Billing problems, promotions-not-honored, and passing the buck are all common complaints from cable and phone customers, especially when employees of large providers don’t communicate with each other and saddle customers with the role of “go-between.”

Two recent examples of Customer Service From Hell reached our desk this week, one involving Verizon which has the “not my job” mentality firmly entrenched in their call centers, and the other from Time Warner Cable, where “Diego” told a new customer he couldn’t install their service until they disguised themselves as an old customer to cancel someone else’s service first.

The Case of the Persnickety Promotion – You Don’t Qualify Because We Never Added It to Your Account

You can't touch this Verizon offer when the company forgets to apply it to your account for eight months.

Anthony Caruso received an offer he couldn’t refuse from Verizon FiOS: $69.99 a month for a triple play package of phone, Internet, and television service good for 12 months, with a reduced discount of $89.99 per month for the second year — still a great deal over what Comcast was selling.

He signed up for service in June and was happy with the installation and the service… until the bill came.

Over the last eight months, Caruso has never received a single bill that reflected the offer he signed up for, resulting in monthly calls to customer service lasting between 30 and 75 minutes each.  Every month, Verizon told Caruso the promotion he received never existed, but they would issue certain credits as a gesture of goodwill.

The Star Ledger exhaustively details the entire debacle, but suffice to say, Caruso was a victim because nobody at Verizon applied the promotion to his account.  The company also never bothered to investigate why a customer had to keep calling (eight times in the last eight months) to receive those credits.  The newspaper illustrates how complicated it all got:

In early July, Caruso received the first bill, for $176.44.

It was more than a little confusing: $470.32 in “Current Activity” charges minus $289.96 in “Specials & Promotions” minus $21.24 for a partial month. The bill also included a “Showtime Starz Entertainment Pack” for $16.99 and “Multi-Room DVR Package” for $24.99, neither of which Caruso ordered.

The bill also included a “first bill estimate” showing monthly charges would be $139.31.

“Very confusing collection of charges and credits,” he said. “I paid the full amount to avoid billing issues for my first payment.”

He called Verizon on July 29 to discuss the bill. Caruso was transferred three times, and a rep named Sandy helped. Caruso said she dropped the “Showtime Starz” package and applied a one-time $30 credit. Caruso decided to keep the “Multi-Room DVR Package,” so his future billing should be $104.43. Because of the overpayment on the first bill, the amount due on the August bill would be $43.21.

“I was also told I was getting $9.99 “Epix” movie channel free for three months,” he said. “The FIOS lineup shows Epix is included in my package, but I decided not to fight this.”

Caurso said he paid the August bill, but there were still problems. It showed the normal monthly price to be $133.63.

He called again, and this time spoke to a rep named Jason, who said he had never heard of a $69.99 bundle offer. Caruso faxed a copy of the offer letter to the rep, who then recomputed the bill to reflect the correct package amount.

But the September bill was for $127.26.

Caruso called Sept. 7 and spoke to two different reps. The second rep also denied the existence of a $69.99 bundle offer, but asked Caruso to again fax a copy of the offer.

The rep applied another one-time credit and said the correct amount would now be $92.16.

This continued for the next several months. The bill would be wrong, Caruso would call and the reps would apply credits.

Got it?

After months of endless frustration, Caruso had to appeal to the newspaper’s Bamboozled column for Star Ledger readers seeking a solution to their endless customer service nightmares.

Tom Maguire, a senior vice president for Verizon, figured out what at least 10 Verizon customer service representatives couldn’t — the company never applied the original promotion to Caruso’s account because the service order was not written in a way that would allow the promotion to be applied.  Instead of the two year promotion, Caruso was signed up for month-to-month service, at a price of $129.99 a month, not $69.99.

“They basically dropped the ball from my perspective,” Maguire admitted.

What irritated Maguire (and Caruso even more) is that repeatedly-faxed copies of the promotional offer made no difference.

Caruso’s consolation prizes for his eight month ordeal:

• A direct number to a senior customer service representative already aware of Caruso’s service history;
• A restart of Verizon’s promotion, effectively extending it for nine additional months;
• A multi-room DVR package at a discounted price for the life of his service.

Tips for Living With Verizon:

Keep a copy of the promotional offer you select until it expires. If Verizon does not apply it correctly, or it mysteriously drops off your account at some point, you will have evidence the offer existed.  If you experience a repeated billing problem, ask the representative that answers to transfer you to a senior customer service supervisor.

