Cisco 170HD DTA

Time Warner Cable customers in greater New York will soon need set-top boxes or CableCARD technology to keep watching cable television.

The cable operator will be dropping analog television service, starting in Mount Vernon, Staten Island, and Bergen County, N.J. with much of the rest of the downstate region switched over the summer.

Cable television customers who already use Time Warner Cable set-top boxes, including DVRs, will not notice any change. Customers that plug a cable directly into the back of a television will need to take steps to keep their video service working after the digital conversion.

Time Warner’s digital switch will also disable viewing on televisions equipped with a QAM tuner. Cable operators now have the power to encrypt their entire television lineup.

The company is mailing letters to affected television subscribers advising them to get a Time Warner Cable DVR, traditional set-top box, CableCARD or Digital Adapter (DTA). For secondary televisions, Time Warner’s new DTA for downstate New York is the Cisco DTA 170HD, which supports both High Definition and Standard Definition channels and digital-only QAM tuning up to 1GHz. This model is also capable of providing HD premium channels, which are currently not available to customers with earlier generation DTAs. It is unknown if Time Warner will support that functionality.

Time Warner is making DTA units available to customers at no charge through the end of next year. Effective Jan. 1, 2015 each DTA box will cost $0.99 a month.

The company says the digital conversion will open extra bandwidth on the cable system to support more video on demand, HD channels, and faster broadband. Each 6MHz analog channel will make room for 10-12 digital channels, three digital HD channels, or an extra 40Mbps of download speed, according to Time Warner’s blog.

Residential customers can get DTA boxes as follows:

1. through the website at www.TWC.com/digitaladapter
2. via the telephone at 1-855-286-1736
3. in-person at a local TWC store
4. have a tech visit and install it

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TWC Digital Conversion NYC 4-29-13.mp4[/flv]

 Time Warner Cable produced this video to explain the digital conversion, who needs to get ready, and how.  (2 minutes)

A California federal judge has rejected a class action case against Comcast for allegedly hiding modem fees as high as $15 a month when signing up new customers.

In 2010, Athanassios Diacakis made several calls to Comcast inquiring about cable service as a new customer. Diacakis claims several Comcast representatives offered a bundle of broadband, television and phone service for $99 a month. When he asked Comcast about any other charges, company representatives eventually admitted there was a $25 installation fee, but never mentioned any modem rental fees.

After Comcast installed service, Diacakis began receiving Comcast bills that included a previously undisclosed monthly modem fee of $10 and an extra “lease charge” of $5 a month associated with his broadband service.

Diacakis alleged in his complaint charging $15 a month for cable modem equipment was “outside and in excess of the specifically quoted bundled service” package he ordered.

As Below Your Means points out, renting a cable modem may be harmful to your wallet.

The plaintiff sought class certification to force Comcast to refund some or all the modem fees charged customers from 2007 to the present. His first effort failed in January 2012 on grounds of insufficient evidence. His amended complaint was rejected May 3 on similar grounds.

United States District Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Diacakis failed on two separate occasions to produce convincing proof Comcast was actively deceiving customers with undisclosed modem fees.

Judge Armstrong wrote that Diacakis should have come to court with evidence beyond the spoken promises of a handful of Comcast salespeople the plaintiff identified only by their first names. She was swayed by Comcast’s arguments:

As Comcast correctly points out, the only evidence offered by Plaintiff regarding Comcast’s alleged practices consists of his limited personal experience in speaking with “Heather,” “Steve” and another unidentified Comcast representative in August 2010. There is no evidence that Comcast has employed any policy, custom or practice of intentionally failing to inform potential Triple Play subscribers that they will be subject to separate modem fees. To the contrary, the record presented thus far shows that Comcast trains and instructs its employees to inform customers and potential customers about all applicable charges, including those for leased equipment.

[…] As noted, he has made no showing that the representations or omissions during those calls were made pursuant to a standardized script or marketing practice. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone other than Plaintiff was allegedly misinformed about the modem fees.

