A California federal judge has rejected a class action case against Comcast for allegedly hiding modem fees as high as $15 a month when signing up new customers.

In 2010, Athanassios Diacakis made several calls to Comcast inquiring about cable service as a new customer. Diacakis claims several Comcast representatives offered a bundle of broadband, television and phone service for $99 a month. When he asked Comcast about any other charges, company representatives eventually admitted there was a $25 installation fee, but never mentioned any modem rental fees.

After Comcast installed service, Diacakis began receiving Comcast bills that included a previously undisclosed monthly modem fee of $10 and an extra “lease charge” of $5 a month associated with his broadband service.

Diacakis alleged in his complaint charging $15 a month for cable modem equipment was “outside and in excess of the specifically quoted bundled service” package he ordered.

As Below Your Means points out, renting a cable modem may be harmful to your wallet.

The plaintiff sought class certification to force Comcast to refund some or all the modem fees charged customers from 2007 to the present. His first effort failed in January 2012 on grounds of insufficient evidence. His amended complaint was rejected May 3 on similar grounds.

United States District Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Diacakis failed on two separate occasions to produce convincing proof Comcast was actively deceiving customers with undisclosed modem fees.

Judge Armstrong wrote that Diacakis should have come to court with evidence beyond the spoken promises of a handful of Comcast salespeople the plaintiff identified only by their first names. She was swayed by Comcast’s arguments:

As Comcast correctly points out, the only evidence offered by Plaintiff regarding Comcast’s alleged practices consists of his limited personal experience in speaking with “Heather,” “Steve” and another unidentified Comcast representative in August 2010. There is no evidence that Comcast has employed any policy, custom or practice of intentionally failing to inform potential Triple Play subscribers that they will be subject to separate modem fees. To the contrary, the record presented thus far shows that Comcast trains and instructs its employees to inform customers and potential customers about all applicable charges, including those for leased equipment.

[…] As noted, he has made no showing that the representations or omissions during those calls were made pursuant to a standardized script or marketing practice. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone other than Plaintiff was allegedly misinformed about the modem fees.

Armstrong also faulted Diacakis for not independently locating, scrutinizing, and verifying Comcast’s print or television advertising before he filed a lawsuit seeking to represent every customer paying them:

Comcast argues that Plaintiff is not an adequate representative because there is no evidence that he or anyone else was misled by its marketing and advertisements for the Triple Play package. Plaintiff does not dispute that he lacks such evidence. In addition, Plaintiff admitted during his deposition that he did not review any advertisements before contacting Comcast in August 2010 about bundling his services. Since Plaintiff could not have been harmed by any allegedly misleading advertising, he cannot adequately represent a class member who claims to have been harmed by Comcast’s alleged marketing program.

Aereo plans to expand to nearly two dozen cities in the coming year.

Viewers of NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams learned an upstart online streaming video competitor seeking to help Americans control their cable bills is probably an illegal pirate operation that doesn’t pay for the programming that parent company Comcast-NBC pays hundreds of millions to produce.

On Tuesday Aereo bypassed the network television gatekeepers suing to shut the service down and bought a full-page ad in the New York Times to remind the country it is winning its case in court:

“The broadcast networks have been granted free and valuable broadcast spectrum worth billions of dollars in exchange for their commitment to act in the public interest. It’s a sweet deal… Along the way, cable and satellite providers entered the picture.

In addition to free spectrum and advertising revenues, the networks got very lucrative retransmission fees from these providers. And so, for many, broadcast television is now offered in expensive fixed bundles or packages. Yet many millions of Americans continue to use antennas to get broadcast TV.”

Despite the corporate media firewall that keeps positive reports about the competition off the nightly news, the little streaming company that could is having an impact.

In the last two weeks, virtual hysteria has broken out among major network officials who are threatening to pull the plug on free over the air TV if their multi-billion dollar operations are not granted immediate protection from a startup that rents out dime-sized antennas in New York City to stream local television stations.

Chase Carey from Fox said he’ll put the Fox Network behind a pay wall if Aereo keeps it up.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Leo Hindery Calls Aereo Pissant 4-12-13.flv[/flv]

Leo Hindery who oversees a private equity firm and has a history with both cable and broadcast networks called Aereo tawdry and a “pissant little company” run by a man who helped launch the Fox Network and now threatens to ruin the broadcast television business model for everyone else. (Bloomberg News) (5 minutes)

Is media consolidation influencing the evening news?

