A 52-year old Los Angeles woman was bill shocked when she found Time Warner Cable charged her for 17 pay-per-view adult movies ordered over four days, often within minutes of each other.

Total charge: $154.65.

The actual number of adult movies watched, according to Time Warner customer Carol Scott: Zero.

Time Warner Cable’s initial response to Scott’s billing complaint: “We don’t make mistakes. You must have watched all those movies.”

The Los Angeles Times‘ David Lazarus reported on the plight of the healthcare lawyer the cable company thinks can’t put down her remote control:

On one day, the bill shows, a dirty movie was ordered at 9:55 a.m., followed by additional orders at 9:57, 10:03, 10:04, 10:05 and 10:06. Each movie came with a $7.98 charge.

Two days later, according to the bill, Scott’s craving for porn returned in a big way with orders for adult movies at 10:39 a.m. and 10:40, and again at 2 p.m., 2:01, 2:03 and 2:04.

She was apparently in such a randy mood, the bill shows that two adult movies were simultaneously ordered twice that day at 2:03 p.m. and 2:04.

The next day, a little more afternoon delight was seemingly in order. Scott’s bill indicates that two more adult movies were ordered, at 12:15 p.m. and immediately after at 12:16.

Unfortunately, Time Warner’s bill doesn’t specify the titles of the various films, so we can only guess at the range of tastes on display.

Scott explained she never ordered an adult pay per view movie in her life, much less 17 of them — a fact Time Warner Cable could have taken into account had it appropriately investigated her pay per view order history.

Instead, the representative insisted he had proof the movies were directly streamed to her television (was he outside her window?). If she wasn’t the one watching, someone else was — or several people, considering Scott’s bill showed she had as many as six sleazy sex flicks running at the same time.

Scott’s request to block adult pay per view titles from being ordered ever again was blocked by Time Warner. A customer service agent explained it was all or nothing — block all pay per view titles or none of them.

When the Los Angeles Times reporter called Time Warner Cable on behalf of Scott, the cable operator got nervous and had premature explanations.

Scott said one representative suggested electrical shorts could have resulted in her pay per view porn escapade, or perhaps someone got inside her cable box. Another repeated the company’s earlier insistence she must have watched the movies.

Jim Gordon, a company spokesman, didn’t really want to talk about it.

“We take customer privacy seriously, which we know our customers appreciate, and as such we are not able to comment on a particular customer’s account,” Gordon said.

Gordon passed the newspaper reporter to Motorola to discuss cable box hacking, as the Time Warner Cable set top box involved was manufactured by them.

In the meantime, under threat of going public with a relationship gone bad, Scott’s account was credited $154.65 and the cable company found its way clear to configure a block on future adult pay per view titles on Scott’s account.

If you do not use your cable company’s pay per view service, why not consider avoiding being the next lucky victim of cable porn roulette and ask your provider to block all pay per view purchases.

Comcast cable subscribers in Mattapoisett want less bundling and fewer fees.

They and everyone else.

This month, the 6,000 local residents of the small coastal town in southeastern Massachusetts got the opportunity to voice their concerns about Comcast Cable’s performance before the Board of Selectmen at an open town meeting contemplating the renewal of the cable operator’s five year franchise agreement.

The Sippican Week covered the proceedings:

Subscription plans and fees were the main concerns voiced by residents at the meeting.

“I’m just here to see if there is any way we can unbundle or offer some of the channels a la carte, rather than have to pay an exorbitant fee for the channels that are bundled at the different levels,” said Herb Webb.

“Instead of these large packages you have to buy, they could break them up into smaller sub-packages,” said Selectman Tyler Macallister. “Get some feedback from the town and develop packages specially for Mattapoisett.”

Resident Bob Spooner also questioned the $2 fee subscribers are charged for each cable box in addition to their main TV.

“What about the people who have four or five TVs,” said Spooner. “That’s another six or eight dollars a month.”

Macallister agreed, “I’m already paying for those channels, but now I have to pay $2 to get it.”

Selectmen chair Jordan Collyer tried to answer residents’ concerns, much like any local town or city official facing similar complaints would — with understanding and little else. After all, Comcast operates in a largely deregulated marketplace and need not fear threats from elected officials.

Local governments have no say over a cable company’s pricing for its most popular tiers of service, cannot dictate matters of channel bundling or equipment fees, and have little recourse beyond taking bids from other operators willing to serve when an incumbent company’s franchise goes unrenewed.

But that almost never happens. No major cable operator will offer to replace another major operator, meaning the chances that Time Warner Cable, Cox, Cablevision, or Bright House Networks would respond favorably to a request are effectively zero.

