“If your house was destroyed, and you have looked around the neighborhood for our cable box and cannot find it, you owe us $212 and you need to either pay us or make an insurance claim on our behalf.”

Those were the exact words of a Charter Cable representative talking to a storm victim who lost her home, possessions, and yes, Charter Cable’s set top box.  Stop the Cap! reader Jake from Alabama shared the story of his friend Kelly — a single mother with three kids who lived in Jefferson County, until last month’s tornado flattened her home and scattered everything the family owned for miles around.  Kelly is now living with her parents in Georgia and trying to sort through insurance claims, school for her children, her future career, and the cable company.

“She told me everyone was wonderful, offering food, aid, temporary shelter, and even assistance with insurance claims,” Jake writes.  “Everyone but Charter Cable, who immediately demanded payment for equipment that could have blown into the next county.”

Kelly told Jake the other utilities were glad to help suspend service to her now non-existent home.  The phone company is even forwarding phone calls to her Alabama phone number, which now connects to her cell phone.  Nobody asked for a penny, and all expressed sorrow for the loss.  Charter Cable expressed an interest in Kelly’s credit card number to pay for her lost cable box.

“She told me the woman at Charter demanded to know if she was not prepared to pay today, when would she file her insurance claim so the company can get paid,” Jake says.  “Even worse, if she didn’t pay, they would assess late fees and turn her over to a collection agency.”

Cable companies demanding payment for lost or destroyed cable equipment is nothing new.  Stop the Cap! has documented instances where operators demand payment for cable boxes destroyed in fires, even when the customer lacks insurance.

“It’s become a hot topic in Birmingham and storm-damaged areas because relief workers are hearing horror stories from customers, some injured, who are told to start combing through adjacent yards to look for their lost cable equipment,” Jake says.

Bright House Networks, which also provides service in some storm-damaged areas, has been particularly nasty.

Jake notes one local talk show featured a caller who shared the story of a Bright House representative who told the customer she would wait on the phone while she searched the backyard for Bright House’s DVR box.

“It was disgusting, and Bright House told a Birmingham newspaper it was their policy to demand homeowners file insurance claims on the cable company’s behalf so they can get paid full value for their damaged, usually previously used, cable equipment,” Jake says.

In fact, that is Bright House Networks’ policy, notes the Birmingham News:

Bright House Networks, whose service area includes hard-hit Pratt City, also expects its customers to file claims under homeowners’ or renters’ insurance to pay for lost or destroyed cable boxes. “That’s how we normally handle it,” spokesman Robert L. Smith said.

If storm victims don’t have insurance, he said, decisions will have to be made on a case-by-case basis.

“For those who have lost everything, talking to a cable company is probably the last thing on their minds,” Smith said. “We’re not going to pressure someone for a set-top box.”

But in fact cable companies have pressured customers into paying for lost equipment and told they’ll get their money back from the final insurance settlement.

“The problem here isn’t so much that Charter and Bright House want to get paid for destroyed equipment, it’s how zealous they are about getting paid right now, even as people are still wrapping their hands around the cards dealt to them by the massive tornado damage,” Jake says.

The News notes not every cable company is out for customers’ credit card numbers:

Among other television services, AT&T’s U-verse customers who lost their leased equipment in the storm can have it replaced at no charge, company spokeswoman Sue Sperry said.

DirecTV waives replacement costs for equipment damaged in storms if customers continue services, spokeswoman Vanessa Dunham said. If service can’t be restored because of damage to the home, DirecTV offers to cancel the account and waive fees for not returning equipment, she said.

[Update 5/20: Charter Communications sent a statement saying, in part: Charter will not charge customers for missing, destroyed, or damaged equipment as a result of the recent tornadoes. We adjusted our policy shortly after the tornado in response to the large-scale and catastrophic nature of this storm.  We have now confirmed the company is now crediting customers for lost or damaged equipment.]

