After Comcast customer Conal O’Rourke spent more than a year trying to get the cable company to stop overbilling him, Comcast allegedly got their revenge by having O’Rourke fired from his job at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which just so happened to count Comcast as an important client.

O’Rourke sued Comcast after the company allegedly complained about O’Rourke’s persistence to his boss at the accounting firm. After months of discovery motions surrounding the lawsuit, O’Rourke’s legal team has amended their complaint to add a seventh cause of action — invasion of privacy — after Comcast’s damage control efforts exposed private conversations between O’Rourke and Comcast customer service representatives.

The Consumerist was the first to tell O’Rourke’s story, and it has now learned Comcast allegedly recorded and used O’Rourke’s private conversations with the cable company to further disparage O’Rourke to protect its own image. His attorneys are now asking for additional damages, up from the original $1 million to more than $5 million:

After Conal filed suit, Comcast released a statement to Consumerist and others, explaining that, “As part of this investigation, we have listened to recorded calls between Mr. O’Rourke and our customer service representatives and his treatment of them and his language is totally unspeakable.”

This statement and description of the customer service calls goes too far, says Conal in the revised lawsuit.

“The recorded customer service telephone calls between Mr. O’Rourke and Comcast are private, and are not the subjects of legitimate public concern,” reads the amended complaint. “Comcast’s public disclosure of the existence and nature of Mr. O’Rourke’s private calls to Comcast customer service – which disclosure falsely portrays Mr. O’Rourke as an individual lacking in decency, ethics and integrity – is offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.”

The lawsuit claims that “Comcast’s conduct towards Mr. O’Rourke was wanton, willful and intentional, and committed with malicious intent.”

Comcast apparently intends to drag the case out in court, potentially for years.

“That’s how long hard-fought federal lawsuits are taking in this district these days, and Comcast will be opposing it hard,” Conal’s lawyer Harmeet K. Dhillon told Ars Technica. “I can’t say on the record why it didn’t settle, but you can see from Comcast’s public statements that they want to be ‘vindicated.’”

A typical promotional offer from Comcast for a bundle of broadband, TV and phone service.

Cable and phone companies will continue to raise the price of broadband-only service while also increasing the value proposition of bundled packages of broadband, television, and phone service to keep customers from cutting the cable television cord.

For at least four years, cable companies have refocused rate increases and fees on Internet access, especially for broadband-only customers. At the same time, cable-TV rate hikes are easing, especially for customers subscribed to two or more services. Today, customers face prices as high as $67 a month for standalone Internet service. But that price can drop in half if customers bundle broadband with television and phone service. Most triple play promotions in markets where AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS compete can be as low as $90 a month. In less competitive markets, a similar promotion often costs $99-119 a month.

Recent research by Sanford Bernstein reveals these pricing strategies are not happening by accident.

Media analyst Todd Juenger recently held his second cord-cutting focus group in Comcast-dominant San Francisco and found some of those most likely to cancel cable television decided to keep their Comcast bundle after they discovered the cable company charges $66.95 a month for Internet-only service, excluding the modem rental fee. For $10 more per month during the first year, customers can get that same 25Mbps broadband service bundled with 140 TV channels. Assuming the customer doesn’t protest the subsequent rate increase beginning a year later, that rate will eventually reset to $136.90 a month. But price-sensitive customers who complain often avoid any rate increase at all.

Juenger’s focus group surveyed 18 men and women in the age group most likely to drop cable television – 21-38 year-olds. Despite their love for Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other online video services, the participants broadly recognized the cable/telco bundle now delivers a better value proposition and as long as cable and phone companies continue to price up standalone Internet service, many will choose to stay with the company they hate and not try to cobble together a comparable package of broadband and television service from other providers.

“Hence, we remain cautiously optimistic that cord-cutting, in large numbers, isn’t likely to happen,” Juenger wrote his clients. “It’s one of those ideas that sounds great in the abstract but crumbles when faced with the reality.”

As cable television pricing continues to exceed many household budgets, providers are seeking new customers that can afford cable TV but choose not to subscribe. One of their primary targets: broadband-only customers and cord-nevers who might be persuaded to add cable television at a starting price of $10-20 above what they pay for broadband service. That price is less than what Sling TV or PlayStation Vue charges for far fewer channels.

