of Comcast and NBC-Universal was given the blessings of two federal agencies today that all but seals the multi-billion dollar deal.
In a 4-1 decision, the Federal Communications Commission approved the merger. It’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, claimed it would ultimately be good for consumers as the company promised to add at least 1,000 hours of news and information programming and a new ultra-budget “lifeline” broadband tier priced at $9.95 per month for low-income families.
The lone dissenter, Democratic commissioner Michael Copps, rejected notions that a combined company the size of Comcast, which controls more than a quarter of all cable subscribers, and NBC-Universal, a major media company, would deliver anything to consumers.
“It’s too big. It’s too powerful. It’s too lacking in benefits for American consumers,” Copps said after the FCC vote to approve the merger. “And it continues us down a road of consolidation we’ve been on for a couple of decades now. And the most threatening part about it is that this is not just traditional media, but it’s new media, too. It touches just about every aspect of our media environment.”
National Public Radio’s ‘All Things Considered’ gave measured coverage to today’s Comcast-NBC merger developments, and how it will impact consumers. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.
<
p style=”text-align: center;”>
Indeed the combined Comcast-NBC will own or control one of every seven television channels and networks seen by Americans. Copps worries that kind of media concentration is sure to reduce diversity in programming and on-air voices.
Even worse, some analysts predict the merger could trigger a new wave of media consolidation as other players try to maintain their positions in the media marketplace. Second-place Time Warner Cable could begin looking for merger opportunities with smaller cable companies, such as Cox, for example.
Just about an hour after the FCC gave approval, the Justice Department and five states’ Attorney General announced a tentative settlement that could resolve concerns that the transaction was anti-competitive.
[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNYW New York Comcast FCC Approval 1-18-11.flv[/flv]
WNYW-TV in New York reported on today’s merger decision and explained how Comcast customers, and online video fans, could be impacted. (3 minutes)
The Terms & Conditions
Two different federal agencies insisted on Comcast’s agreement to several terms and conditions before agreeing to the deal. Many of them presented no problem for Comcast, who had voluntarily agreed to several of them early on in negotiations. But the Justice Department delivered one of the strongest conditions, and a first for online video protection — it insisted the new combined entity of Comcast-NBC bow out of its voting rights in Hulu, the online video service.
√No Playing Favorites: Comcast has to agree that if it carries its own news and business channels, it has to include competitors on the same tier.
Since Comcast-NBC has ownership interests in so many news, sports, and weather channels, making space for the competition was considered crucial by federal regulators. The cable company can’t bury its competitors in Channel Siberia, or stick them on “digital tiers” that are priced higher than standard cable service. Who wins? Bloomberg News, rarely found even by cable viewers who go looking, and the very low-rated Fox Business Channel, which can’t attract 30,000 viewers on a good day. Both will find prominent positions on Comcast Cable going forward, even if nobody watches.
√ Cheap Internet Access for Qualified Families: Comcast has agreed to provide a “lifeline” broadband service, but only for families pre-qualified by federal eligibility for free school lunches.
No word on what speeds these customers will receive, and Comcast estimates the program will barely make a dent in its bottom line. It is expected to reach only around 400,000 homes nationwide, and only as long as those subscribers remain eligible under federal guidelines. No free lunch for broadband.
√ Standalone Internet Service Must Be Provided: Comcast must sell at least a 6Mbps broadband plan without cable or telephone service for $49.99 a month for three years.
Since Comcast already routinely sells standalone broadband service to customers at around this price, this was hardly a concession. Comcast can still pile on extra fees, such as their overpriced cable modem rental, and any other charges that could be mandated by federal, state, or local government in the future. They can also keep their usage caps.
√ Comcast must agree to the FCC’s Homeopathic Net Neutrality Rules: Comcast has to agree to the FCC’s heavily-watered down definition of Net Neutrality… the ones Comcast itself suggested.
Since the FCC largely caved-in to Big Telecom’s lobbying against Net Neutrality, Comcast’s agreement to adhere to what the FCC calls Net Neutrality won’t present any problems, because those terms were similar to what Comcast had asked for all along. Their “digital phone” service is exempted, which means Comcast can “manage” competing Voice Over IP services at its pleasure.
