Storm Damage (WBRC)

A firestorm of criticism over reports of Alabama cable companies trying to charge customers for equipment lost or destroyed during April’s devastating tornadoes has forced some companies to rethink their policies, at least for this storm.

As Stop the Cap! reported earlier this week, some Alabama customers of Charter Cable and Bright House Networks were asked to pay the full value of cable boxes lost, damaged, or destroyed by the massive storms that struck last month.  Some customers complained about fees in excess of $200 for the set top boxes.  Fees for lost, stolen or damaged equipment are common at cable companies and customers are routinely asked to file insurance claims to cover the loss or damage.

But when tornadoes devastated several Alabama communities, several upset customers began taking their stories to the media, and now those policies are changing, at least for this storm.

Customers of Charter Cable have shared their stories with reporters at local newspapers and television stations, and a few are sharing them with Stop the Cap! Kelly, who requested we not publish her last name for privacy reasons, lost her home last month and is now living in Georgia.  When she called to suspend service shortly after the storm, she was told she would either have to pay for her cable box or make an insurance claim on behalf of Charter Cable.

But Charter Cable tells Stop the Cap! that policy has now been changed.

“Charter will not charge customers for missing, destroyed, or damaged equipment as a result of the recent tornadoes,” said Dylan Hall, one of Charter’s communications specialists. “We adjusted our policy shortly after the tornado in response to the large-scale and catastrophic nature of this storm. This was the right thing to do for our customers. We understand that this is a difficult time for many in Alabama.”

After Kelly reached out to Charter once again earlier today, the company not only waived the box fee, it also credited her account for an entire month of service, resulting in a substantial refund she says will be a big help for her family.

“I greatly appreciate your website bringing this more attention,” Kelly says.  “Earlier today, one of your readers who claims to work for Charter said I was making the story up, and it felt like being abused all over again.”

But after Kelly called Charter directly, things had changed.

“It was like a whole different company, and the representative I spoke with apologized at least six times and felt very bad about everything,” Kelly reports.  “I want to go back to Alabama in the summer, and the fewer bad memories I have of the last several weeks, the better.  This helps.”

Hall believes customers like Kelly likely encountered the lost or damaged cable box fee because they called right after the storm, before the company adjusted its policy.

“Unfortunately, some time elapsed before our Care agents got word to adapt our equipment policy, as we have in the past during other disastrous storms,” Hall says. “So customers who called immediately following the storm were misinformed. The policy changed to reflect the need and Care agents conveyed that to customers. Our employees continued to delivered water, tarps and other supplies to storm victims and help the Red Cross out with financial aid. The policy was changed because it was the right thing to do.”

Bright House Networks has also changed their policies in light of the horrific storm damage.

Karen Broach, regional vice president of operations for Bright House, reports the cable company has sent crews to assess damage and has automatically suspended billing for all customers it can identify were blown out of their homes by the storm:

• Bright House Networks has proactively credited accounts of customers who experienced a loss of service(s) due to the storms.
• Bright House Networks took the initiative and completed a detailed walk out of the area to identify all known destroyed homes and we suspended their billing.
• This is important for two reasons, one is financial and the second is customer convenience.  For example, if a customer subscribes to Bright House Networks Home Phone or High Speed Internet Service, this will preserve the customer’s phone number and email address so they can transfer it to their new residence.
• Suspended customer bills include suspension of equipment charges so customers can make contact with us at a time convenient to them to address their individual needs.
• Bright House Networks will not charge customers for equipment damaged or lost as a result of the storm.
• Bright House Networks never charges a disconnect fee – no matter what the reason.

Bright House customers with questions or problems can call 1-866-876-1872.

Comcast, which delivers cable service in certain parts of Tuscaloosa and Huntsville, normally requires a police report or copy of an insurance claim for lost, stolen, or damaged cable boxes.  But they too have changed their minds after noting the extent of storm damage.

Comcast has notified customers in the Tuscaloosa and Huntsville areas of the following policies:

• For consumers displaced from their homes due to the storms, their service may be placed on a temporary six-month “hold” status at no cost, which enables those with voice and data services to save their telephone numbers and email addresses.
• Equipment (such as converter boxes and cable modems) that was damaged by the storm may be exchanged at the local Comcast offices at no charge. Consumers should notify Comcast if equipment was lost in the storm and cannot be recovered.  Although routine policy requires that a police report or insurance claim be filed on lost equipment, that requirement is waived for six months due to the extreme nature of the extensive storm damage. Customers will not be charged for the exchange or replacement of equipment under these circumstances.
• Customers who lost service will be automatically credited for that period of time.  It is not necessary to notify Comcast for this credit, which will appear automatically on customers’ next bills.  Customers who still do not have service after their power was restored should contact Comcast.

Stop the Cap! notes these are ongoing issues with some cable companies, and we’ve covered similar stories in other states where customers faced demands for payment of cable equipment lost in fires.  We continue to urge cable companies to abandon lost/damaged box fees for incidents involving natural disasters or fires that are not the fault of customers.  It’s good public relations and it is the right thing to do.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WBRC Birmingham Charter Cable Boxes 5-17-11.flv[/flv]

WBRC-TV in Birmingham shares the story of Cleon Spain, a Charter customer who was requested to pay more than $200 for his lost cable box before Charter changed its policies.  (2 minutes)

Meredith Attwell-Baker sure is.