Armstrong also faulted Diacakis for not independently locating, scrutinizing, and verifying Comcast’s print or television advertising before he filed a lawsuit seeking to represent every customer paying them:

Comcast argues that Plaintiff is not an adequate representative because there is no evidence that he or anyone else was misled by its marketing and advertisements for the Triple Play package. Plaintiff does not dispute that he lacks such evidence. In addition, Plaintiff admitted during his deposition that he did not review any advertisements before contacting Comcast in August 2010 about bundling his services. Since Plaintiff could not have been harmed by any allegedly misleading advertising, he cannot adequately represent a class member who claims to have been harmed by Comcast’s alleged marketing program.

Phillip “I Shop Online” Dampier

Last week, JCPenney launched their nationwide redemption tour, apologizing to millions of ex-customers that fled the former retail giant, begging them to come back.

It took over a year for JCPenney to get the message that “disciplining” and “re-educating” customers to accept the wisdom of everyday higher prices with few sales and almost no coupons was hardly the door-busting success “miracle worker” CEO Ron Johnson originally had in mind. The ex-Apple executive was rewarded a $52.7 million signing bonus to take over JCPenney’s tired leadership and in return he dragged sales down 28.4% from the year before, with same store sales down 32%. Johnson’s new vision also steamrolled one-third of JCPenney’s online business.

The day those results became known, he confidently showed Wall Street he did not dwell in the reality-based community: “I’m completely convinced that our transformation is on track!” (For Kohl’s benefit anyway.)

Johnson also believed in a “less is more” philosophy in human resources, overseeing layoffs of 13 percent of the company’s workforce last April, with another 350 let go in July.

Despite the fact his all-new, rebooted vision of JCPenney was about as popular as bird flu, he stayed, even as customers and employees didn’t.

It wasn’t that the company didn’t know customers had a problem with all this. Many complained about the radical, unwanted changes at JCPenney, particularly middle-aged professional women representing one of the stores’ most important business segments. Company executives simply didn’t listen.

A year later, some of the same analysts that cheered JCPenney’s crackdown on discounting now wonder if the company will survive 2013. Many fretted about the real possibility the last customer to brave the “new era” of JCP might forget to turn the lights out when they left for good. Others were mostly furious the board let Johnson go.

Despite the tragic consequences, the conventional wisdom on Wall Street remains: Alienating customers with a revamp nobody asked for and “everyday pricing” designed to boost profits every day was not the problem, how Johnson implemented the strategy was. He just didn’t educate customers enough.

We see the same warped thinking in the broadband marketplace, particularly with usage caps, consumption billing, junk fees and the general ever-increasing price of broadband itself.

On providers’ quarterly results conference calls, the regular questions challenging leaders of the industry are not about providers charging too much for too little. The real concern is that your ISP is leaving too much ripe fruit on the tree:

• Where is the revenue-boosting usage caps and consumption billing, Time Warner Cable?
• Comcast: can’t you raise prices further on those recent speed increases to maximize additional revenue?
• Verizon: why are you spending so much on fiber broadband upgrades customers love when that money could have gone back to shareholders?
• AT&T: Is there anything else you can do to exploit your market share and make even more money from costly data plans?

The best ways a consumer can reward a good broadband provider include remaining a loyal customer, paying your bill on time and upgrading to faster speeds as needed. For Wall Street, the growing demand for broadband is a sign there is plenty of wiggle room for at-will rate increases, new fees and surcharges, contract tricks and traps, customer service cuts, and monetizing usage wherever possible. After all, you probably won’t cancel because the other guy in town is doing the same thing.

This is what sets the broadband marketplace of today apart from most retailers: consumers don’t have 10-20 other choices to take their business to if they are fed up.

Comcast or AT&T? Both charge a lot and have usage limits on their broadband service for no good reason. Your other alternatives? A wireless provider charging even more with an even lower usage cap. Or you can always go without.

While providers may tell you there is a healthy, competitive broadband marketplace, Wall Street knows better. When Time Warner Cable recently announced it would dramatically curtail new customer promotions and concentrate on delivering fewer services for more money, nobody bothered asking whether this would result in a stampede to the competition. What competition?