√ Evidence That PBS Has A Lobbyist, Too — Special Favors for Public Broadcasting: Public television stations win carriage protection from Comcast “for several years.”
In an effort to free spectrum, PBS stations could be pressured to give back some channels or reduce their transmitter power to free up UHF frequencies for more wireless broadband. Should this happen, Comcast has agreed to keep those stations on their cable systems as if nothing changed at all. It assures stations that even if their broadcast coverage areas are reduced, their cable carriage will stay the same.
√ Binding Arbitration Comes to Buyers of Comcast-owned Networks: If a cable system or other provider runs into trouble getting an agreement with Comcast, the FCC offers help.
To protect other cable systems, telco-TV, and satellite companies from uncompetitive pricing or access blockades to Comcast-controlled networks, the cable company agrees to come to the table and submit to binding arbitration over carriage disputes. Unfortunately for Comcast subscribers, the cable giant can’t force broadcasters or other cable networks to the same table to settle their own carriage wars.
√ Online Access to Programming Comes to Existing Players, Unless Something Big Changes: Everyone loves the status-quo, and this agreement assures it.
The Department of Justice provisions protecting access to online video programming were carefully crafted by lawyers with one eye on Washington and the other on Wall Street. It effectively provides “stability” in the marketplace and avoids the kinds of competitive surprises Wall Street hates. Effectively, the agreement grants access to Comcast-owned programming to ventures that existed prior to the agreement reached today. Existing players have the government’s assurance carriage contracts are secure. Those with a pre-existing relationship to Comcast can also purchase the entire bouquet of Comcast-controlled programming (no a-la-carte) at prices similar to those charged to other cable and satellite customers.
But brand new players that threaten to turn existing business models on their heads? Forget it. The agreement says nothing that would require access to Comcast programming for upstart services like ivi, or even Google TV for that matter. The only potential, real-world competitive scenario comes if an existing player (say Time Warner Cable, Verizon FiOS, or AT&T U-verse) decided to start a national virtual online cable company open to any American, anywhere. What are the chances of that happening? How many of you can choose Time Warner -or- Comcast? Verizon FiOS -or- AT&T U-verse? Would AT&T risk its U-verse revenue selling Time Warner Cable customers the same channel lineup, knowing it can’t also easily bundle broadband and phone packages with it?
√ No Voting Rights for Hulu: Comcast agrees to limit its role in one of the biggest potential reasons some consumers are prepared to cut cable’s cord.
The Justice Department’s requirement that Comcast effectively butt-out of the day to day decisions affecting Hulu may protect consumers, but Hulu’s partners don’t want to devalue their programming by giving it away for free forever, either. Nothing prohibits the birds-of-a-feather-partners in Hulu to put the service under a full ad load or behind a pay wall, reducing its value and interest to consumers. Or, the whole project could be terminated at the behest of News Corp. and Disney.
Phillip Dampier: The real answer to this question is "both."
Whatever consumer protections the FCC and Justice have included, they won’t last forever. Virtually all expire within three to seven years, at which point Comcast might be humbled by the culmination of a bad business decision the likes of AOL-Time Warner, or become Comzilla, ready to trample its competition (and consumers) into the dirt.
Was This a Commission Cave-In or a Foregone Conclusion?
Although Commissioner Copps calls today’s decision a “dangerous” deal, some ex-regulators suggest the package presented to federal regulators was effectively a foregone conclusion.
Bruce Gottlieb was formerly Chief Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, and offered his take on today’s developments for The Atlantic:
How mergers at the FCC will play out is notoriously hard to predict, but the ultimate result is not. The historical truth is that, in virtually every instance, the commission will approve any major proposed transaction. The only time in recent memory that the commission declined to do so was the proposed merger of the two leading satellite-TV providers (Echostar and DirecTV) — and that marriage was running into problems with other agencies long before the FCC put the final nail in the coffin.
(Yes, then-Chairman Reed Hundt also famously ended rumors of an AT&T and Southwestern Bell merger in 1997 by preemptively declaring it “unthinkable.” But those companies simply had to wait until 2005, when a different FCC chairman let it go through.)