The exit of Meredith Attwell Baker from her role as a Republican commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission to take a position as a top lobbyist at Comcast is raising eyebrows in Washington and anger in the rest of the country.

Comcast confirmed late today Baker will serve as their new senior vice president of government affairs, a title that can be considerably shortened to “lobbyist.”

The short span between March, when Baker was browbeating regulators over “taking too long” to review the Comcast-NBC merger she supported, and today’s announcement has surprised even some Washington insiders.

Often, those looking for a better paycheck in the private sector will start by working for a D.C. lobbying firm before directly accepting employment with a company whose multi-billion dollar merger deal they affirmed months earlier in their role as a regulator.

Tim Karr at Free Press called today’s announcement more food for the cynics:

With behavior like this it’s little wonder that American people are so nauseated by business as usual in Washington. Inside the Beltway the complete capture of government by industry barely raises any eyebrows. Outside of Washington, people of every political stripe have expressed near unanimous contempt for a system of government that favors powerful corporations at the expense of the many.

An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times noted Baker’s move raises uncomfortable questions about how legislators and regulators make their decisions. “Are they acting in their constituents’ best interests, or are they burnishing their prospects for a high-paying job on K Street after they leave government?”

The New York Times expanded on Baker’s strong sentiment for the merger:

“The NBC/Comcast merger took too long, in my view,” Ms. Baker said on March 2 in a speech to a communications industry group. Noting that that time was similar to the length of other major merger reviews at the commission, she asked whether those reviews were preventing companies from trying to grow through acquisition.

“My concern is that you might walk away,” she told the communications executives, “and how many other consumer-enhancing and job-creating deals are not getting done today.”

Politico reported that Comcast’s gain was probably a loss for consumers:

“Sometimes the revolving door between government and private industry spins quickly and sometimes it’s on a rocket sled,” Dave Levinthal, communication’s director for the Center for Responsive Politics, told POLITICO. “This transition is as quick as it can possibly get.”

While Baker is not allowed to be an official lobbyist, Levinthal noted that she has many ways to be influential and lobby for her new company in a broader sense.

“It’s a big boon for Comcast,” he said. “They are getting somebody who has unbelievable government experience and know-how” in the communications space. Consumers, he noted, can’t afford to hire someone of a similar stature to advocate for them.

Comcast denied it approached Baker for a job until after their merger deal was approved.  That defense only strengthens suspicions Baker’s vote made her an even more attractive candidate for the cable company, but most pundits guess she would have supported Comcast even without a job offer. Judging from the comment sections of most major media stories covering today’s events, consumers are unhappy. Some called Baker an opportunist, while others used the occasion to bash Republicans for their reflexive support of big cable and phone companies paying off with jobs at the companies they strongly supported while in government positions.

Considering a few former Democratic commissioners have also made a living working for the interests of big cable and phone companies, calling today’s events an exclusively Republican travesty would be wrong.

Baker will report to Kyle McSlarrow, who recently left the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the cable industry’s top lobbying group, for his own new career at Comcast.

Baker

The Wall Street Journal is reporting this afternoon that Republican FCC Commissioner Meredith Atwell Baker, nominated to the FCC in mid-2009, is preparing to leave her duties to take a job with Comcast Corporation, just four months after voting for the controversial merger between NBC-Universal and the nation’s largest cable company — her new employer.

The newspaper reports Baker is expected to announce her departure as soon as this week for an unknown position at the Philadelphia-based cable giant. Comcast declined to comment, a company spokeswoman told the Journal.

This is the latest example of the revolving door that rotates people to and from the industries they regulate as government employees.  Baker was expected to be renominated for another term at the FCC.

Baker’s performance on the Commission was decidedly business-friendly, although at several points she seemed confused about the issues involved.  At a Tech Policy Summit held in January 2010, Baker suggested consumers paying for roaming while using mobile broadband would be an effective solution to ease congestion on wireless data networks.

Menino

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has problems with Comcast.  The cable operator, long a dominant player in the city of Boston, has been raising basic cable prices for the last several years, and the mayor’s office has had enough.  This week Menino filed a petition asking the Federal Communications Commission to give the city “emergency control” over the price of basic cable service in Boston — the only control permitted in the largely deregulated cable television marketplace.

Menino waved a study done at the behest of the city showing residents were paying substantially higher prices for the lowest level of service from Comcast.  Basic Service, which includes 37 local over the air stations and a handful of shopping and public access channels costs $15.80 inside city limits — up from $9.05 in 2009.  In nearby Cambridge, the same service costs $7.30 a month.  What’s the difference?  Cable rates are completely deregulated in the city, but smaller communities around Boston lack sufficient meaningful competition, so they are permitted by law to continue regulating rates for the lowest tier: Basic Service.