A combination of networks and other big media interests are now preparing to take their battle to Congress, warning lawmakers the very concept of free over the air television is in peril if companies like Aereo are allowed to operate.

Why are they so threatened? Aereo effectively bypasses the “retransmission consent fees” that broadcasters now charge pay television providers for permission to carry their channels and networks. As advertising revenue declines from reduced viewing numbers and equipment that offers viewers a fast forward through ads, the broadcasters have found gold charging monthly fees to cable, satellite, and telephone company TV systems for each subscriber. Ultimately, consumers pay these fees through higher cable and satellite bills.

Aereo receives over the air signals from individual antennas and makes that programming available for online streaming. No retransmission consent fees are required, Aereo argues, because they are just serving as an antenna farm. Only one stream per antenna is allowed, they note, so the company is not mass-distributing programming.

The battle between broadcasters and Aereo is now turning up in news reports that have tried to walk a fine line between the positions of the executives at the networks suing Aereo and the streaming service itself. Not every news outlet is managing the balancing act successfully.

[flv width=”596″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NBC News Aereo vs Broadcasters 4-9-13.flv[/flv]

NBC News aired this incomplete report about Aereo on its evening newscast on April 9th. What is missing? The fact courts have so far sided with Aereo and against the broadcasters’ claims the service is pirating content.  (3 minutes)

The Verge points out NBC News did not make it far before they fell solidly in line behind their corporate owners:

In its piece on Aereo, NBC News included a lengthy explanation of what TV has meant to Americans through the decades. Aereo’s CEO Chet Kanojia is quoted, but only about how the service functions, and there’s nothing from him about the controversy. In contrast, NBC’s story includes a quote from Carey calling Aereo “piracy.” The network news group also tossed in this line: “Aereo doesn’t pay networks for the content they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to produce.”

What NBC didn’t say was that, according to two separate federal courts, Aereo’s service is legal. The ruling by the appeals court upheld a district judge’s decision and was not insignificant. The court allowed Aereo and Kanojia (photographed at right) to continue operating until the lawsuit with the broadcasters is resolved, which could take years. “We were disappointed that NBC News didn’t include a mention about the court decisions,” Virginia Lam, an Aereo spokesperson, told The Verge. “All we ask are that the facts be reported.”

A spokesperson for NBC News disagreed. “The report was a fair and straightforward telling of how the service operates in the changing media environment. It fully explained why Aereo argues that the service is legal, and included an interview with Kanojia. In the interest of full disclosure, it also noted that NBCUniversal, the parent company of NBC News, has filed suit against the service.”

 [flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Broadcasters vs Aereo 4-15-13.flv[/flv]

Robert Prather, president of local station owner Gray Television, tells Bloomberg News station owners are still trying to figure out what Aereo means for their business models. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Aereo CEO Responds to Fox Threats 4-17-13.flv[/flv]

Aereo’s CEO responded today to threats from Fox to turn its network into a pay cable service, suggesting that if Fox wanted to abandon over the air service, someone else might make use of that spectrum.  (3 minutes)

Fox Television’s over the air signal may be scrambled and available “only by subscription” if the courts do not reverse their decision to allow an upstart television streaming service to continue operations while a broadcaster-backed lawsuit works through the legal system.

Aereo has been streaming New York City local stations to area residents that lease a tiny dime-sized antenna and receive the stations via the Internet. Broadcasters consider Aereo an end run around copyright law and retransmission consent fees paid by cable, satellite, and telco-TV operators. With millions in licensing fees at stake, several networks immediately filed suit to force the service to suspend operations.

But the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision last month that Aereo’s streaming service did not represent a “public performance,” meaning the company was not infringing on the copyrights of broadcasters. Until a final court ruling is made, Aereo can continue operating, the judges ruled.

That decision prompted a hissy fit by News Corporation’s president and chief operating officer, who declared he is considering turning the Fox television network into a subscription-only service, potentially meaning the service would be scrambled and unavailable for free over-the-air in the future.