Charter Cable, one of America’s worst-rated cable companies, wants out of greater Los Angeles.  Its cable system, serving parts of LA, has been rumored for sale for years.  Now the cable company has gotten serious, hiring Goldman Sachs and Citibank to run an auction to sell off the system.

The most logical buyer, Time Warner Cable, has been engaged in on-again, off-again talks with Charter about Los Angeles for sometime, according to several sources in the cable investment community.  Charter proposed a swap, trading its Los Angeles system to Time Warner if they could acquire Time Warner’s subscribers in Wisconsin.

Time Warner Cable currently serves 560,000 subscribers in Green Bay, Milwaukee and Appleton.  Charter serves much of the rest of the state.  Thankfully for many Wisconsin customers, Time Warner Cable told Charter they were not interested.  Time Warner gets significantly higher customer ratings than Charter does.

Now that Goldman Sachs and Citibank will be running an auction, Time Warner Cable could still ultimately acquire the Charter systems in Los Angeles, if they are willing to pony up an estimated $2 billion asking price.  If Time Warner won’t bid that high, speculation is that Comcast, Cox, or Cablevision will.

A surprise bonus for buyers are rumors Charter will throw in its cable system in Fort Worth, Tex.  That move would also seem to benefit a Time Warner Cable takeover, considering the nation’s second largest cable operator already has an enormous presence in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.  But Multichannel News points out that part of Texas brings bad memories for Time Warner, when it had to effectively commit to an expensive rebuild of the nearby ailing system acquired from bankrupt Adelphia Cable in 2006.

Time Warner Cable is still rumored to be the logical buyer of Insight Cable’s systems, also for sale, in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio, although the cable company is still balking at an asking price of up to $4 billion.

One of America’s largest midwestern cities is being victimized by not one, but two major Internet Service Providers with Internet Overcharging schemes that will limit broadband use by customers.

Charter Communications, which calls St. Louis home, delivers cable service to much of the city, and has lightly enforced arbitrary usage limits on its cable broadband customers since last November.  AT&T, the major telephone provider, plans to limit its DSL and U-verse customers starting in early May.

“Now we get to choose between Charter’s usage cap or AT&T’s,” says Reginald, a Stop the Cap! reader in St. Louis.  “As usual, AT&T is always the bigger ripoff — this company hasn’t done one consumer-friendly thing in at least a decade.”

Reginald is currently a U-verse customer who fled Charter around the time the cable company went bankrupt.

“Charter was, is, and will always be abysmal in providing good service and accurate bills, and I was not about to pay for their business mistakes,” Reginald writes.  “When U-verse became available I told AT&T I was signing up because they were offering unlimited use plans and Charter was playing games with their usage cap.”

When AT&T’s cap is in place, St. Louis residents will get to choose between the lesser of two evils:

Usage Limits

• AT&T DSL Customers:  150GB per month
• AT&T U-verse Customers:  250GB per month
• Charter Lite/Express: 100GB per month
• Charter Plus/Max: 250GB per month
• Charter Ultra 60: 500GB per month

AT&T will deliver three warnings and then a higher bill — $10 for each 50GB of “excess usage.”  Charter sends out occasional warnings, then reserves the right to terminate your service.

“It stinks, and if I had my way I would not do business with any provider who has a usage cap,” Reginald says.  “I would rather pay a few dollars more a month and not have to worry, and I can’t imagine I’ve ever used over 100GB in a month.”

Jess, another St. Louis resident, pulls the plug on AT&T U-verse May 2nd.

“I almost wanted them to charge me an early cancellation fee so I could pound them with their sudden change of terms,” Jess says.  “I am switching back to Charter on May 2nd, the day AT&T starts their crap.  AT&T acted all surprised about why I would possibly ever not do business with them over this issue.”

Jess says she would rather deal with warning letters from Charter than a higher AT&T bill.

