Even Sir Patrick Stewart, famed Star Trek: The Next Generation starship captain, can’t “make it so” when it comes to Time Warner Cable in New York City.

Stewart, who just moved to the Park Slope neighborhood in Brooklyn, ran into a level 10 force field trying to get his cable service established.

He did what so many other consumers do when they run into a brick wall of customer service bureaucracy. He took it to Twitter:

The man who helped defeat the Borg couldn’t survive Time Warner Cable’s dreadfully poor customer service meted out to customers in the Big Apple (it scores a less than impressive 1.5 stars on Yelp), despite the eventual intervention from one of the company’s social media representatives employed to put out Twitter and Facebook fires. Unfortunately, it was too late:

Stewart is not alone. LeVar “Geordi La Forge” Burton has been there too (along with many of the 1,100+ others who retweeted Stewart’s dilemma):

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)

Lovett – Paid nearly double his 2010 salary for even worse results.

The man hired specifically to improve dismal customer satisfaction ratings for Charter Communications has walked away from the company with more than $20 million in pay in 2011 after just over two years at the helm, even as the company’s ratings grew worse.

Michael Lovett assumed the CEO position at Charter after the company emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November, 2009. Lovett was charged with cleaning up the company’s lousy reputation for customer service, service quality, and pricing.

He resigned this past February leaving Charter with an even poorer customer satisfaction rating. Now a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission discloses he walked away with $1.3 million in salary and $19.24 million in bonuses, golden parachutes, stock awards, and other resignation-related benefits — almost double the pay he received in 2010.

Charter is legendary for billing errors, disinterested customer service representatives, Internet Overcharging schemes that limit broadband consumption, poor quality repair and installation work, and inadequate infrastructure.

In July, 2011 Atlantic magazine named Charter the 5th most-hated company in America, and only received a satisfaction rating of 59/100 in the American Customer Satisfaction Index.

This year, the “don’t care bears” of cable did even worse — achieving the rank of 3rd most-hated company in America, stiffing customers with bait and switch promotions customers never received, even shoddier customer service and dodgy billing practices.

“I’d rather have AT&T, and that should tell you something,” shares Thom, a Charter customer in St. Louis. “You can’t believe how bad a cable company can be until you’ve dealt with Charter. You have a better chance of being dealt with fairly in a mob-run casino.”

“Shareholders must be among the dumbest people in America to watch this company flush more than $30 million down Lovett’s bank account for two years and accomplishing the amazing task of actually making things worse,” Thom writes. “He’s proof that throwing money at a problem does not work, no matter how many press releases Charter puts out.”

Charter is now being run by an ex-executive from Cablevision Industries, who has spent his tenure luring other Cablevision mid and high level executives to join him at Charter. President and CEO Tom Rutledge, chief operating officer John Bickham, and chief marketing officer Jonathan Hargis — former Cablevision executives now show up for work at a New York office Charter opened specifically for them.

“Nothing ever changes at Charter,” says Thom. “Instead of spending money actually improving service, they’re opening new executive suites in expensive New York just so the top brass need not slum it here in St. Louis. It’s good to know they have their priorities straight.”

The Better Business Bureau has processed more than 5,000 customer complaints against Charter in the past three years, most eventually resolved through Charter’s executive escalation office in Simpsonville, S.C.

Charter Communications reported a net loss of $94 million in the first quarter ended March 31.

You gotta love Verizon’s $30 upgrade fee to provide customers with the level of service and support they have come to expect. I’d rather deal with “no credit, no refunds, no checks” CricKet.

Verizon Wireless customers pay a $30 “upgrade fee” when purchasing new equipment with a new two-year contract, ostensibly to “provide customers with the level of service and support they have come to expect.”

After losing more than an hour of my life yesterday afternoon inside a Verizon Wireless store, I am here to tell you it isn’t worth it.

For the second time in seven months, Verizon Wireless has taught me they specialize in keeping customers waiting, giving them conflicting information, and proving the employees should be availing themselves of the “Wireless Workshops, online educational tools, and consultations with experts who provide advice and guidance on devices that are more sophisticated than ever.”

The latest nightmare began with an upgrade to Samsung’s Galaxy S3 that arrived with two 4G SIM cards that were initially declared useless-on-arrival. Despite early assurances that a customer service representative should be able to manage the activation of the phones without loss of our coveted unlimited data plan, it turned out a visit to a local Verizon Wireless store was recommended to swap out the 4G SIM cards enclosed in the box as part of a slightly-complicated activation.

Walking into the Pittsford, N.Y. Verizon store brought a feeling of trepidation when I realized my friend “the Verizon Wireless Welcome Kiosk” that I had been signing in at during previous visits was now missing. Instead, the store manager, armed with an Apple iPad, registered me for the inevitable queue of customers waiting for assistance.

“The wait should be around 15 minutes,” the store manager promised.