Although Google is delivering much-needed, game-changing competition in a tiny handful of cities, most Americans will not benefit because the best upgrades and lowest prices are only available where Google threatens the status quo. A larger number of municipalities are done putting their broadband (and economic) future in the hands of the phone and cable company and are building their own digital infrastructure for the good of their communities.

For everyone else, we can dream that one day, someday, the cable and phone company most Americans do business with will be forced to run their own JCPenney-like apology tour for years of abusive pricing and mediocre “good enough for you” broadband with unwarranted usage limits. Time Warner Cable went half way, but until competition or oversight forces some dramatic changes, we should not count on providers to actually listen to what customers want. They don’t believe they need to listen to earn or keep your business.

Verizon Communications has filed a formal tariff obtained by Stop the Cap! with the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) that would establish conditions under which it can abandon its wired network in favor of wireless-only service.

If approved, Verizon will be able to drop wired landline and broadband service in any area of the state if the company can:

• certify that a substantial portion of its facilities in an area are destroyed, rendered unusable, or beyond reasonable repair, or,
• demonstrates that the use of wireless to serve specified customers, or groups of customers, is otherwise reasonable in light of the geographic location, the availability of competitive facilities to serve those customers or groups of customers, or in light of other criteria acceptable to the PSC.

Verizon is using the case of Fire Island, N.Y., to attempt a rewrite of New York’s communications tariffs. Although eastern Fire Island suffered some damage from Hurricane Sandy, a considerable amount of Verizon’s infrastructure further west did not survive the storm. Verizon wants to abandon that wired infrastructure, avoid spending money to upgrade the island to fiber optic service, and switch customers to a voice-only, wireless service called Voice Link that would leave Verizon’s DSL customers without broadband.

Although Verizon has currently only applied to drop wired service to the “western portion of Fire Island,” the tariff would set conditions under which Verizon could abandon its landline network for financial reasons in other portions of the state. For example, Verizon could argue that its declining number of rural landline customers are no longer financially viable to serve because of wired network upkeep and upgrade expenses. Verizon’s application would also allow it to abandon older facilities where competitive services (wireless or wired) are available, and allow Verizon’s wireless products to be considered a suitable alternative to meet universal service requirements.

Verizon says it will offer the same basic calling packages that landline customers can get at the same or lower prices. The company also promises to adhere voluntarily to PSC regulations on customer protection, customer complaints, service quality, safety and reliability.

But Verizon does not promise to offer a functionally equivalent wireless replacement for the landline.

For example, Verizon only promises to support voice calls, access local and toll calling, emergency services with E911 capability, assistance services, telecommunications relay services, and directory listings, including the option of non-published service.

Data services are not supported. Current Verizon DSL customers with unlimited use plans will be forwarded to Verizon Wireless to sign up for the same limited use wireless broadband plans already available in the rest of the country (the ones that charge $50 for up to a handful of gigabytes of monthly usage, depending on the plan). Business customers will need to buy new equipment and sign new contracts with Verizon Wireless (or other wireless carriers) to process credit card transactions. Although some voice calling features are supported, an exact list remains unavailable.

In the event of a power failure, a built-in backup battery will provide up to two hours of talk time, after which the line will stay out of service until commercial power is restored.

Verizon Voice Link: The company’s landline replacement, works over Verizon Wireless. (Asbury Park Press)

Because Verizon Wireless’ existing cellular network serving Fire Island is inadequate, the company has agreed to upgrade and improve service to the island.

Verizon argues its wireless solution is the only answer that makes sense.

“The cost of replacing facilities is very high, and if hurricanes or other severe storms occur in the future, there is a significant risk that the newly installed outside plant would again be damaged or destroyed,” argues Verizon’s Manuel Sampedro, who is overseeing Verizon’s service restoration effort on Fire Island. “Wireless service is already the predominant mode of voice communication on the island.”