Time Warner Cable’s Mind Games Threaten Our Relationship

Courtesy: Jacobson

Julie Jacobson chose Time Warner Cable over AT&T for her new Carlsbad, Calif. condo located to the north of San Diego.  The deciding factor: no cable box required for extra sets hooked up to expanded basic cable. (Unfortunately for Jacobson, that won’t be true much longer as Time Warner embarks on a nationwide conversion to a virtually all-digital lineup, which will require extra equipment on most television sets.)

Unfortunately, ever since Jacobson signed up for service, Time Warner has been playing “hard to get.”

Jacobson painfully details her encounters with Time Warner customer service, who had no idea what a CableCARD was (much less an “M-Card” which allows multiple signal streams).  She was also not impressed to discover the “free” HD-DVR promotion on offer evidently only applied to the cardboard box it came in.

“Your ‘free’ HD-DVR comes with an additional $11/month box-rental fee and $11/month service fee,” Jacobson discovered. “The HD-DVR is free + $22/month, which puts TWC pricing into U-verse territory.”

But even that wasn’t enough for Jacobson to declare Time Warner Cable “sucky.”  It was this:

Julie,

Thank you for placing your Time Warner Cable order online. We were unable to complete your order with the information you provided.

Please call us at 855-889-4113 so we can proceed with your service order. Be sure to have your order confirmation number (########) and the four-digit PIN you created during your online order ready when you call. We look forward to hearing from you so we can complete your order as soon as possible.

Thank you for choosing Time Warner Cable.

So I called the number on a Sunday at 3:15 p.m., using the phone number in the email. The office was closed by then. Believe it or not, I started pining for Comcast back in Minnesota. At least their customer service is 24/7.

After being bounced from offices in Wisconsin and North Carolina, she was finally transferred to California, where Diego (with his barely decipherable English) was waiting to not provide customer service:

I’m sorry, but I had a really tough time understanding him. As it turns out, it didn’t really matter because he was flat-out wrong. He told me the old tenants returned their TWC equipment, but they didn’t call to cancel their service; my order wouldn’t go through because there was already an account associated with the address.

“You need to call them to cancel their service,” he said.

“What?! I don’t even know who they are!”

In that case, he said, I could go to the local TWC office and bring them a copy of my lease.

That’s real convenient, given we’re only in town for one day.

So I ask Diego for the store phone number, and he provides it.

“Where is it located?” I ask.

“I don’t know … somewhere in the LA/San Diego area.”

Thanks, that narrows it down.

A more encouraging experience with another representative later on seemed to have everything worked out, until a new message from the company reached her e-mail box earlier today:

3rd Attempt: Please call us to avoid cancellation of your Time Warner Cable order.

Tips for Living With Time Warner Cable:

Time Warner’s system for dealing with new customers always hangs up when it finds existing service already established at an address. We encountered this ourselves and had to arrange for the old owners of our home to arrange for a service disconnection before Time Warner could complete our order for new service. Usually it makes better sense to call and establish service directly with a Time Warner representative over the phone when a complication like this arises. The representative would have identified the problem immediately instead of dispatching cryptic e-mail messages about a generic “problem with your order.”  Calling the local office nearest you is also a great way to cut through red tape and stop your call from being transferred to different call centers.

If your order went horribly wrong and you were inconvenienced, ask a representative to throw in free installation or some other extra promotion for your time and trouble. 

We also suspect that “third attempt” notification was probably associated with the earlier e-mail and not the more encouraging, later experience with another representative by phone.

A summary of recent quarterly earnings reports from America’s wireless companies:

Verizon Wireless: Verizon has been uncompetitive in the prepaid market for the last several years, as it focused on its postpaid/contract customers.  No more.  Recent price cutting and the introduction of new contract-free plans that offer unlimited calling or packages of features comparable to contract plans are starting to win Verizon a bigger share of the prepaid market.  But Verizon also successfully picked up 1.2 million new contract customers as well, many switching from AT&T or smaller providers.  That’s the second best result the company has had in the last two years.  Verizon has a whopping 87.4 million people on two-year contracts and 21.3 million prepaid customers — 108.7 million total.  Verizon’s iPhone remains popular with 4.3 million activations last quarter.