Nearly 30 minutes later, as I watched what seemed to be the only employee not on break deal with Ms. I-Don’t-Know-and-I-Can’t-Decide, the store manager returned to ask why I bothered to show up in-store to activate phones I could have managed online or by phone.

“Because I was told to,” I explained. “I have two phones that require new SIM cards and special attention to ensure I don’t lose my unlimited data plan.”

“Well, you have to activate them first,” came the reply.

That was news to me, of course, when a Verizon Wireless phone representative an hour earlier warned me specifically not to activate the phones and let a store customer service representative handle everything.

“Please don’t even attempt to activate the phones because I have had customers doing that all day who forfeited their unlimited data plans when they tried,” urged the phone representative. “You need to bring everything to the store and make sure they do it for you because I don’t want you inconvenienced.”

Good intentions, but reality always intrudes.

Phillip “Kill Me Now” Dampier

By now, 35 minutes into my 15-minute wait, several additional frustrated customers trickled in, all with the same phone. One found he couldn’t activate it even when he tried. Another needed his assigned a different number. Again, the store manager insisted the customers activate their phones before approaching a store employee.

As I wearily watched Ms. Indecision -still- taking up the time of the employee that was going to serve me next, I heard other customers casually griping about upgrade fees, the new Share Everything plan, and Verizon’s idea of customer service these days. The consensus: Verizon was shaking down their customers for more cash and also punishing people forced to walk into a store to resolve a problem. Pittsford is one of Rochester’s wealthiest suburbs, and even here customers were tapped out.

I have literally been here before. Back in December, at the same store, a remarkably unhelpful Verizon Wireless employee insisted the problems with my last phone, intermittent they might be, were not his problem if he could not exactly duplicate it while I waited. Since he did not have time to try (but had at least 15 minutes to chat up a young lady that preceded me about his holiday pie-making experiences), I was on my own, just as my warranty was set to expire.

He no longer works there.

As each new customer arrived on this remarkably warmer July day, the store manager warned the wait was growing longer and longer. He didn’t mention the customer -still- at the counter contemplating this or that and holding up the entire free market wireless economy in the process.

At this point, I was advised I could activate my phones by dialing *228 and I’d be all set. Only a year earlier, a Verizon employee told me 4G LTE customers should burn their fingers with a cigarette lighter if they ever felt the urge to try, because it would “scramble the SIM card forever.” True or false, I felt burned already.

I decided instead to call Verizon Wireless customer service, ironically, from inside the Verizon Wireless store that was supposed to be giving me “the level of service and support I have come to expect.”

“Due to (incredibly) high call volumes, your wait (is likely to be until the snow flies before someone will pick up your call).”

I then realize there are two other customers doing precisely the same thing I am, which probably explained those high call volumes.

Mr. Store Manager returned to ask if I had activated my phones yet. I explained I could not get through, but was bemused to notice the phones had now powered up with messages indicating they were in the process of activating themselves.

An hour into my 15 minute wait…

“That’s because you had your phones turned on,” came the odd explanation. “You have to turn the phones off before you call customer service.”

“I don’t think so, I seem to recall my Samsung Droid Charge activated itself in a similar fashion,” I replied.

“No, that isn’t how it works.”

Two minutes later, the phones activated themselves. I’m not certain I’ll ever know exactly why, especially after being told I had dud 4G SIM cards. But I also found it ironic that even a confused customer like myself, now dying in my personal Verizon hell, seemed to know more than the people working there, and I didn’t even take that Wireless Workshop.

Regardless, I was elated that stage of my trial had come to an end. Now I only had to have an employee swap those SIM cards out to assign the phones to the proper phone numbers. Then I could escape my excellent customer experience for good.

But there was Ms. Should-I-or-Shouldn’t-I, still tying up the growing line (the wait had now grown to perhaps an hour for customers entering the store… at their own risk.)

Suddenly, an employee miraculously returned from break and I was finally helped.

“You want insurance on these phone, right?”

“No.”

“But you have 14 days to change your mind.”

“No.”

“Which phone do you want on which number.”

“Since the phones are precisely the same, it does not matter to me.”

Those were the days.

Long pause.

The employee kept dropping below the counter to deal with an interminable number of snake-long thermal cash-register-like receipts that kept spitting out of the printer whenever he did anything on the slowly-responding computer.

After another 15 minutes, the new 4G SIM cards were in.

“Now let me show you some of the cool new features on your phone, but first enter your name and password.”

I compromised by entering my name and password but suggested we skip the training course. Besides, my personal lease renting space inside the store (and my new 2-year contract) was likely to expire before I would finally get out of there.

“We have some nice new cases to show you to protect your phones.”

“No thanks.” Now I am questioning why I bought the phones in the first place.

“Okay, now it is time to restore your apps.”

Kill me now.

As soon as the phones were up and running, back into the boxes they went, and polite thank-yous were delivered to all concerned. I then busted out of the store, more than an hour after my promised 15-minute wait, like a prisoner escaping Attica. Sure I realize I am not “free at last,” stuck on a new contract with Verizon for another two years, but I can do my time standing on my head so long as I can avoid ever dealing with another Verizon Wireless store… and keep my unlimited data.