“Every penny more AT&T gets from us goes right into their lobbying to screw consumers more, and here are the results for everyone to see,” Jess says.  “If Charter wants to pull their games with me and my family, the next step is to declare war on the politicians who let this stuff happen.”

Bill says AT&T offered him a discount to stay with the company — he is canceling his U-Verse service May 1st.  But he refused, telling AT&T he will not do business with a company that engages in Internet Overcharging.

“I’m not too worried about Charter,” Bill writes Stop the Cap! “If they try and threaten me, I’ll let them cut me off and then we’ll sign up under my wife’s name, and bounce from account to account.”

Your money = Their Money

For all three of our readers, none of whom claim they will exceed the allowance, it’s a matter of principle.

Reginald, Jess, and Bill all feel strongly usage caps and overlimit fees are unjustified, and are more about protecting video packages than “unclogging” providers’ networks.

Bob Zimmermann, an AT&T customer in Richmond Heights, tells the Post-Dispatch he doesn’t like the new limit either. He watches an occasional Internet movie, and sometimes downloads video to his iPad. He doubts he’ll exceed the cap, but he doesn’t want to worry about it.

He is shopping for alternatives.

“I’ll see if I can negotiate a better deal,” he told the newspaper.

Jess wishes him luck finding someone else in St. Louis.  She suggests customers like Zimmermann play AT&T and Charter off each other to get a lower bill, at least temporarily.

“What is most important right now is to tell AT&T you are leaving them because they are abusive, and then sign up with a new customer discount with Charter,” Jess suggests.  “Then if and when Charter cuts you off, go back to AT&T and see if you can get them to waive any fees after the third warning or else you are switching back to Charter.”

Another alternative is to sign up for Charter’s business service, which has no usage cap, but comes at a significantly higher price than residential service.  Their starter package includes unlimited Internet at 16/2Mbps speeds, a domain name, and a business phone line with unlimited long distance and calling features.  It runs a steep $120 a month.

“If Charter didn’t offer a 500GB allowance on their 60Mbps tier, I might consider a business package if I used my connection a lot,” admits Bill.  “Isn’t it ridiculous when someone wants to sell you a super fast package you cannot really use because of usage limits?”

Bill partly blames the state legislature for letting AT&T get abusive with customers.

“AT&T shows up with a lot of cash to dole out in the Missouri legislature and in return they get to abuse customers,” Bill notes.  “You notice Verizon cannot get away with this in the more consumer-protection-friendly northeast.”

Jess says the whole thing is a mess.

“It really shows how the midwest is getting screwed once again — this time for Internet access,” she notes. “There is no Verizon fiber here, and even Google showing up in Kansas City won’t be enough to shame the likes of AT&T.”

The final results were no help to Comcast in this square-off.

Comcast will do anything to avoid being labeled the Consumerist’s Worst Company in America, even if it means encouraging employees to stuff the ballot boxes with votes for one of their colleagues — Charter Communications.

Instead of improving service and making friends with their customers, Comcast sent asked employees to send in multiple votes to beat up on Charter Cable, one of America’s smaller cable companies that emerged from bankruptcy in late 2009.  Consumer Reports gives Charter low marks anyway, so why not pile on?  Comcast sure did in not one, but two memos begging for employees to vote soon and vote often:

Comcasters,

We need your help to show that Comcast is a great company.

The Consumerist website is currently hosting its poll of the “Worst Companies in America.” Comcast is part of the first round of this poll, which started today and ends at 9 a.m. (ET) this Friday. Unfortunately, this same poll named us as their worst last year. If you feel that Comcast does not deserve this label, we hope that you will participate and vote for the company that is paired against Comcast.

To vote, just click on the following link and place your vote: https://consumerist.com/2011/03/23/worst-company-in-america-round-one-comcast-vs-charter/.

Of course, your participation is voluntary. Naturally, we don’t want to vote for any company to receive this label; unfortunately that is how the Consumerist poll is structured.

