Despite ten years of promises to do better, Comcast Corporation remains America’s most hated company, according to a new survey from 24/7 Wall St:

The internet service provider and subscription television service industries are not known for superior customer service. In fact, the two industries have the worst average scores in the American Customer Satisfaction Index. Still, Comcast has a significantly worse customer satisfaction score than either industry average.

The company’s internet services received the fourth worst score out of some 350 companies. In J.D. Power’s rating of major wireline services, only Time Warner Cable — recently subsumed by Charter — received as poor of an overall satisfaction score. In the same survey, Comcast received the worst scores in cost to consumer, performance, billing, and reliability. In 24/7 Wall St.’s annual customer satisfaction poll conducted in partnership with Zogby, nearly 55% of of respondents reported a negative experience with the company, the second worst of any corporation.

Customer complaint intensity remains very high for companies that have a history of increasing fees and charges, those that enjoy the benefits that come from a lack of competition, and at companies where there is a high likelihood of customer contact with customer service. The cable industry fits the bill on all three, and customers do not like what they see in Comcast.

For at least a decade, company executives have claimed to be dramatically improving customer service, most recently relying on Charlie Herrin, executive vice president of customer experience at Comcast. Comcast calls Herrin an in-house “consumer advocate.”

Herrin

“We know we still have work to do, but we’re excited about the progress we’re making,” Herrin tells customers on Comcast’s XFINITY Customer Experience website. “We’ve reached all-time highs across many of our key customer service areas. The number of customers who have had to call us is down 14 percent – which means your products are more reliable, your bill is easier to understand and our self-service platforms are making a difference. Our on-time arrival rate for technicians coming to your home has improved to over 97 percent.  Our success rate for solving your issue on the FIRST call is up by 7 percent, getting us closer to our goal of fixing it right the first time, every time. Our Digital Care team is also getting back to you faster, as our response time on social channels improved by 95 percent.”

Although Herrin seems convinced, customers are not. The Better Business Bureau’s Comcast file warns visitors the BBB receives so many complaints about the cable operator, it can only publish approximately one out of every twenty on its website. But that amounts to at 34,902 complaints published online in just the last three years. The majority relate to issues like Comcast’s usage caps, billing errors, mysterious fees, and poor service.

Customers may not appreciate Herrin’s metrics for improvement if they reported a service problem over an app, received an inaccurate (but easier to read) bill, or got a speed increase and a bill with penalty overlimit fees for using too much of their internet service.

Time Warner Cable customers hoping for improved service from new owner Charter Communications also appear to be out of luck. As Charter has grown in size, its already-mediocre customer satisfaction rating is apparently slipping again, now making it to 24/7 Wall Street’s Worst list at #12.

“Charter has one of the poorest reputations for customer service of any company in the subscription television service industry,” 24/7 Wall Street wrote. “It also scores below average in customer service compared to its competitors in the fixed line telephone industry and internet service industry.”

Two other telecom companies also scored very poorly – DISH Networks, also called out by its employees as an awful place to work, and Sprint, perpetually in the middle of a “service improvement” project that never seems to end, leaving many customers running out of patience.

Time Warner’s Enhanced DVR works fine, but those avoiding TWC equipment run into DRM problems.

If you’re accustomed to using Time Warner Cable’s DVR box, you probably don’t realize how heavy-handed Time Warner Cable can be with copy protection, but as set-top box alternatives proliferate, more customers are encountering the frustration of digital rights restrictions.

For several years, customers using alternatives to Time Warner’s set-top boxes or who wanted to store their DVR recordings on another hard drive quickly discovered the cable operator heavily enforces copy protection mechanisms designed to thwart digital archival copies of programs recorded from cable television.

Copy Control Information (CCI) is an invisible flag sent in digital television signals that is designed to give control to copyright owners over how their shows can be duplicated. Since at least 2007, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks customers have been frustrated if they use their own DVR or devices like TiVo. When customers attempt to copy their recorded shows to other devices or playback units in their home, the CCI flag often stops the copy cold.

ZatzNotFunny has covered this issue for years, noting Time Warner Cable, Bright House, and Cox have been particularly unfriendly to third-party set-top boxes like TiVo.

Among cable operators, the most common flags are Copy Freely and Copy Once. Many cable operators set their basic cable network CCI flags to “copy freely,” while premium pay movie channels like HBO are set to “copy once” — primarily to allow time-shifting devices like a DVR to record the show. Once your DVR has a copy of a show with a restricted flag, it cannot be copied again.

Digital Rights Management policies are part of the nation’s struggle between Hollywood-inspired copy protection and the public’s right to make and store recordings of programming for their own personal use. Some telecom companies like Verizon and Comcast have come down more in favor of consumers, while Time Warner Cable and Bright House (which have traditionally shared engineering practices and programming contracts for at least a decade) are far more responsive to Hollywood. The result for subscribers with $200 cable bills is endless frustration, especially if they choose not to use the pricey set-top boxes and DVRs supplied by the TWC or Bright House.