The challenge competing online video providers face is finding a compelling limited channel lineup that will appeal to all-comers. Although the average cable subscriber generally watches fewer than a dozen cable channels regularly, not having access to one or more of those favored channels is a deal-breaker for many.

Juenger’s focus group was most open to a hypothetical a-la-carte package of any 10 customer-chosen channels for $20 a month. But Juenger reminded his investor clients no such package currently exists and probably never will.

“Simply put, for existing pay-tv subs, the content [available to Sling or View customers] is too limited (relative to the cost savings); and for cord-nevers, the price is too high (relative to the appeal of the content),” Juenger wrote.

But Juenger did warn that customers are enthusiastic about sticking it to their current provider, if they can get the programming they want. That could make some programmers, especially broadcast stations and networks, more vulnerable to revenue loss. If a company can reliably offer a variety of theme-based slimmed down cable packages coupled with an effective and seamless over-the-air antenna, no retransmission fees would be paid to over-the-air stations and networks.

If the bundled package pricing argument doesn’t work with cord-cutters, the broadband usage cap probably will. Customers will quickly learn they can eat through their monthly Internet usage allowance watching live television online, or avoid that prospect by subscribing to cable TV, which offers unlimited viewing.

A Washington state man who just moved into his new home is now being forced to consider selling it to somebody else because Comcast repeatedly misled him about its ability to provide service.

Seth told his extensive story to The Consumerist, which detailed his repeated attempts to get Comcast broadband service after multiple missed or unfinished service appointments. More importantly, Seth is representative of many Americans who have been told broadband is a fiercely competitive industry, yet they cannot sign up for service at a reasonable price from any provider.

For Seth, having reliable broadband service is not just a convenience — it is essential if he wants to stay employed. Before even considering making an offer on his new home in Kitsap County, Seth did his homework verifying Comcast provided service in the neighborhood. Comcast repeatedly assured him it did, and one sales rep confirmed a former resident at the same address had Comcast service. Seth was satisfied, bought the home and called to get Comcast service installed. But when a Comcast crew arrived Jan. 31, they quickly discovered there was no cable line strung to Seth’s property. That isn’t typically a deal-breaker and the techs completed a “drop bury request” that would normally result in the arrival of a Comcast cable burial crew to bring service from a nearby utility pole. Not this time.

Comcast determined the same home that its own sales rep promised used to have Comcast service was now suddenly too far away from Comcast’s infrastructure. If it decided to offer Seth service, the company quoted an installation fee approaching $60,000.

Seth consulted the FCC’s Broadband Map which depicted Kitsap County a veritable paradise of competition, with at least 10 providers fighting for his business. But Seth quickly realized the FCC’s map was misleading and inaccurate.

Four of his options were wireless carriers that don’t provide a strong signal to his home or charge obscenely high prices for usage capped Internet access. ViaSat was on the list promising up to 25Mbps, but ViaSat satellite customers can testify the actual speeds received are much slower, and do not reliably support the VPN access Seth required.

Neither Comcast or CenturyLink offer broadband service to Seth, despite the fact both told the FCC they did for the purpose of its map. StarTouch uses microwave signals to reach its customers, but not in Seth’s part of Kitsap County. It seems someone put up a large building in between StarTouch’s transmission facilities and Seth’s home, blocking the service for a significant part of the county.

XO Communications does provide reliable T1 service to businesses at speeds from 1.544Mbps – 6Mbps. The biggest downside is its cost — $600 a month. Finally, Seth’s only other alternative is a gigabit fiber network run by the Kitsap Public Utility District. But cable companies like Comcast effectively lobbied to guarantee those types of networks would never be a competitor by pushing for laws that forbid retail service to individual homes or businesses. In Washington, the law only allows the utility district to sell wholesale access to its network to companies like… Comcast.

In the end, Comcast decided it wasn’t interested in serving Seth even if he found the $60,000 to cover the installation fee. CenturyLink shrugged its shoulders over why it isn’t offering DSL in Seth’s neighborhood. Seth is preparing to put his home back on the market. It’s a perfect choice for Luddites everywhere.

The moral of the story?

• Comcast is not always forthcoming and honest when signing up customers and led Seth through two months of missed appointments and misinformation;
• The accuracy of the FCC’s broadband availability map is questionable.