But in the event of another major storm, Verizon’s wireless facilities could also be knocked out of service, potentially for weeks, as happened during Hurricane Sandy.

In the nearby coastal city of Long Beach, N.Y., every cell tower in the area failed because of the storm . City Manager Jack Schnirman told the FCC at a recent hearing wireless proved no more robust than any other technology, and described a frustrating experience attempting to reach representatives from major cell phone carriers about when exactly service could be restored.

“Long Beach reached out to one of the carrier’s customer support departments, explained the devastation and inquired about the carrier deploying a cell on wheels,” Schnirman said. “The customer service rep replied, ‘you might want to look that up on the Internet, I don’t know what that is.’ Well obviously, ironically, we had no Internet at that time.”

Customers did not fare any better.

“There was one woman in particular who passed away, of natural causes, an elderly woman,” Schnirman said. “And her daughter had to walk literally a mile and a half from her home to police headquarters just to say, ‘Listen, my mom has passed, and I thought I should tell somebody.’ ”

Wireless carriers are not obligated to provide backup service in the event of a power failure. An FCC effort to set minimal standards for backup cell service was met with legal threats by the wireless industry and the FCC backed down.

Verizon is in a hurry to win approval of its tariff change, requesting its filing be approved and take effort on less than 30 days’ notice with a waiver of the requirement that it publish a public notice about the change in area newspapers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Reuters ATT Verizon try to put end to landline telephone era 4-5-13.flv[/flv]

Reporter David Cay Johnston says Verizon and AT&T’s efforts to abandon the landline are no accident. They are part of a larger lobbying effort to abandon company obligations under the “carrier of last resort” policies that guarantee every American access to quality landline telephone service. Wireless phone service is unregulated. Johnston isn’t the only one reporting on this story. Stop the Cap! has covered it repeatedly since early 2010. (2 minutes)

The Heeley family have been Cox customers for over 15 years, buying cable television, broadband, and phone service that costs them nearly $200 a month.

With nearly $2,400 a year going into Cox’s bank accounts from their family alone, John Heeley was a little upset Cox sent him a warning message about his family’s “excessive Internet usage.”

“It seems we went over our usage cap by 40GB in April thanks to a rotten spring and a lot of Netflix viewing,” Heeley tells Stop the Cap! “I didn’t even understand the letter because I never knew there was a cap on the Internet.”

Cox, like certain other providers, have arbitrary usage limits on broadband accounts, with larger allowances granted to customers who upgrade to faster speeds for more money.

Heeley’s fiancé Shelley was angry after realizing just how much the couple already spends with Cox.

“I called them on the phone and the first thing they want to do is get you to upgrade and spend even more money with them,” she tells Stop the Cap! “They tried to vaguely threaten our service if we continued to ‘overuse the Internet’ and suggested we cut back or cancel Netflix which they think is the reason we went over the limit.”

Shelley says she was born at night, but not last night.

“How convenient they want you to stop using Netflix, Amazon, or other online video services that their cable TV competes with,” Shelley says. “It is unfair competition.”

Shelley requested a Cox supervisor and threatened the company right back, telling Cox if they sent one more letter like that, the Heeley family would take their business elsewhere.

“He told us quietly we could ignore the letter and any future letters and they will add a note on our account,” Shelley tells us. “He confided they have customers going over the limit all the time and the letter is really about educating customers about usage.”

It seems if Cox threatens you, threatening them back with account cancellation is usually the end of the story.

We found Broadband Reports‘ readers who exceed usage limits with Cox largely unafraid of any consequences:

• Rakeesh: I’ve gone everywhere from 300gb to 700gb over the cap for the last 19 months in a row. You’re fine.
• Skeechan: I have gone over too. The nastygrams seem to only be sent in selective markets. I am on Ultimate, perhaps that is why they haven’t sent me one since I have nowhere to go plan-wise. And being triple play since 1998 offers up a reliable and high ARPU. Of course that assumes they actually give a crap about common sense.
• Maltz: I went over my cap by about 30GB last month and got an email telling me that I was over. That was the end of it.