CableCARD and TiVo users, as well as those relying on Extenders for Windows Media Center like the Xbox 360 are often stymied by CCI flags, especially when a consumer tries to watch a show in one room and finish it in another using Multi-Room Viewing features.

ZatzNotFunny rates TWC, Bright House and Cox as unfriendly to alternative set-top boxes like TiVo. (Image: ZatzNotFunny)

Wikipedia supplies insight into the available CCI options cable operators can choose to use for cable television channels:

• 0x00 – Copy freely – Content is not copy protected.
• 0x01 – Copy No More – A copy of the content has already occurred and no more copies are permitted.†
• 0x02 – Copy Once – One recording can be made, but it cannot be copied to another device.†
• 0x03 – Copy Never – the content can be recorded and viewed for 90 minutes after transmission, and is not transferable.†
• 0x04 – Content is Copy Once for digital output, but would have Macrovision 7 Day Unlimited restriction applied on the analog outputs. This affects content viewed either on an HDTV with component cabling or on a standard definition TV. It also affects content saved to VCR or DVD when the recorder is connected to an analog output on the DVR.†
• 0x07 – Content is Copy Never for digital content (deleted after 90 minutes) and Macrovision 7 day/24 hour for content recorded from analog channels. Content cannot be transferred via TiVoToGo transfers or MRV, and cannot be saved to VCR or DVD.†

† – Any live stream with a CCI flag set higher than 0x00 is to be encrypted or protected in a way that only trusted platforms that will obey the flag (Such as Microsoft’s PlayReady system used in Windows Media center) can access it.

A Time Warner Cable customer known as MachineShedFred noticed this problem first hand and wrote about it in a complaint to Time Warner Cable back in March, and Stop the Cap! reader Chris N. pointed us to this ongoing issue:

The only software that allows me to use the CableCARD hardware that you officially support and distribute is Windows Media Center, which Microsoft is no longer developing, and is no longer distributing.  All other DVR software available for every platform will not work, as they cannot decrypt the video stream due to the abuse of the CCI flag.

No other cable company in the US abuses the CCI flag in this manner, and every other cable subscriber in the US that isn’t on Time Warner has a wide choice of solutions for enjoying their service better than we can as your subscribers.  Why are you restricting the choices of your subscribers for no reason?  It’s clearly not contractual from the media networks, as they would have pushed for the same stipulations with at least one of your competitors.  Yet, anyone outside of TWC’s monopoly can use any other software they want.

When even Comcast allows their subscribers more subscriber-friendly choices, you know you’re doing it wrong.  Please revisit this ridiculous policy and cease the overuse of the CopyOnce CCI flag that unduly burdens your subscribers by forcing them to replace perfectly good hardware, or replace YOU.

Some believed this problem could eventually resolve itself with Charter Communications’ buyout of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. Would Charter bring their own policies to affected TWC/BH customers, or will Charter customers soon have to contend with the CCI CopyOnce flag loved by Time Warner Cable as well.

An official complaint to the FCC brought a cryptic non-answer answer from William Wesselman, Time Warner Cable’s regulatory compliance counsel. Wesselman implied the liberal use of the CCI  CopyOnce flag was the result of restrictions in contracts with major programmers, which seems unlikely because other cable operators — larger and smaller — have successfully navigated around this issue. Wesselman’s answer implies as Time Warner Cable and Bright House are brought into the Charter hegemony, “the policies of the two companies will ultimately become the same.”

Of course, he never defines which policy Charter, TWC and BH customers across the country will eventually get by sometime in 2017.

Mr. Wesselman’s full response:

At this time, TWC and Charter continue to integrate their two systems into one. Both TWC and Charter, like other distributors of multichannel video programming, negotiate the distribution rights for the content it carries independently with individual rights holders. These bilateral commercial negotiations take into consideration many different factors, include the content protection and digital rights management requirements of the rights holder; applicable law, license and regulations; and the interests of subscribers. Each of these commercial negotiations, and the terms of the agreements that result, are unique to the specific distributor and programmer involved. As the integration of the two companies continues, Mr. X will notice that the policies of the two companies will ultimately become the same based on our agreements.

Comcast will forfeit $2.3 million to settle a nationwide investigation into the company’s negative option billing practices — charging customers for services and equipment they declined or never requested.

The fine from the Federal Communications Commission’s Enforcement Bureau is the largest penalty ever assessed against a cable operator, and comes with a requirement that going forward, Comcast get clear consent from customers approving any future products or services that could impact their cable bill.

The FCC, in a news release, compared Comcast’s actions to “cramming” unauthorized/fraudulent charges on telephone bills and said FCC rules specifically prohibited cable providers from charging customers for services or equipment they did not request.

“It is basic that a cable bill should include charges only for services and equipment ordered by the customer—nothing more and nothing less,” said Travis LeBlanc, chief of the Enforcement Bureau. “We expect all cable and phone companies to take responsibility for the accuracy of their bills and to ensure their customers have authorized any charges.”