AT&T: Growth at AT&T achieved its best results in the last quarter of the year, but the company continues to trail Verizon Wireless.  AT&T added 717,000 contract customers last quarter, and has been behind Verizon adding new customers for more than a year.  The company’s reputation for lousy service and policies that antagonize their customers have driven people to look elsewhere — mostly to Verizon.  But iPhone devotees are remaining loyal to AT&T, with one of every five new iPhone activations happening on AT&T’s network.  The company picked up 7.6 million new iPhone activations last quarter.

Sprint: The iPhone is killing Sprint’s balance sheet, but is bringing the company new contract customers.  Historically, Sprint’s most predictable growth has come from its resale agreements with third party providers and its various prepaid service divisions (Boost/Virgin Mobile).  But with the introduction of the Sprint iPhone (1.8 million new activations last quarter), customers looking for unlimited data or a cheaper plan are finding both at Sprint.  Unfortunately for the company, the wholesale cost of the iPhone is eating heavily into the company’s cash on hand.

Leap Wireless/Cricket and MetroPCS: Both companies are facing increasing challenges sustaining their prepaid service business models because of growing competition from larger providers.  Just about everyone who wants a two year contract-cell phone plan already has one, limiting new growth opportunities.  That is forcing AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile to turn their attention to the still-growing prepaid market, which is attractive for the credit-challenged, occasional users, travelers, and those with lower incomes.  Both Cricket and MetroPCS have traditionally targeted urban markets, where their networks are focused, to sell customers inexpensive service plans with convenient payment options.  But their networks don’t extend outside of suburban and urban areas, so roaming expenses can be higher for customers on the go.  Customers of both companies are increasingly looking to larger providers with more robust network coverage and increasingly aggressive pricing.

That has left Cricket with anemic, but acceptable growth, picking up 179,000 new customers in the fourth quarter.  MetroPCS, however, failed to meet expectations with just 197,410 new customers in the fourth quarter.  Existing MetroPCS subscribers are also leaving at a higher rate.

Verizon Buying Portion of Plateau Wireless’ New Mexico Operations

Plateau Wireless serves eastern New Mexico and portions of western Texas.

The consolidation of America’s wireless market continues with this week’s announcement Verizon Wireless intends to acquire a portion of Plateau Wireless’ network operations in southwest New Mexico.

Verizon will take over Plateau’s 259,000 mostly rural customers in portions of Roswell, Carlsbad, Artesia, Hobbs, and Ruidoso, N.M.

The acquisition covers a service territory of 26,100 square miles.

Plateau says the decision came down to money.  The wireless company needs the infusion of cash a Verizon purchase would bring to help finance high speed wireless upgrades.

The FCC will have to review the transaction before it can be approved.

Not a problem

Who knew America’s largest cable and phone companies were in the broadband shortage business?

Broadband evangelist Craig Settles has been as outraged about this year’s crop of anti-broadband legislation as we have here at Stop the Cap!

He wrote about the implications of allowing state laws to be changed in favor of the big cable and phone companies in a piece published by GigaOM that details where these anti-community Internet bills are coming from:

This push is brought to you by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group of corporate lobbyists who ghostwrite state bills behind closed doors that their pocket legislators then push on the floor. This “model” of anti-muni broadband legislation contains wording that is replicated in these latest bills and newspaper op-eds that attack community broadband.

Many of the nation’s largest phone and cable companies funnel funds into ALEC, and even sponsor wine-and-dine trips for state legislators and their families as part of a comprehensive effort to get their foot (and later proposed legislation) in the door.

Download this archive of ALEC-written and sponsored state legislation/policies affecting telecommunications and IT.  (16mb .zip file)

Few state legislators fully realize the implications of some of these measures, which can hamstring their state’s broadband networks into “good enough for you” broadband, as determined by Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and others.

ALEC’s dog-and-pony show opens with its corporate backers enhancing their campaign contributions to legislators likely to support their agenda.  ALEC’s lobbyists can then provide “boilerplate” templates for legislation that can be slightly modified and introduced at the state level for consideration.

With a significant increase in campaign contributions targeting friendly legislators, community broadband suddenly becomes a hot topic at the statehouse.

Legislators do not work alone to pass these measures.  As we’ve seen in other states, industry-backed lobbying firms deliver a comprehensive set of support services for the campaign to stop community broadband competition:

1. Talking points for legislators and others opposed to municipal Internet;
2. Professionally produced mailers that can be distributed to every home in a community bashing community networks;
3. Sample letters to the editor intended for local newspapers and easy-to-send letters to legislators asking them to support anti-broadband legislation;
4. Help from seemingly “independent” outside groups that criticize such networks, without disclosing their funding comes, in part or whole, from the cable or phone company.

