Other than the original “five families” that ruled New York’s underworld from the 1930s on, it is hard to find a level of collusion higher than in today’s telecommunications marketplace.  It’s a veritable No-Fight Club, and the first rule is cable companies don’t fight with other cable companies. (The second is phone companies don’t compete with other phone companies.)  Everyone has their respective territory, and only the bravest interlopers dare to intrude on the cozy duopoly territory most North Americans endure, at least until the boys can drop a dime with the feds and put the kibosh on them with anti-community broadband laws or buying them out and telling them to scram.

But Time Warner Cable does not have to rub it in.  But they do anyway, see.

One reader of the Consumerist was perturbed when Time Warner Cable sent him a letter congratulating him for his decision to move... and welcoming him to consider Comcast Cable as his new provider.

Do you think Ford would ever send you a letter suggesting you give Toyota a try? Or would McDonald’s ever shoot you an e-mail telling you to check out the lovely Burger Kings in your new neighborhood? Of course not. So why would the cable industry not care which company you choose?

Consumerist reader Mike recently moved out of an area where he had no choice for cable TV other than Time Warner Cable to a town where Comcast is the only option.

[…] “What makes me even angrier is that they spent money printing and mailing this letter that only serves to remind me that I don’t have any choice!”

That mailer came courtesy of something called, “The Cable Movers Hotline,” which sounds like a clearinghouse for consumers searching for a moving company.  Indeed, the website for the group even includes video moving tips courtesy of HGTV’s Lisa LaPorta, David Gregg, senior editor, Behindthebuy.com, and interior designer Libby Langdon.

What’s the real story, morning glory? Don’t blow your wig, sister.  It’s coming.

In fact, the “Hotline” is a creature of CTAM – the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing, a Maryland-based trade group that includes most of the nation’s largest cable operators as members.  CTAM’s “Hotline” is the cable industry’s attempt to make sure that fresh start in your new cave doesn’t include service from the dirty rat phone company or some grifter satellite TV provider with a flim-flam rebate scam.  With none of CTAM’s members willing to compete head-on with other cable operators, trading customers back and forth doesn’t hurt business, keeps the butter and egg man counting up those bills, and helps bleed you dry.

A 21st century clip joint?  You said it!

Don't thank us, it was nothing!

This nearly 15 meter monopole cell tower antenna just showed up one day in the backyard of this Kirkland, PQ resident, who is presumably being compensated up to $200 a month as Rogers' newest cell tower landlord.

Rogers Communications has found a solution to difficult zoning laws and cell tower controversy — find a homeowner willing to accept around $200 a month to host a (relatively) short cell tower antenna in their backyard, skirting the usual dragged-out cell tower siting consultations most local communities have enacted to control visual pollution.

A wealthy neighborhood in the community of Kirkland, a city of 20,000 near Montreal, discovered Rogers’ ingenuity for themselves when a just-under-50-foot monopole antenna suddenly appeared in the backyard of a home on Acres Street.

The neighbors are outraged. But Rogers says everything they did erecting the tower with no prior notice was done by the book.

That book, in the form of Industry Canada regulations, says Rogers doesn’t need to endure lengthy zoning hearings or a town-wide consultation process.  Rogers agrees, stating they can erect antennas of less than 15 meters at their pleasure — no consultation required.

Rogers spokesperson Stephanie Jerrold said Industry Canada regulations are clear: “The protocol says that if it’s a tower that measures under 15 meters, no public consultation is needed,” she said.

That may be true, but the loophole did nothing to appease dozens of nearby residents living in homes valued at $400,000 from raising a ruckus with local officials.  A petition has been submitted to city hall demanding Rogers remove the antenna.  Residents expressed concerns about their health and property values with a cell tower in their midst.

Rogers foreshadowed their intent last fall when they mailed letters to homeowners looking for someone to host the new antenna, offering around $200 a month to any takers. Evidently there was one — the resident at 75 Acres St.