But parts of Mattapoisett are lucky enough to at least have a competitive option — Verizon FiOS, although that company also charges for set top equipment and bundles channels together. The local government has little control over Verizon’s service either.

One alternative open to residents and the local government is to support the construction of a community-owned provider that could, as much as programming contracts allow, respond more effectively to these kinds of concerns. Under current regulatory policies, that is about the only way Mattapoisett, and towns like it, can guarantee the presence of a responsive provider ready to meet the collective needs of the community.

Free Press’ campaign against AT&T’s Net Neutrality violation (click image for further information)

When AT&T customers take delivery of their new iPhone 5 or install Apple’s latest iOS 6 software update, the popular video conferencing app FaceTime will become available to the company’s mobile broadband customers for the first time, if they agree to switch their service to one of AT&T’s new, often more-costly “Mobile Share” plans.

Until now, FaceTime has been limited to Wi-Fi use only, but objections from wireless carriers and some technical limitations kept the popular app from working over 3G or 4G wireless networks.

AT&T’s decision to block the FaceTime app unless a customer changes their current mobile plan has sparked a notification from three public interest groups that they intend to file a formal Net Neutrality complaint against AT&T.

“AT&T’s decision to block FaceTime unless a customer pays for voice and text minutes she doesn’t need is a clear violation of the FCC’s Open Internet rules,” said Free Press policy director Matt Wood. “It’s particularly outrageous that AT&T is requiring this for iPad users, given that this device isn’t even capable of making voice calls. AT&T’s actions are incredibly harmful to all of its customers, including the deaf, immigrant families and others with relatives overseas, who depend on mobile video apps to communicate with friends and family.”

Free Press is joined in the forthcoming complaint by Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute.

“AT&T’s decision to block mobile FaceTime on many data plans is a direct contradiction of the Commission’s Open Internet rules for mobile providers,” said Sarah Morris, policy counsel for the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute. “For those rules to actually protect consumers and allow them to choose the services they use, the Commission must act quickly in reviewing complaints before it.”

AT&T earlier responded claiming they still allow the app to work over Wi-Fi (yours or theirs), so it cannot be a Net Neutrality violation. The company has spent an increasing amount of energy trying to convince regulators that wireless networks, including Wi-Fi, are largely equivalent. So long as a customer can access an app on one of them, there is no violation according to AT&T.

The company also claimed that since FaceTime comes pre-installed on phones, it is exempted from Net Neutrality regulations.

Whether the FCC will believe arguments that access over Wi-Fi is suitable enough to escape scrutiny for blocking an app on AT&T’s own 3G and 4G networks is open to debate.

The Obama Administration’s FCC has taken a lukewarm approach on Net Neutrality, adopting a compromise that is being attacked in court by MetroPCS and Verizon Wireless and considered insufficient protection by most consumer groups.

Neighborhood terminal pedestals can serve from a half-dozen to 200 customers. This one is designed to service a small neighborhood.

Time Warner Cable is asking a Padre Island, Tex. customer to pay $850 to move a cable company pedestal box installed in her front yard by mistake.

Dorothy Harper’s home is located right on the shoreline, so utility companies have traditionally placed their equipment in a utility easement adjacent to the street. But Time Warner Cable, for whatever reason, decided to install their unsightly neighborhood terminal pedestal in the middle of her front yard, in front of her home, despite the city’s request that cable operators keep their equipment in a designated easement along the property line.

Harper has been trimming around the pedestal for years, irritated by its presence but infinitely patient that one day the company would do the right thing and move it to its proper location.

Her patience wore out when competing cable company Grande Communications expanded service on Padre Island and felt its own pedestal box would be right at home next to the improperly located one owned by Time Warner. Harper arrived home one afternoon to find both boxes happily creating a tremendous eyesore.

Harper told The Caller she called Grande Communications, which eventually moved their pedestal to the proper location. But Time Warner Cable proved infinitely more stubborn, even when the city got involved:

Edward Villarreal, who issues fiber optic and utility permits for the city’s Development Services, visited Harper’s property. He took photos of the cable pedestal and made phone calls to Time Warner on her behalf, without success, he said.

“It’s definitely an eyesore I wouldn’t want in the middle of my property,” Villarreal told Troubleshooter Thursday.

Harper got tired of the fight with Time Warner and backed off for a while, she said.

“Every time I drive up to our home, I am angered again at Time Warner and their negative response to a problem that their workers created,” she said.

Recently she called Time Warner again and was told they would move the pedestal if she paid $850, Harper said.

The newspaper’s troubleshooter intervened, calling Time Warner’s regional headquarters looking for a resolution and found someone a bit more sympathetic.

Jon Gary Herrera, regional vice president of communications for the cable operator said complaints about unsightly cable pedestals are common, but the company would be willing to move the one in front of Mrs. Harper’s home if the mistake was theirs.

