Stopping Cox’s money party from getting started, if we can help it.

Stop the Cap! today formally declares war on Cox’s usage cap experiment in Cleveland, Ohio and will coordinate several protest actions to educate consumers about the true nature of usage-based billing and how they can effectively fight back against these types of Internet Overcharging schemes.

Time Warner Cable quickly learned it was deeply mistaken telling customers that a 40GB monthly usage allowance was more than 95% of customers would ever need when introducing a similar concept April 1, 2009 in test markets including Rochester, N.Y., Austin and San Antonio, Tex., and Greensboro, N.C. The company repeatedly suggested only about five percent of customers would ever exceed that cap.

Six years later, it is likely 95% of customers would be paying a higher broadband bill to cover applicable overlimit fees or be forced to upgrade to a more expensive plan to avoid them. Before Time Warner realized the errors of its way, it claimed with a straight face it was acceptable to charge customers $150 a month for the same unlimited broadband experience that used to cost $50.

Cox’s talking points for customers and the media frames usage caps as a fairness enforcement tool. It is a tired argument and lacks merit because nobody ever pays less for usage-capped broadband service. At best, you pay at least the same and risk new overlimit charges for exceeding an arbitrary usage allowance created out of thin air. At worst, you are forced by cost issues to downgrade service to a cheaper plan that comes with an even lower allowance and an even bigger risk of facing overlimit fees.

Industry trade journal Multichannel News, which covers the cable industry for the cable industry does not frame usage caps in the context of fairness. It’s all about the money.

“If you’re a cable operator, you might want to strike [with new usage caps] while the iron is hot,” said MoffettNathanson principal and senior analyst Craig Moffett, a Wall Street analyst and major proponent of investing in cable industry stocks.

Multichannel News warned operators they “must tread carefully in how they deliver the usage-based message.” Instead of getting away with punitive caps, Time Warner Cable had to “rethink” its definition of fairness, keeping prices the same for heavy users of bandwidth but offering discounts to customers whose usage was lighter. No money party for them.

So how did Cox frame its message in the pages of an industry trade journal to fellow members of the cable industry? Was it about fairness or collecting more of your money. You decide:

Customers will be notified of their data usage and any potential overages beginning in mid- June but won’t have to pay for overages until the October billing cycle, a Cox spokesman said. That gives customers the chance either to alter their usage or step up to a more data-intensive plan.   The additional charges serve as a temporary step-up plan for certain consumers, the spokesman said — they can keep their current level of service and pay the additional fee during months when usage spikes, like when their kids come home from college.

The Government Accounting Office, charged with studying the issue of data caps, found plenty to be concerned about. Consumers rightfully expressed fears about price increases and confusion over data consumption issues. In short, customers hate the kind of usage-based pricing proposed by Cox. It’s a rate hike wrapped in uncertainty and an important tool to discourage consumers from cutting their cable television package.

It’s also nakedly anti-competitive because Cox has conveniently exempted its television, home phone, and home security products from its usage cap. Subscribe to Cox home phone service? The cap does not apply. Use Ooma or Vonage? The cap does apply so talk fast. If a customer wants to use Cox’s Home Security service to monitor their home while away, they won’t eat away their usage cap. If they use ADT to do the same, Cox steals a portion of your usage allowance. Watch a favorite television show on Cox cable television and your usage allowance is unaffected. Watch it on Netflix and look out, another chunk is gone.

While Cox starts rationing your Internet usage, it isn’t lowering your price. A truly fair usage plan would offer customers a discount if they voluntarily agreed to limit their usage. But nothing about Cox’s rationing plan is fair. It’s compulsory, so customers looking for a worry-free unlimited plan are out of luck. It’s punitive, punishing customers for using a broadband connection they already paid good money to buy. It’s arbitrary — nobody asked customers what they wanted. It doesn’t even make sense. But it will make a lot of dollars for Cox.

Cox claims it only wants usage caps to help customers choose the “right plan.”

The right plan for Cox.

To escape Cox’s $10 overlimit fees, a customer will have to pay at least $10 more to buy a higher allowance plan — turning a service that costs less to offer than ever into an ever-more expensive necessity, with few competitive alternatives. Will Cox ever recommend customers downgrade to a cheaper plan? We don’t think so. Customers could easily pay $78-100+ for broadband service that used to cost $52-66.