The real action at the FCC involves what “conditions” the agency will put on a merger. These are supposed to be narrowly tailored to address specific harms raised by the merger at issue. But, regardless of who is in charge at the agency, it’s all relative.
Often, the conditions applied to a particular merger have more to do with what the chairman and commissioners at the time want to achieve on an industrywide basis. It’s just easier to get these things done when you have the extraordinary leverage of controlling the timing of a multibillion-dollar transaction that the parties are desperate to consummate.
[…] The FCC’s rules, as described in the press release announcing the merger, appear to be aimed at ensuring that “over the top” providers have fair access to programming (which the NBCU part of Comcast-NBCU will provide), as well as to consumers (which the Comcast part of Comcast-NBCU will provide).
This is, by far, the strongest statement yet from the commission about the importance of over the top video competition. But the business and regulatory stakes in this fight are only going to increase over time. Indeed, the two Republican commissioners (Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker) issued separate statements saying they have concerns over whether the FCC should be writing rules to encourage over the top video. So this is likely to be the first skirmish in what will surely be a long and bloody war.
In the weeks ahead, the lawyers will be able to parse the specific provisions to see where the loopholes are and how it will all play out in practice. The details surely matter. But years from now, the specifics of what was decided in this merger may mean a lot less than the fact that the FCC is now deeply involved in the multifront war to decide who will win online video.
[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Newshour Comcast Merger Announced 12-3-09.mp4[/flv]
More than a year ago, PBS’ ‘The Newshour’ explored the reasons why Comcast and NBC-Universal would want to join forces. Now, after millions of dollars of Comcast subscribers’ money has been spent lobbying for approval, will consumers ultimately pay an even higher price later on? (12/3/2009 — 11 minutes)
Unless you own Sprint’s premiere smartphones — the Evo 4G and the Epic, get out your wallet — Sprint is increasing the price on its unlimited data plan by $10, effective later this month.
Evo and Epic owners already pay the $10 “premium data” fee that will be extended to all smartphone customers Jan. 30 (customers on existing contracts will not be affected).
The reason for the price increase? Heavy usage on its wireless network, which partly includes Virgin Mobile (ending its unlimited service Feb. 14) and Clearwire, which heavily throttles speeds of customers deemed to be “using too much.”
Chief executive Dan Hesse says Sprint will retain its unlimited service plans, which the company calls the best value in the wireless industry. But the pricing change will present minor challenges as Sprint markets themselves as the least costly.
Sprint's marketing focuses on its unlimited use offers, some of which are about to get more expensive.
Sprint’s “Everything Data” plan, which also includes unlimited cell-to-cell calls will now cost $79.99 per month. Comparable plans from T-Mobile are priced at $99.99 for that company’s 4G network and $119.98 on Verizon Wireless’ slower, but more ubiquitous 3G network.
“Sprint has been the price leader in the market,” said Jennifer Fritzsche, a Wells Fargo & Co. analyst in Chicago who has an “outperform” rating on the stock. “Sprint may be more confident in the pricing power it has with customers.”
The Wall Street Journal also shares positive views of the price increase from Wall Street:
Wall Street applauded the move, with many seeing it as a sign of pricing power returning to the wireless industry. “It is more likely that Sprint believes that consumers value unlimited and that they can get away with higher pricing,” said Jonathan Chaplin, an analyst at Credit Suisse.
The price hike also suggests that Sprint has seen stronger smartphone growth over the past three months, he added, noting that the carrier likely wouldn’t have made the change if it were still concerned about stabilizing its base on contract customers.
But some other analysts are less impressed with Sprint, especially because of challenges the company faces with its Clearwire partnership.
Patrick Comack from Zachary Investment Research has downgraded Sprint stock, particularly because of technology issues Clearwire faces.
Comack told CNBC Clearwire is stuck with defective spectrum for much of its wireless broadband service.
“It can’t penetrate walls,” Comack said, noting most Clearwire customers are trying to use wireless broadband in the 2GHz range, which presents plenty of problems from obstacles between the tower and the customer.
Comack also believes Sprint’s network simply cannot compete with Verizon Wireless, which he suspects could pick up a number of Sprint customers once it fully activates its 4G network nationwide.