They should pay me $30 to go through upgrading anything with them. Oh wait, just a year or so ago they did — $100 as part of Verizon’s long-gone “New Every Two” program… exorcised right along with their budget-minded voice calling options, unlimited data, and text plans suitable for the occasional text here and there. In their place, the all-new, super exciting $90 Share Everything plan… including $50 for a “generous” 1GB data allowance.

Thanks Verizon Wireless!

Stop the Cap! has suddenly started receiving a larger number of complaints about AT&T’s Internet Overcharging scheme in the past two weeks, indicating to us the company has started cracking down more forcefully on usage cap “violators.”

Those who purchased AT&T U-verse in an effort to avoid usage caps from their local cable company are particularly upset, because the phone company still markets its U-verse service as being ‘bandwidth-limit-free.’

AT&T advertises its U-verse service to this day as bandwidth limit free.

“We don’t limit your bandwidth to a particular amount,” promises AT&T in prominent language on its website. The fine print says something very different — AT&T limits the amount of usage customers get before being exposed to overlimit fees — 150GB for DSL, 250GB for U-verse. It is part of what the company calls wired “data plans.”

AT&T U-verse has a 250GB usage cap hidden in the fine print.

“It’s false advertising,” counters AT&T customer Don Brown. “Anyone who reads their promise of ‘no bandwidth limitations’ is going to assume that means no limits, but when I questioned company representatives about the promise, they pull out every trick in the book.”

Brown says one customer service representative told him ‘bandwidth limits’ refer to broadband speed — AT&T does not throttle its customers. Another said the ad claim meant that customers could keep paying AT&T additional money for as much usage as they want or need. But Brown believes AT&T knows better than that.

“When I signed up for service, I asked the salesperson who took my order if there were limits and they said there were none, period,” Brown says. “Not a word was spoken about 250GB limits or overlimit fees. I’m not buying their excuses — what wired ISP throttles customer speeds?”

In fact, AT&T itself defines “bandwidth” much the same way Brown does (underlining ours):

The term bandwidth can take on many meanings. In the case of AT&T U-verse products and services, the term bandwidth is commonly used when referring to computer networking and measuring Internet usage.

The amount of Internet usage is displayed in upload and download amounts. This would commonly be known as the amount of bandwidth the User used during a particular time.

Brown also has no access to any usage monitor or measurement tool, and AT&T told him he “can relax” because the company would send warnings when it noticed his usage was coming perilously close to the limit. But that makes planning around monthly usage limits difficult, because he has no idea what his usage is from day to day.

A week ago, he received his first warning in an e-mail message from AT&T, which was the first indication he was living under a usage cap.

“They are in a real hurry to collect more money from me but they don’t have their ducks in a row on an accurate meter I can depend on,” Brown says. “Would the local power, water, or gas company get away with that? I don’t think so.”

Brown decided AT&T’s “dishonesty,” as he puts it, made him cancel his service. He does not trust the phone company to accurately measure anything.

“At least I know the cable company is a pocket-picking crook so I can be on guard for their next move,” Brown says. “AT&T is more like the thief in the night that robs you blind while you are upstairs, asleep in bed.”

Chris Savage discovered AT&T’s “stealthy” 150GB usage cap on his DSL account when he received an e-mail warning of his own. He gets one more, after which AT&T will “bill shock” him with overlimit fees.

You have exceeded 150GB this billing period.

[…] The next time you exceed 150GB you’ll be notified, but not billed. However if you go over your data plan in any subsequent billing period, we’ll provide you with an additional 50GB of data for $10. You’ll be charged $10 for every incremental 50GB of usage beyond your plan.

AT&T DSL service has a sneaky 150GB usage cap in the fine print.

AT&T really isn’t interested in hearing questions or concerns about their “data plan,” telling customers at the bottom of the message:

Please do not reply to this email. This address is automated, unattended and cannot help with questions or requests.

Savage never knew AT&T implemented an Internet Overcharging scheme:

“This e-mail seemed to say to me, ‘We changed the rules on you without telling you and now you’ve broken them, so we’ll let you off this time, but consider yourself warned!'”

Savage has already cut cable’s cord and watches his television shows online, exactly what big phone and cable companies do not want their customers doing.

The bottom line is that 150GB is not enough for people like me who work at home, rely on Netflix for any kind of TV/Movies (since I don’t have cable or any other TV), have gamers in the house and run a website. What this means for me is that, once again I will have to cancel Netflix because watching just one movie or show per day would mean I would reach my cap about 2/3 of the way into the month. And that is if nobody else in the house watches anything on it, plays any online games or downloads anything.

In the end, it appears AT&T won and Netflix lost. Savage reports after going over AT&T’s limit two months in a row, he canceled his Netflix account — the only television service he had. AT&T DSL cannot even support one movie a night and one or two streamed cooking shows here and there without pushing the family over the limit AT&T imposes.