Back in 2009, the same arguments against usage caps applied as they do today. Industry expert Dave Burstein made it clear usage caps were about one thing:

“Anybody who thinks that’s not an attempt to raise prices and keep competitive video off the network — I have a bridge to sell them, and it goes to Brooklyn,” Burstein said.

Vincent Sisounong and Blessing Gainey were charged with attempted murder.

A Kirkland, Wash. family nearly lost their son in a brutal home invasion that Comcast’s home security system failed to deter and now the family is taking the cable company to court.

Leena Rawat and her family depended on Comcast’s home security system to keep their home intruder-proof, and that is precisely what the company and its contractor, Pioneer Cable, promised.

But the night two teenage neighbors went looking for blood, they had no trouble bypassing Comcast’s unarmed basement sensor and entering the family’s home.

Within minutes, the two men grabbed 18-year old Deep and began torturing him while his family slept.

“They were going to play a game with him tonight – and the game would be that he would be fighting for his life,” Rawat told KING-TV in Seattle. “He was full of blood from head to toe, with gashes. He was in the worst situation possible that a mother wants to see her child in.”

The intruders’ impromptu mission: to chop off one of Deep’s arms and legs with various cutting tools while robbing the family home.

Police say Vincent Sisounong and Blessing Gainey began the attack in Deep’s bedroom, then dragged him to the basement, where Sisounong instructed Gainey to hack at Rawat’s leg down to the bone, and then stabbed Rawat himself. Court documents said Sisounong told detectives that he wanted the victim to “fight for his life,” and when asked if the experience was enjoyable, he said, “yeah.”

Rawat eventually managed to break free, prompting Gainey to leave the scene. But Sisounong chased after Rawat as he ran to the bathroom, further slashing him with a knife. Rawat mustered enough strength to punch the intruder in the face and escape, but not before the men stole keys, electronics, and money before walking out the door.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KIRO Seattle Police Suspects tried to kill for pleasure and greed 11-4-13.flv[/flv]

KIRO-TV in Seattle reported on the home invasion back in early November 2013 and learned horrified neighbors were arming themselves to protect against another random attack. (2:27)

During the incident, the only alert that something might be wrong came from the family’s car alarm that accidentally went off during a struggle for the keys. At no time did Comcast’s alarm system activate or signal police an intrusion was underway. Authorities were summoned only after Deep arrived, bleeding and badly injured, on a neighbor’s doorstep.

Vincent Sisounong, 21, and Blessing Gainey, 19, were located by authorities after matching fingerprints were found inside the Rawat home and both were charged with first-degree attempted murder and first-degree burglary.

When interviewed by police, Sisounong said he “really wanted” to kill the teenager, court documents said, noting that neither man knew the Rawat family.

“I just say God was there that night,” said an incensed Leena. “God, but not Comcast security. It’s been very tough. It was not a one night thing. It’s changed our life.”

That night and every night, the one thing Comcast’s security system manages to protect more than anything else is the cable company itself.

The traumatized family quickly learned Comcast was disavowing any and all responsibility for the failure of their alarm system, and Comcast’s contracts include clauses that require customers to waive all liability, even if Comcast is later found negligent. In fact, customers who sign Comcast’s contract must also side with the cable company and against their own insurance company during any claims process.

Comcast’s security contract lets the company walk away from responsibility for almost everything.

The first duty of every Comcast home security customer is to protect Comcast, as made clear in particularly bold, all-capital letter print:

YOUR DUTY TO PROTECT/INDEMNIFY THE COMPANY APPLIES EVEN IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY’S OWN NEGLIGENCE.

“If their argument is to be accepted, they could put in empty black boxes throughout the house and say, ‘That’s your system.’ And then something goes wrong, and they say, ‘We never promised you it would work,'” said Ken Friedman, attorney.