The FCC was showered with complaints for years about Comcast’s allegedly unethical business practices of billing for customer-owned modems, modems that were returned, unwanted premium channels, extra set-top boxes and DVRs. Many complainants accused Comcast of sending equipment or adding services even when those customers specifically declined them. Others discovered they were being billed for equipment they did not request, never received, or returned previously.

The FCC found consumers were inconvenienced and spent “significant time and energy” attempting to prove their case to get the unauthorized charges removed from current and past bills.

Under a consent agreement with Comcast, the company must  implement a five-year compliance plan.

“Specifically, Comcast will adopt processes and procedures designed to obtain affirmative informed consent from customers prior to charging them for any new services or equipment,” the FCC news release stated. “Comcast will also send customers an order confirmation separate from any other bill, clearly and conspicuously describing newly added products and their associated charges. Further, Comcast will offer to customers, at no cost, the ability to block the addition of new services or equipment to their accounts. In addition, the settlement requires Comcast to implement a detailed program for redressing disputed charges in a standardized and expedient fashion, and limits adverse action (such as referring an account to collections or suspending service) while a disputed charge is being investigated.”

A Comcast spokesperson denied the FCC’s accusations and called reports of erroneous billing “isolated errors” that resulted from “employee error” and “customer confusion.”

“We have been working very hard on improving the experience of our customers in all respects and are laser-focused on this,” Comcast said in a statement. “We acknowledge that, in the past, our customer service should have been better and our bills clearer, and that customers have at times been unnecessarily frustrated or confused. That’s why we had already put in place many improvements to do better for our customers even before the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau started this investigation almost two years ago. The changes the bureau asked us to make were in most cases changes we had already committed to make, and many were already well underway or in our work plan to implement in the near future.”

Dorothy Ayer said she was quoted a price of $69 a month for a package including landline phone and broadband service from Frontier Communications, but when she received her first bill, she claims she was charged $426.55.

Ayer filed a class action complaint against Frontier Communications Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court for the Central Division of California, claiming the phone company regularly engages in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices including false advertising.

Ayer claims Frontier promised her all installation charges, activation fees and other miscellaneous costs found on her first bill would be waived, but now that the bill is in her mailbox, the company wants to be paid in full.

The lawsuit asks the court to recognize the economic harm and injury done not only to Ms. Ayer, but to other similarly situated Frontier customers. The lawsuit claims Frontier Communications benefits from falsely advertising the prices of its services without properly informing customers of the many other charges the company levies on the first bill.

If Ayer is successful, Frontier will be forced to notify all affected customers and presumably refund or credit their accounts.

The case is being handled by attorneys Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Woodland Hills, Calif.

A Los Angeles man has reached the boiling point after two years of telemarketing calls from Charter Communications that turn out to be the result of a wrong number.

William L. McCarthy filed a complaint on Aug. 12 with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging Charter Communications of California LLC has harassed him with telemarketing calls intended for someone else.

McCarthy’s complaint states Charter has calling his phone number to talk to Monique Smith, someone McCarthy doesn’t know. Despite requesting at least 12 times that Charter remove his phone number from their telemarketing lists, the calls just kept on coming with the help of an automatic dialer, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

McCarthy wants a jury trial, seeks statutory damages, legal fees, and whatever other relief the court finds reasonable.

Charter has an expansive history of aggravating customers with relentless telemarketing calls:

2013: “I have never been more harassed by spam telemarketing/calling in my life than from Charter Communications and they already have my business! It’s unbelievable to me how many times they call per week (average of 8 times), never leaving a message, and they only call to “promote an upgrade of my services” every time. They continue to call even after I have asked them multiple times to stop calling me and that I don’t want to upgrade, period. They literally take telemarketing spam to a whole new level. All seven of their numbers that they have tried calling me on (including “unknown”/blocked numbers), I have saved to my phone as “Charter Spam” so I know it’s them calling me and don’t pick up. Only problem is, if you don’t pick up with one number, they’ll continue to call you but from their other 100 numbers.”

From a blog: “As a Charter customer, it’s very annoying to be constantly bombarded by telemarketing calls. Charter is relentless. No matter how much you ask them not to call you, they will continue and the reps are very aggressive. They are exempt from the National Do Not Call Registry because there is a business/customer relationship. At one point, I was contacted 16 times within two weeks from their 909-259-XXXX number. They do change the number that appears on the caller ID. Sometimes I have gotten the 404 area code.”

2014: “I don’t even have their services yet and I have received 19 calls in 5 days. NINETEEN! And, those are only the ones I haven’t answered!”

In late 2015, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster filed a lawsuit in federal court against Charter Communications for violating federal and state telemarketing and No-Call laws. Unwanted telemarketing calls and harassing treatment by telemarketers annually rank highest on the list of complaints received by the Attorney General’s Office. 

His office alone received 350 No-Call complaints about harassing practices by Charter’s telemarketers. Many consumers complained about daily calls from Charter, and some consumers received up to three calls a day. The calls were an attempt to sell Charter’s cable, internet and phone services.