If not, Time Warner has a solution to quiet chronic complainers. The company has been known to provide a rock facade to cover the ugly pale green lawn stump and make things more landscape friendly.

One reader had a last-ditch solution in case that did not work:

Make the switch to Grande and then arrange for someone to “accidentally” do a hit and run on the cable box thus forcing Time Warner to come out and place it in the proper location.

Phillip “The Company Paid by Suddenlink to Issue a Third Party Guarantee Makes All the Difference” Dampier

When Stop the Cap! and Broadband Reports reader Simon contacted us about Suddenlink’s fact-free usage measurement tool that managed to rack up nearly 23GB of usage for one West Virginia customer on the same day his service was out for most of the evening, he probably did not think one customer catching the cable company’s fingers in the usage cookie jar would make much difference.

But it did.

Suddenlink spokesman Pete Abel, initially responding to complaints about the usage tool’s accuracy, told Light Reading last week its meter was “consistently accurate, as was demonstrated in the tests we ran before we launched this program.”

Four days later, the company effectively disavowed that, put the meter’s built-in overlimit fee scheme on hold and plans to hire a third party company to “validate the accuracy of its system,” after finding it was faulty after all.

Suddenlink won’t say what is causing the inaccuracies, but blamed “unusual” circumstances for the problem. The company is now refunding customers billed overlimit fees of $10 per 50GB and waiving future charges until its system is reviewed and validated by “a trusted third party.”

Stop the Cap! believes that does not come close to satisfying the company’s responsibility to its customers for accurate billing.

Suddenlink has never demonstrated it actually needs an Internet Overcharging scheme with usage limits and overlimit fees. The company proves that when it claims only a “relatively small number of customers” were ever billed overlimit fees. With no demonstrable usage problem, the company’s need to implement its Project Imagine “Allowance Plan” is sorely lacking.

Easy as counting anyway we like.

Additionally, the accuracy of providers’ usage measurement tools has proven highly suspect, and not just with Suddenlink. All of the companies caught with inaccurate meters always strongly defend them, until overwhelming evidence suggests they should not. Even super-sized companies like Bell Canada (BCE) and AT&T have enforced usage limits with meters the companies later had to disavow. Suddenlink is only the latest.

The scale in your grocery store is checked and certified. So is the corner gas pump, your electric meter, water meter, and gas meter. Why should broadband usage be any different?

Consumers are right to suspect Suddenlink’s usage meter. No official regulatory body verifies the accuracy of usage measurement tools and whatever company Suddenlink chooses to “verify” its meter has a built in conflict of interest — it works for a company that depends on a certain result in its favor. Suddenlink clearly has no business in the usage measurement business when it insists on the accuracy of a meter it disavows just a few days later.

With only murky details available to consumers about what caused the problem and why Suddenlink did not see it until a customer managed to catch them in the act, there is little confidence the company will actually solve a problem it never realized it had. There is also nothing to assure us — “third party guarantee” or not — it cannot happen all over again.

Suddenlink customers need to reach out and tell Suddenlink its “Allowance Plan” is completely unacceptable. Tell the cable company you don’t want to worry about their unverifiable and proven-inaccurate metering program. Ask them why you should remain a customer when they spend time and money on a scheme that the company itself admits is not really needed — targeting just a small number of “heavy users.”

Suddenlink’s customer service team does not think much of customers who use their broadband service a lot, as this recent “Who’s On First” exchange illustrates:

Lisa (Suddenlink): “Well, you show heavy OVERUSAGE of the Internet, you drew 14GB of data yesterday.”

Customer: “Okay, let’s back up, explain to me how I drew 12GB of data when my power was off and I wasn’t home on June 30.”

Lisa: “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “If you have sooo much faith in your meter, explain to me how I drew 12GBs of data on June 30, while I didn’t have power, and wasn’t home.”

Lisa:  “I didn’t say anything about June 30.”

Customer:  “I’m asking, how did I draw 12GB of data without power to my house?”

If Suddenlink has a problem with a handful of users creating problems for other subscribers on its broadband network, it has always reserved the right to contact those customers directly and work out the problem one on one. That is a far better solution than inconveniencing all of their customers with endless rounds of “usage roulette,” where the big winner could find themselves with Bill Shock from overlimit fees, whether they actually deserve them or not.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Internet v. Cable 8-20-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC interviewed Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent in August 2010 on how his company intends to deal with “invasive online video,” threatening to erode cable-TV profits. Kent proved Suddenlink doesn’t really need any extra money from overlimit fees — the days of big spending on capacity are over, but the money is nice to have anyway.  (8 minutes)