Comcast’s response:

“We want to take this opportunity to extend our sympathies to the Rawat family. However, after a review of our records, we are confident that our home security system functioned properly.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KING Seattle Comcast Sued Over Home Security System Failures 10-1-14.flv[/flv]

KING-TV in Seattle talked with Leena Rawat about how Comcast let her and her family down on the worst night of their lives. (2:29)

Comcast’s XFINITY Home won’t help if the thieves are already inside your house.

Gary O’Reilly and his family moved into their new Libertyville, Ill. home last year and took advantage of a Comcast promotion offering the family a deluxe package of Internet, cable television, and XFINITY Home, Comcast’s home security and automation system. It was a costly mistake that would eventually threaten to leave the family out $1,000, their credit rating destroyed, and hours wasted fighting to get Comcast to live up to its service commitments.

O’Reilly was attracted to Comcast’s security system to protect his family — his wife was pregnant with their second child and they were moving to a new address. In March 2013, two Comcast technicians spent more than eight hours installing four exterior door alarm sensors and two digital thermostats.

Within hours, the family realized something had gone wrong. In the middle of the night, one of the thermostats began beeping relentlessly, indicating a problem.

“It was defective, and because the thermostat was digital, I could not control the temperature in that half of my house,” O’Reilly told the Chicago Tribune’s problem solver. “My pregnant wife and 2-year-old son were freezing in their own home.”

Comcast decided scheduling a service call several days in the future was acceptable under the circumstances, but O’Reilly learned patience isn’t a virtue at Comcast.

Comcast assumes any service call is a potentially billable event, regardless of who is at fault, and O’Reilly discovered they not only charged him for the service call, they also billed him for the replacement thermostat, requiring 8-10 hours of live chats and phone calls to eventually find someone willing to remove the charges from his bill.

The replacement thermostat managed to work for less than a month before it also failed, requiring yet another service call and replacement. Yes, Comcast billed him again for both, requiring another telethon-length session arguing with Comcast’s overseas call centers and live chat employees to remove the charges from his bill yet again.

As you might have guessed, the third replacement began acting up almost immediately, completely draining its AA batteries every 24-36 hours.

That’s your problem, responded Comcast, who would not schedule a return visit to explore the issue further. O’Reilly bought “a ton of batteries over the next few weeks.” The unappreciative third thermostat died anyway.

In mid-June, Comcast returned with thermostat number four, which lasted just a few weeks before it joined the earlier three in thermostat heaven.

Comcast’s idea of compromise is a shotgun wedding: Agree to resume your service and we won’t take you to court.

Shockingly, O’Reilly decided against a fifth replacement and called to cancel his XFINITY Home service. The Comcast representative literally chuckled to O’Reilly after processing his cancellation to “keep an eye out for the termination charges.”

Comcast’s penalty for early cancellation of service: $1,000, conveniently billed on his next invoice.

After literally months of chats and phone calls, Comcast steadfastly refused to waive the charges, reserving the right to charge interest and impose other penalties if O’Reilly didn’t pay.

O’Reilly argues he owed Comcast nothing because the company never lived up to its end of the agreement by supplying reliable service. Nonsense, responds Comcast. After all, they were willing to replace his broken equipment each and every time, all five times.

Comcast wielded everything at its disposal to get paid. The cable company trashed O’Reilly’s over 800 credit score to below 650, preventing him from refinancing his mortgage. The collection calls have also been relentless, and increasingly threatening. On his last call with a Comcast collection agent he was told to pay them in full or they will see him in court.

Even with the venerable Chicago Tribune intervening and willing to serve as a referee, Comcast stubbornly refused to relent, although it offered O’Reilly its definition of a fair compromise.

Comcast spokesman Joe Trost claimed they had reached a settlement with the O’Reilly family.

“Together, [we] talked about the possibility of restarting services with Comcast with the agreement to waive the installation fees and (early termination fees) from the previous account, as well as clearing him from collections and the credit bureaus,” Trost said in an email. “We’re providing Mr. O’Reilly with different package options and composing a letter to overnight to Mr. O’Reilly with the information we discussed over the phone.”

Trost said O’Reilly and Comcast will “move forward together.”

In reality it was a 21st century digital version of a shotgun wedding.

Comcast first offered to remove him from collections, erase the $1,000 early termination fee and clear up his credit history, but only if he agreed to re-establish all of his previous services, including XFNITY Home.