“Aereo is stealing our signal,” Chase Carey said at the opening of the National Association of Broadcasters’ convention is Las Vegas last night. “If we can’t have our rights properly protected through legal and governmental solutions, we will pursue business solution. One solution would be to take the network and make it a subscription service. We’re not going to sit idly by and let people steal our content.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380”]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg News Corp to Take Fox Off Air If Courts Back Aereo 4-8-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg Television explores Fox’s “nuclear option” of scrambling its broadcast outlets and forcing all Americans to pay for its content. (2 minutes)

[flv width=”384″ height=”236″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Money Aereo TV 3-13.flv[/flv]

CNN Money explains Aereo and its threat to the traditional broadcast retransmission consent fee system that has made over-the-air networks highly profitable with subscriber fees paid by your cable, satellite, or telco-TV provider and passed on to you in the form of higher cable or satellite bills.  (2 minutes)

Bad clutter.

How would you like it if a banner ad was inserted on the bottom of every web page, on top of content you are trying to read and eating away at your usage allowance?

Customers of CMA Communications can tell you, because their web browsing experience now includes advertising messages injected by the cable company to earn more revenue.

CMA, which operates rural cable systems in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Nevada, provides up to 7/1Mbps service with a usage cap of 250GB they borrowed from Comcast.

Zachary Henkel discovered the rude intrusion last month when he navigated to Apple’s website and discovered an intrusive banner ad for H&R Block.

Tired from the day’s events and travel, I had planned to quickly look up the specifications of a Mac Mini, respond to a few emails and then get some sleep. But as Apple.com rendered in my browser, I realized I was in for a long night. What I saw was something that would make both designers and computer programmers wince with great displeasure. At the bottom of the carefully designed white and grey webpage, appeared a bright neon green banner advertisement proclaiming: “File For Free Online, H&R Block”. I quickly deduced that either Apple had entered in to the worst cross-promotional deal ever, or my computer was infected with some type of malware. Unfortunately, I would soon discover there was a third possibility, something much worse.

[…] It was apparent at this point, that my parent’s ISP, CMA Communications, had started injecting advertisements into websites requested by their customers. I felt dissatisfied to say the least. […] You might not be surprised to know that CMA Communications won’t confirm or deny that they are injecting advertisements into their customer’s web traffic.

Customers of CMA Communications see this when they visit apple.com.

CMA Communications is using JavaScript code injection that overlays third-party advertisements on top of various websites, opening the door to subscriber irritation and some obvious conflicts. In fact, visitors to CMA’s own website could find themselves staring at advertising for CenturyLink, AT&T, or a satellite competitor, unless CMA specifically opts its own website out of the third-party ads.

Amazon.com features an ad with Flo from Progressive Insurance, LinkedIn links to a Verizon 4G phone ad, and Bing’s home page pitches AT&T phones. Henkel wants customers to complain, but the affected websites may be in the best place to stop the ad injections by threatening lawsuits against the cable company.

Heartland Midwest headquarters (WDAF-TV)

Time Warner Cable and its contractor Heartland Midwest are among the most likely targets for negligence lawsuits that could run well into the hundreds of millions of dollars after the Kansas City Fire Department blamed a contractor for piercing a natural gas line while trying to install fiber optic cable for the cable operator.

The resulting explosion on Feb. 19 destroyed portions of the Country Club Plaza, killed one employee of a landmark Kansas City restaurant that was flattened in the blast, and left 16 injured.

Attorneys are already laying the groundwork for several lawsuits that are expected to be filed shortly.

Heartland Midwest may be deemed the most culpable by those attorneys. Pieces of the contractor’s drill were found inside the broken gas line, according to a report from an investigations team. Time Warner Cable’s deeper pockets make them a natural target because they hired Heartland as a third-party contractor. A lawsuit could claim the cable company was negligent by hiring the contractor and inadequately supervising their work.

Because of the large amount of anticipated damages requested, legal experts expect lawsuits could also target the agency responsible for marking utility lines before digging —  they may have missed the buried gas line. Other targets: Missouri Gas Energy, the owner of the gas line, the Kansas City Fire Department, which may not have moved fast enough to evacuate the immediate area, and even the owners of JJ’s Restaurant which was destroyed in the explosion. Observers note it was their gas pilot light that ignited the natural gas vapor.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDAF Kansas City Potential lawsuits ahead after JJs blast 3-19-13.flv[/flv]

FOX4 in Kansas City reports attorneys are laying the groundwork to file lawsuits against Time Warner Cable, its contractor, and others they may accuse of negligence in a February natural gas explosion that killed a restaurant employee. Damages could run more than $100,000,000.  (3 minutes)