Settles

Being hoodwinked by the companies that want these kinds of bills passed leave your community’s broadband needs entirely in the hands of providers that have performed so poorly in some cities, local governments have decided they have to provide the service themselves.  Settles illustrates the obvious:

This isn’t about unfair competition by local government. When Wilson’s 12-person IT department can plan, build and manage a network that can deliver speeds (up to a gig) 20 times faster than the best Time Warner Cable offers, that’s competing with superior technology. When Comcast customers switch to Chattanooga’s gig network because of their public utility’s better customer service, that’s competent competition. When tiny Reedsburg, Wis. refuses to compete against the large cable company on price, but beats competitors by offering greater value such as a better selection of Internet services, they compete based on local credibility.

So U.S. communities have to ask themselves, are they going to stay stuck on the train or will they be zipping along at warp speed?

Providers and their industry friends will always argue that you don’t need gigabit broadband speed — what you get from your cable or phone company today is “fast enough.”  Some go as far as to argue current providers are equipped to deliver whatever service customers need, but the demand “just is not there.”

Big Problem.

But as we argued on GigaOM ourselves, the nation’s largest telecom companies have already proven they apparently cannot meet the demand that exists today.  That is because an increasing number of them have started to slap arbitrary usage caps and other limits on their customers’ broadband usage.  Customers don’t want these Internet Overcharging schemes, yet they persist because of what providers effectively admit is a broadband shortage on their networks.

So for a city like Chattanooga, Tenn., which of the following providers should be punished (and potentially even banned) for being in the broadband business:

1. AT&T, which delivers around 6-7Mbps DSL in suburban Chattanooga or up to 24Mbps on its U-verse platform with 150GB/250GB usage limits respectively;
2. Comcast, which delivers up to 50Mbps over cable broadband with a 250GB usage cap;
3. EPB Fiber, which delivers up to 1,000Mbps over fiber optics with no usage cap.

If you are AT&T or Comcast, clearly the provider that must be stopped is #3 — EPB Fiber.  After all, you can’t be in the broadband shortage business when the competitor next door offers a broadband free-for-all made possible from an investment in a superior network that exists to serve customers, not shareholders and investment banks.

NBC’s Saturday Night Live proves an important point about today’s smartphones and data products.  Only a handful of consumers really understand what LTE, 4G, and 3G are really all about.  Just as few can tell you what a “gigabyte” is or how many they used, or increasingly important — how many they have left before the overlimit fees kick in.  (2 minutes)

Game over. In the championship of cell phone competition, Verizon Wireless and AT&T have won, and it is now too late for Sprint-Nextel or T-Mobile USA to catch up.

That is the conclusion of Moody’s Investors Service, who has determined competition in waning in the U.S. wireless marketplace.

“AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless have better network coverage, wider capabilities and wider profit margins which gives them a competitive advantage that smaller rivals just can’t match,” said Mark Stodden, a Moody’s analyst and author of the report. “It is too late for competitors to invest and catch up; Sprint has the willingness but not the ability, while T-Mobile’s parent Deutsche Telekom, is the opposite.”

Sprint’s ambitious plans for a new 4G LTE network have been suppressed by a lack of enthusiasm by Wall Street investors and bankers, who seem to prefer the much-larger AT&T and Verizon who can sustain increased pricing and are better credit risks.  T-Mobile USA has practically been abandoned by its parent owner Deutsche Telekom, which wants to focus its investments in larger markets in Europe.

Moody’s estimates AT&T and Verizon will account for 81 percent of industry earnings in 2011.  Wall Street has pressured Sprint and T-Mobile to seek consolidation to better withstand their larger competitors.  Before AT&T bid for T-Mobile, rumors of an acquisition of the German-owned company by Sprint-Nextel were common, although the two companies operate with different network technology.  Moody’s predicts troubled waters for Sprint if it should actually seek to acquire T-Mobile, because the FCC seems comfortable with a minimum of four national carriers.

Instead, Moody’s predicts Sprint will seek to acquire smaller regional carriers and prepaid providers like Leap Wireless’ Cricket and MetroPCS.  Neither acquisition would significantly improve Sprint’s service footprint, however, as both prepaid providers operate only in larger markets where they already co-exist with Sprint.