O’Reilly held fast, saying he had no desire to have XFINITY Home back.

With a follow-up story looming in the newspaper, Comcast finally agreed to waive the fees and clean up his credit if he reconnected his Internet service with a higher-speed, more costly Internet tier. O’Reilly said yes.

Another satisfied Comcast customer. It only took 13 months, days of calling and chatting, and a last desperate plea to the Tribune to clear things up.

Toy Alarm: No peace of mind here.

A Houston couple paid Comcast $30 a month over seven years for Comcast’s home security system they believed would help keep them safe. But the alarm system hadn’t worked right from the day Comcast’s technicians installed it, and the cable company’s final offer of compensation was a $20 service credit.

Understandably, the couple wasn’t happy paying for Comcast’s pretend peace of mind.

“I’m a loyal customer and my thing is I don’t mind paying for a service if you’re providing the service,” Lisa Leeson told KPRC-TV, “but they weren’t.”

Comcast’s Insecurity System finally revealed its true self one windy February day. The Leeson family had left to do some errands and just as they had done more than 2,500 times before over the past 80 months, they armed Comcast’s home security system from its control panel before heading out.

“We would set it,” explained Leeson. “It would make the little noise that it makes like it was activating.”

When they arrived home, the family was surprised to find their back door wide open. Fearing a break-in, they wondered why Comcast’s alarm wasn’t blaring, with notified authorities standing by to investigate.

Despite more than 26,000 burglaries in Houston every year, the Leeson family was lucky. A wind gust had blown the door open and their possessions were safe. The revelation the family was robbed anyway only came after calling Comcast to ask why their alarm never went off.

A representative promptly told the family it had monitored the status of the Leeson’s alarm 24/7 for the last seven years and it was offline for almost the entire time. Comcast knew about its non-security system since 2007, but never bothered to tell the family. A follow-up visit from a Comcast technician this month quickly revealed the alarm was installed improperly by the cable company.

“It was unable, even if wanted to, to actually call the police and or Comcast once it was activated,” explained Leeson.

So ultimately whose fault is it that Comcast’s home security system never worked? The company that improperly installed it and knew it wasn’t working for the duration of 80 monthly payments it faithfully collected for service never rendered, or the customer?

In the corporate world of Comcast, it’s absolutely the customer’s fault — exactly what both a customer service representative and a corporate spokesman told the Leeson family.

A Comcast customer service representative was only willing to offer a one-time $20 “inconvenience credit” and the corporate spokesman apologized but pointed to a line in Leeson’s alarm agreement where she agreed to “test her system on a regular basis.”

It simply wasn’t good enough to trust Comcast’s alarm control panel notifying the family the alarm was armed and security monitoring was enabled. She’d have to trigger the system, potentially annoying the neighbors and first responders to prove the system worked properly.

Houston police and fire officials beg to differ.

In an ongoing effort to reduce costly and unnecessary false alarms, the city has implemented alarm permit and penalty fees for wasting the time of emergency personnel.

A residential burglar alarm in the city of Houston requires an annual permit ranging in cost from $37-50. A fire alarm permit costs $80.29 the first year, $53.52 each year thereafter. Three false burglar alarm calls are allowed without a charge with a burglar alarm permit per year. The 4th and 5th false alarm call is chargeable at $50.00 each and the 6th and 7th call is chargeable at $75.00 each. Thereafter each false alarm call is chargeable at $100.00 each. Permits are subject to revocation after the 7th false call. Burglar alarm systems without a permit are chargeable at $107.05 per response and/or no response.

Hold-up/panic alarm systems are allowed one false call without charge with a hold-up/panic permit. Thereafter the 2nd call is chargeable at $128.45, the 3rd false call at $256.92 and the 4th false call is chargeable at $385.37. Thereafter the 5th false alarm and above are chargeable at $513.84 (each). Panic alarm systems without a permit are chargeable at $282.61 per response and/or no response.

False fire alarms carry penalties up to $385.37 per incident with a $115.61 collection fee.

After a local television station got involved in the dispute, Comcast softened their hard-line and refunded every penny Leeson paid for the home security system that had left the family vulnerable since the day Comcast incorrectly installed it.