Now Menino wants those rates brought back under control for the benefit of seniors and low income residents, among the 10,000-15,000 local homes that subscribe to the economy service.

It’s just the latest challenge for Boston, which is among a few cities along the coast of the northeastern United States not benefiting from aggressive broadband and video competition between the phone and cable company.  Just over 200 miles away, metropolitan New York and the bedroom communities in that state, as well as New Jersey and Connecticut, have access to super fast broadband from Verizon FiOS, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, and Comcast — the latter predominately serving greater Philadelphia.

Boston has been bypassed for Verizon FiOS, is ignored by other potential cable competitors, and is stuck with poor-performing cable overbuilder – RCN, which has focused most of its efforts on multi-dwelling apartment and condo units in the city.  The rest of Boston gets ‘take it or leave it’ service from Comcast or DSL from Verizon.

Comcast was quick to respond to Menino’s call for reregulation, noting they provide $5 senior discounts for their cable customers and offer cheaper service than the alternatives — $17.50 a month from RCN or between $30-35 for promotions from DirecTV and DISH Satellite.

Menino’s dealings with telecommunications companies in Boston have run hot and cold for years.  In February, Menino appeared with Comcast senior vice president Steve Hackley to celebrate the opening of a Digital Connectors program for up to 2,800 low income households, paid for by federal stimulus grant money.  Under the program, students who complete computer training courses receive discounted Comcast Internet service for $10.95 a month for the first year and $15.95 for the second year.

Boston

Menino’s office has often been a watchdog when it comes to Comcast fulfilling its franchise obligations, and the city had high hopes competition from RCN would extend a choice of cable providers to most city residents.  That has not happened.

The city’s other telecommunications provider, Verizon, has been in contention with the city for several years.  The trouble began in 2007 when Menino declared war on property tax exemptions for utility poles dating back to 1915, granted to telecom companies like Verizon.  Four years later, that battle has culminated in Verizon literally wiring its fiber optic FiOS service around the city of Boston, refusing to deliver service inside it.

The promise of Verizon fiber has often gone unfulfilled or delayed in many larger cities, subject to bureaucratic delays not experienced in smaller communities.  Some towns and villages in Massachusetts signed franchise agreements just a few months after the company came knocking.

One local official, not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, told Stop the Cap! many communities welcomed Verizon’s fiber optic initiative with open arms.

“You have to understand there is a different mentality among government officials in smaller towns than there is among larger cities,” the official tells us. “In our town of 35,000 when Verizon offered to wire competitive service in our area, we wanted to know where to sign and when they could get started.”

The official says the local government was concerned about making sure Verizon repaired any damage to local infrastructure, abided by local zoning rules, and guaranteed they would not bypass parts of the town.  Negotiators also fought for funding to upgrade equipment for the community’s public access channels, but never went into the negotiations thinking about how much they could extract from the phone company.

“In larger cities in this state, there is a definite mentality that Verizon represents a golden goose ready and willing to lay golden eggs in return for franchise agreements,” the official told us.  “Maybe that is true, but when you are in a smaller town, you recognize the degree of willingness to invest capital to tear out old wires and replace them with fiber is far less here than a city like Boston, which has the potential of many more customers.”

Boston, like other large cities, prepared for protracted negotiations with the phone company over the new fiber service.  At the same time, Mayor Menino infuriated Verizon when he won his property tax lawsuit against the company, collecting $5 million in tax payments that one city official rubbed in.

Ronald W. Rakow, Boston’s commissioner of assessing, told the Boston Globe at the time: “We will actually be sending a bill to them for that later today,’’ Rakow said. “Don’t want to let the ink dry.’’

No Verizon FiOS for Boston

The argument over property taxes may have been the final straw for Verizon FiOS in Boston.  Menino suspected as much, telling the Globe “they insinuated that we weren’t going to get it because of my position on telecommunications.’’

Even then-Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg warned the city during a speech at the Boston College Chief Executives’ Club of Boston “to be careful when considering new taxes or regulations.”

Verizon has since stopped expanding its FiOS service to new cities.

“We knew as the financial crisis grew we were smart to sign up earlier rather than later, because if we didn’t, we would never have the service today,” the local official tells us.  “I have sympathy with local officials in every city trying to do what is best for their residents, but anyone who understands wired telecommunications should know these kinds of projects are exceedingly rare — grab them when you have the chance.”

Just a few years later, the impact of earlier decisions not to hurry competition into the city of Boston and the city’s tax policies have become clear:

• Comcast may be forced to reduce their Basic Service rate, but nothing prevents them from increasing Digital Service cable rates to make up the difference;
• RCN’s network has languished, providing competitive choice to just 15,000 local residents.  Comcast serves at least 170,000;
• Verizon has no plans to offer FiOS in the city indefinitely;
• Menino’s victory claim that Verizon should pay its fair share in property taxes seems less victorious today as the phone company began passing on the new taxes to ratepayers as a “Massachusetts Property Tax Recovery Surcharge” in March, 2010.
• No other competitor has appeared on the horizon willing to take on Comcast in the city of Boston.