Californians get a reprieve from the menacing Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger with an announcement from the California Public Utilities Commission it is putting further consideration of the merger deal on hold until later this spring.

Consumer groups loudly protested the PUC for holding its single public hearing on the merger in San Francisco, which has been served almost exclusively by Comcast for years. Most of the impact of the merger will be felt in Los Angeles, where Time Warner Cable provides service to around 1.8 million customers. The deal also involves Charter Communications customers in the region, who will also end up as Comcast customers if the deal is approved.

The PUC eventually agreed to hold a meeting in Los Angeles, but then scheduled it for Good Friday. Now it has changed the date for the four-hour public input session to April 14, one day before tax returns are due. No specific information about the time of the meeting could be located on the CPUC website, but we do know it will be held in the auditorium of the Public Utilities Commission’s building at 320 West 4th St. in downtown Los Angeles.

That the CPUC seems to be heading towards approving the deal does not come as much of a surprise. The CPUC has been surprisingly friendly to the communications companies it regulates, in the past approving questionable statewide video franchise reforms on behalf of AT&T and generally permitting most of the merger and consolidation transactions that arrive at the commission for review.

An advising administrative law judge attached a long list of recommended temporary conditions that should be included in any approval, covering everything from lobbying about municipal broadband to discount Internet service for the poor. Although Comcast claims it is willing to accept many of the short-term conditions, it also signaled objections to some of the most significant requirements, a potential sign Comcast might exercise its legal options in the future to be rid of the deal’s most onerous conditions.

Independent consumer groups not financially aligned with the cable industry are almost universally opposed to the merger as are many Californians.

After a year-end customer audit, some Comcast customers report they are now being notified by the cable company they were not charged modem rental fees in error even though they previously purchased their own equipment.

“Late last year, I received a form letter from them notifying me that they had noticed that I wasn’t being billed for the modem they claimed they were renting to me,” wrote a Reddit contributor. “An hour-long phone call with four representatives later, the $8 charge was removed. However, it seems that since they increased the modem rental fee to $10 per month, they’ve brought my modem back into their flock.”

He isn’t alone.

Another customer found Comcast still billing him for a modem he returned to Comcast three months earlier.

“I’m now on my third month where I had to call, get a refund, and get a promise it won’t happen again,” wrote another Comcast customer.

The customer service representative argued the charges were valid, despite the fact the customer went to extraordinary lengths to document the return of the equipment to avoid being charged for it. Instead of claiming the customer never returned the modem, Comcast registered the customer’s newly-purchased modem as Comcast property.

“It shows that modem is with the customer,” said the confused Comcast representative.

“They are that s****y of a company, I saw this coming from a mile away,” said the customer, who recorded the return of Comcast’s modem in a video he made at the local XFINITY store. Despite that effort, he was unprepared for the possibility Comcast would unilaterally adopt his new equipment and claim it as their own.

Watching your Comcast bill like a hawk for unauthorized charges can also get confusing when Comcast keeps changing the name of the fee.

Customers with their own modems should find no charge for modems, gateways, or routers on their bill.

“I had to make three calls, each one more and more frustrating,” another customer complained. “The first was to remove the equipment fee, the equipment fee then morphed into a modem fee [… and the] final call was when the modem fee evolved into a router fee.”

One Comcast customer complained on the company’s own support forum he was charged modem fees for over a year for a modem he purchased himself.

“I have gone through customer service both on the phone and through chat,” complained the customer. “The charge will come off for a month and then get put back on my bill. I even went through Comcast Corporate Escalation and it was removed in October 2014. I went back through my bills and noticed that the charge went back on the very next bill and I have been charged ever since.”

To add insult to injury, Comcast now also bills a “change of service fee” to remove the erroneous charge, only to have it return the following month.

Because Comcast billing errors are so common, still another customer shared some tips on how to prove Comcast customer-owned equipment does not belong to the cable company.

“My advice if you are thinking about buying your own modem is to make sure you file all receipts,” said the customer. “I went through this same runaround with Comcast last year and luckily I still had both the sales receipt from Amazon as well as the Comcast document stating I had turned in my rented modem. It still took a few phone calls and a week or so for them to straighten it out. Pretty ridiculous.”