But after what the Leeson family endured, other alarm system customers should check their contracts and make sure they verify their system is working properly. Don’t depend on the alarm provider to notify you.

Most modern alarm systems alert the monitoring company when activated. That company in turn notifies the police, fire department or ambulance. All three agencies recommend using a monitoring company to reduce the instances of false alarms. Older systems often used a built-in message tape recorded by the homeowner. When the alarm triggered, the system would phone 911 and play back the recorded message. Those systems are responsible for the largest percentage of false alarms.

Comcast says customers with its XFINITY alarm can test their systems using the My Account app on their smartphones. The Leeson family uses an older model Comcast security system that doesn’t work with the app.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KPRC Houston Comcast Insecurity System 5-28-14.flv[/flv]

KPRC in Houston has words of wisdom for Comcast security system owners. Are you really protected? (2:07)

AT&T’s solution for rural Americans without access to broadband service arrived this week with the introduction of an $80/month plan bundling a mandatory wireless home landline with a 10GB usage-capped Internet plan.

AT&T Wireless Home Phone and Internet has undergone market testing in selected northeastern areas (largely outside of AT&T’s landline service territory). This week the service became available nationwide and is marketed to customers disconnected (or soon will be if regulators approve) from AT&T’s traditional landline service. AT&T is petitioning to dismantle its rural and outer suburban wired landline network and transfer customers to wireless service. But AT&T’s wireless replacement is both expensive and usage capped with an allowance that is just a fraction of what AT&T DSL offers:

• Customers start with a $20/month wireless landline phone replacement, powered by AT&T’s wireless network. Customers will keep their current phone number and home phones and will be sent a “Home Base” device that will interface between AT&T’s wireless network and up to two telephones. AT&T does not permit its device to be connected to your existing home phone wiring, so it strongly urges customers to buy cordless phones. The device is portable so it can be taken with you when traveling. The standalone service offers unlimited nationwide calling, Voicemail, caller ID and call waiting;
• Those interested in also purchasing broadband can add one of three different data plans: $60 for 10GB, $90 for 20GB and $120 for 30GB. AT&T charges a $10 overlimit fee for each extra gigabyte. You cannot buy broadband service unless you also subscribe to AT&T’s wireless landline product. That means the lowest possible price for rural broadband is $80 a month for up to 10GB of usage. Access may be over AT&T’s 4G LTE network (5-12Mbps maximum speeds) or their much-slower, but more common 3G network. In contrast, AT&T sells DSL for as little as $15 a month with a 150GB usage allowance included.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Wireless Home Phone Internet Intro 5-2014.flv[/flv]

AT&T introduces its new solution for rural America — wireless home phone and Internet service, at a price much higher than what urban customers pay. (1:42)

AT&T’s Home Base

AT&T’s Wireless Home Phone and Internet includes plenty of fine print and disclaimers:

• A two-year service commitment is required to avoid a $199 charge for the Home Base device;
• 911 service is not guaranteed and you will be required to give your physical location to the 911 operator so they can send help to the proper address;
• A backup battery powers the Home Base allowing up to 1.5 hours of talk time and 18 hours of standby time. However, a standard corded phone that does not need electric power to operate is required to place or receive calls (including 911) during a power outage;
• Not compatible with wireless messaging services/text messaging, home security systems, fax machines, medical alert & monitoring systems, credit card machines, IP/PBX Phone systems, or dial-up Internet service. May not be compatible with DVR/Satellite systems;
• Call quality, wireless coverage, and service reliability are not guaranteed;
• Well-qualified credit approval required;
• An activation fee (undisclosed) also applies.

There are many surcharges that also may apply, including a $35 restocking fee, federal, state, and local taxes and the universal service fee. Customers must also pay AT&T-originated fees kept by AT&T, including a $1.25 “cost recovery charge,” a gross receipts surcharge, administrative fees and any government-originated assessments that AT&T passes on to customers in various states.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Wireless Home Phone Internet Setup 5-2014.flv[/flv]

AT&T explains how to set up and configure its Home Base to receive phone and broadband service wirelessly. (3:16)