You can only vote one time from a single IP address, so we hope that you will consider voting today/tonight and at home from your cell phone, iPad, personal computer or other web-enabled devices with a unique IP address. You can use company devices as well as your personal devices. (If you are having trouble voting, please send an email to us here and someone will contact you to assist you.)

We have all worked very hard to make Comcast the terrific company that it is today and to create a customer experience that we are all proud of. We hope you will consider defending our company name by participating in this poll. Thanks in advance for your assistance and for the great work you do every day.

Version 2:

Comcasters,

Our great company has been nominated by The Consumerist as one of the “Worst Companies in America in 2011” in their annual survey. We have all been working very hard to create a customer experience that we are proud of and need to come together to send a strong message that we simply don’t deserve this title.

We encourage you to participate in this poll and to vote with your heart to tell America that we are proud of our company. Participation is purely voluntary, and in the event you choose to vote, here’s what you need to know:

* DO NOT vote for Comcast. When you cast your ballot, vote for the other company. Remember, you’re voting for the “Worst Company in America.”
* Click on the following link and vote: https://consumerist.com/2011/03/23/worst-company-in-america-round-one-comcast-vs-charter/
* Feel free to vote from the office and at home on your personal computers and laptops. You can also vote via the web browser on your cell phones, iPads, tablets and other web-enabled wireless devices.

When you cast your ballot, vote for the other company. Remember, you’re voting for the “Worst Company in America.”

It’s good the memo clarified… repeatedly, not to vote -for- Comcast in case anyone got confused.

In the end, it was to no avail.  In fact, the Consumerist exposed the attempted vote rigging and Comcast won the square-off in the first round.

Meanwhile, the rest of the finalists consist of a remarkable number of telecommunications companies among the perennial favorites — financial vampire banks Chase and Bank of America and gougers like WellPoint, UnitedHealth and Ticketmaster.  All of the major telecom companies made the list, including Comcast (which won top honors last year), Time Warner Cable, AT&T, Charter, Verizon, Dish Networks, and DirecTV.

Time Warner Cable has lucked out in today’s competition.  It faces off against the ultimate evildoer – BP.  The cable company should come out ahead.  It only jacked up your cable rates.  It didn’t hemorrhage oil into the Gulf of Mexico for a good part of last summer.

Craig E. Moffett joined Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. as the Senior Analyst for U.S. Cable and Satellite Broadcasting in 2002.

Craig Moffett, perennial cable stock booster, predicts AT&T’s move to implement usage limits on its broadband customers will provide cover for cable operators to rush in their own Internet Overcharging schemes, starting with budget-priced usage plans.

Moffett released a research note Monday claiming Charter Communications, Cox Communications, and Time Warner Cable are among the first most likely to move towards limiting their customers’ broadband usage, with Comcast standing on the sidelines, at least for the moment.

Moffett thinks AT&T’s announcement is excellent news for wired providers, who could reap enormous new profits on top of some of the world’s most expensive broadband packages.

“AT&T’s move provides air cover that makes it easier for all of them to follow,” Moffett told his clients. “We view the move as good news for all the terrestrial broadband operators.”

Moffett believes usage caps have everything to do with stopping the torrent of online video.  He notes AT&T’s caps are set high enough to target AT&T customers who use their connections to watch a considerable amount of video programming online.

“Only video can drive that kind of usage,” Moffett writes.

Moffett has repeatedly predicted any challenge to pay television models from online video will be met with pricing plans that eliminate or reduce the threat:

“[I]f consumption patterns change such that web video begins to substitute for linear video, then the terrestrial broadband operators will simply adopt pricing plans that preserve the economics of their physical infrastructure,” Moffett said. “Of course, any move to preserve their own economics has far-ranging implications. Any move towards usage-based pricing doesn’t just affect the returns of the operators, it also affects the demand of end users (the ‘feedback loop’).”