City officials are pondering what to do about the new tower. They did not approve a work permit for its placement, which may provide leverage against Rogers, but no one knows for sure.

Thus far, Industry Canada wants to remain more than 15 meters away from the debate.  A spokesman for the agency, Antoine Quellon, told the West Island Gazette:

“The company must consult with the local community as required and address relevant concerns. It must also satisfy Industry Canada’s general and technical requirements, including Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, aeronautical safety, interference protection and environmental requirements. Under rare circumstances where an agreeable solution for a site is not possible, Industry Canada may need to make a determination based on the facts presented.”

[flv width=”400″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Montreal Backyard cell tower in Kirkland worries neighbours 4-11-12.flv[/flv]

CBC in Montreal covered the Kirkland controversy and talked with the neighbors about the new 50 foot pole owned by Rogers Communications.  (2 minutes)

Back in December, Verizon Wireless lit a firestorm over a new $2 “convenience fee” for those paying their bills online or using the company’s pay-by-phone service.  Days after being announced, Verizon canceled the fee.

Now the company is back with a new one, following other wireless carriers who impose fees when existing customers upgrade their phones, often when renewing their contracts.

Brenda Raney, a Verizon spokesperson, broke the news earlier today:

On April 22, Verizon Wireless is implementing a $30 upgrade fee for existing customers purchasing new mobile equipment at a discounted price with a two-year contract. This fee will help us continue to provide customers with the level of service and support they have come to expect which includes Wireless Workshops, online educational tools, and consultations with experts who provide advice and guidance on devices that are more sophisticated than ever.

While the upgrade fee is not unique to Verizon Wireless, most devices can be traded in with our green friendly trade-in program at www.verizonwireless.com/tradein as a way to save money or potentially offset the fee completely.

Among other carriers, AT&T matched Sprint, having recently doubled their upgrade fee to $36.  Sprint and T-Mobile often waive their fees on request, especially for good customers.  Sprint charges $36 and T-Mobile charges a comparatively cheap $18.

Wireless carriers, especially Verizon and AT&T, typically follow one-another when new fees and surcharges are introduced.  If accepted by customers at one carrier, the others often follow with similar fees of their own.  Only Verizon’s “convenience fee,” charged to customers trying to pay their Verizon bill, seemed to generate enough outrage to force the company to back down.

Comcast's shoddy installation work in one Savannah resident's home.

Savannah residents fed up with Comcast Cable’s performance in the Georgia city should see major service improvements soon, the company promised residents and city officials on Thursday.

City officials began investigating Comcast back in January as residents flooded city hall with complaints about the company’s service, billing problems, and treatment of customers.  At least 350 formal complaints led Alderman Tony Thomas to suggest Comcast had failed Savannah.

A series of town hall meetings held across the city brought scores of complaints about incompetent service technicians, endless billing errors, and deteriorating service.  When the city threatened to consider not renewing Comcast’s franchise, which permits it to operate within city limits, the company quickly began resolving complaints.

Last week, Comcast formally introduced an 11-Point Plan for improved service for Savannah, although many of the promised improvements come with some caveats.

Some of the key components gleaned from the Savannah Morning News:

• Re-introduce the Comcast Guarantee, which gives a 30-day, money-back guarantee; a 24-hour service line; a $20 credit for a late or missed appointments; an easily understood bill and a promise to resolve a problem in one visit or offer a complimentary service. However, this nationwide guarantee was already in place in Savannah and other Comcast service areas, and requires consumers both to be aware it exists and specifically request the company deliver on its promises. Comcast does not volunteer service credits or provide money back or free service unless specifically requested;
• Provide 6,000 hours of training to Comcast technicians over the next year. Contractors cannot participate because of federal regulations regarding non-employees, said Andy Macke, a Comcast vice president.  However, many of Comcast’s installers across the country are contractors, and they committed some of the worst offenses for Savannah residents complaining about shoddy installation work. They are exempt from the required training Comcast promises to deliver;
• See whether bus service can be extended to Comcast’s Chatham Parkway office or see whether another local office can be opened. Comcast only operates one walk-in location for the entire city of Savannah.  However, Comcast has no authority to require public transportation officials to extend bus service to their cable office and the company has made no concrete commitment to actually another one;
• Quarterly town hall meetings and a city of Savannah hot line to get feedback. Comcast will hold three meetings over the next year, but will use them to promote new products and initiatives. This alters the original intent of the town hall meetings — to provide an opportunity for residents to air grievances, recreating them as marketing and sales events;
• By mid-year, Comcast will extend broadband services to 111 businesses downtown, which will cost about $150,000.  However, Macke says only those businesses that express “interest” and fall within the company’s “Return On Investment” formula will qualify for service. Unless Comcast loosens its payback formula, most businesses that couldn’t get Comcast to install service before will remain unqualified to receive it going forward.

Despite these caveats, most city officials seem relieved the company is now addressing the complaints which turned Comcast’s performance into a political issue earlier this year.

Mayor Edna Jackson told Comcast she was pleased with the company’s improved level of service.

“It seems as if you heard us and the message went out very well,” Jackson said. “You have worked very hard and very diligently.”

Comcast also promises to expand its low-income Internet Essentials broadband service into more parts of its service area.  The company reported that out of 18.1 million homes that purchase broadband service from the cable operator, just 41,000 qualified for the Internet Essentials program, which sells low speed Internet access for $10 a month.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTOC Savannah Comcast Resolving Complaints 4-8-12.mp4[/flv]

WTOC in Savannah covered the city council’s reaction to Comcast’s promises of improved performance for the city’s cable subscribers.  (4 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WJCL Savannah Comcast Promises Improvements 4-8-12.mp4[/flv]

WJCL, which apparently anchors their newscast outdoors, got into the specifics of Comcast’s 11 point plan for better cable service in Savannah  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAV Savannah City Council and Comcast Reach Solution 4-8-12.flv[/flv]

WSAV, also in Savannah, called the agreement with city officials and Comcast “a compromise.”  (2 minutes)

A California woman is suing Verizon Communications for selling her faster Internet service, at a higher price, the company cannot actually deliver.

Patricia Allen of Santa Monica filed suit in Los Angeles after Verizon sold her an upgrade to her current DSL plan that turned out to be anything but.  Allen was paying $23.99 a month for 768kbps service, but in March, 2011 Verizon promised they could give her a speed upgrade to 1.5Mbps for $11 more per month.

Exactly one year later, Allen learned her “upgraded service” performed no better than her original Internet plan, which itself only managed around 500kbps, and called Verizon to complain.

Verizon technicians quickly responded Allen could never get the benefits of a faster speed plan because she lived at least two miles from her local Verizon central office.  DSL speeds degrade with distance and can also be impacted by the quality of the landline network Verizon maintains in southern California.  Because Allen lives too far away to receive anything better than 700kbps service, she was advised to downgrade her $34.99 DSL plan back to the one she started with.

Allen requested a refund for the extra $11 a month she was paying for the last year for promised speed improvements Verizon never delivered, but the company flatly refused her request.  Allen is now taking her case to the California courts, and her legal representatives are seeking to have the case designated a class action covering all Verizon landline customers in California who, like Allen, are paying for Verizon-marketed speed upgrades they actually cannot receive.

The suit claims Verizon is well aware it is selling speed upgrades to customers who live too far away from the company’s facilities to actually benefit from the enhanced service, and pockets the proceeds without delivering improved service.  The suit alleges Verizon is engaged in unethical, unscrupulous, immoral, and oppressive business conduct in violation of California state law.

Verizon’s spokesman Rich Young called the lawsuit “baseless and without merit.”

Verizon Class Action Copy