Verizon Wireless network delivers significantly better coverage than Sprint, which focuses on urban and suburban markets, and the major highways that connect them.
Phillip DampierJanuary 17, 2011Consumer News, Video, Wireless BroadbandComments Off on Belgian Mobile Provider’s Call Center Gets Punk’d By Flemish Television
Vlaamse Radio-en Televisieomroep, Belgium’s largest Dutch-language network, turns the table on Mobistar, one of Belgium’s mobile phone companies that frustrates customers with long hold times, endless call transfers, call agents that don’t listen, and when all else fails — hangs up on you in mid-sentence. VRT’s elaborate prank will satisfy any customer who has been less than satisfied with a mobile company’s customer service. [Subtitled — 10 minutes]
(Thanks to Chris Mitchell at Community Broadband Networks who found the video.)
Be Sure to Read Part One: Astroturf Overload — Broadband for America = One Giant Industry Front Group for an important introduction to what this super-sized industry front group is all about. Members of Broadband for America Red: A company or group actively engaging in anti-consumer lobbying, opposes Net Neutrality, supports Internet Overcharging, belongs to […]
Astroturf: One of the underhanded tactics increasingly being used by telecom companies is “Astroturf lobbying” – creating front groups that try to mimic true grassroots, but that are all about corporate money, not citizen power. Astroturf lobbying is hardly a new approach. Senator Lloyd Bentsen is credited with coining the term in the 1980s to […]
Hong Kong remains bullish on broadband. Despite the economic downturn, City Telecom continues to invest millions in constructing one of Hong Kong’s largest fiber optic broadband networks, providing fiber to the home connections to residents. City Telecom’s HK Broadband service relies on an all-fiber optic network, and has been dubbed “the Verizon FiOS of Hong […]
BendBroadband, a small provider serving central Oregon, breathlessly announced the imminent launch of new higher speed broadband service for its customers after completing an upgrade to DOCSIS 3. Along with the launch announcement came a new logo of a sprinting dog the company attaches its new tagline to: “We’re the local dog. We better be […]
Stop the Cap! reader Rick has been educating me about some of the new-found aggression by Shaw Communications, one of western Canada’s largest telecommunications companies, in expanding its business reach across Canada. Woe to those who get in the way. Novus Entertainment is already familiar with this story. As Stop the Cap! reported previously, Shaw […]
The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the Canadian equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, may be forced to consider American broadband policy before defining Net Neutrality and its role in Canadian broadband, according to an article published today in The Globe & Mail. [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s] proposal – to codify and enforce some […]
In March 2000, two cable magnates sat down for the cable industry equivalent of My Dinner With Andre. Fine wine, beautiful table linens, an exquisite meal, and a Monopoly board with pieces swapped back and forth representing hundreds of thousands of Canadian consumers. Ted Rogers and Jim Shaw drew a line on the western Ontario […]
Just like FairPoint Communications, the Towering Inferno of phone companies haunting New England, Frontier Communications is making a whole lot of promises to state regulators and consumers, if they’ll only support the deal to transfer ownership of phone service from Verizon to them. This time, Frontier is issuing a self-serving press release touting their investment […]
I see it took all of five minutes for George Ou and his friends at Digital Society to be swayed by the tunnel vision myopia of last week’s latest effort to justify Internet Overcharging schemes. Until recently, I’ve always rationalized my distain for smaller usage caps by ignoring the fact that I’m being subsidized by […]
In 2007, we took our first major trip away from western New York in 20 years and spent two weeks an hour away from Calgary, Alberta. After two weeks in Kananaskis Country, Banff, Calgary, and other spots all over southern Alberta, we came away with the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Good Alberta […]
A federal appeals court in Washington has struck down, for a second time, a rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission to limit the size of the nation’s largest cable operators to 30% of the nation’s pay television marketplace, calling the rule “arbitrary and capricious.” The 30% rule, designed to keep no single company from controlling […]
Less than half of Americans surveyed by PC Magazine report they are very satisfied with the broadband speed delivered by their Internet service provider. PC Magazine released a comprehensive study this month on speed, provider satisfaction, and consumer opinions about the state of broadband in their community. The publisher sampled more than 17,000 participants, checking […]