New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has called Verizon’s notification that phone service in lower Manhattan will not be back to normal until late next spring “unacceptable.”

Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge ruined at least 95 percent of Verizon Communications’ landline network in the lower half of Manhattan leaving numerous businesses without phone service with little hope service will be restored this year.

“Their schedule right now says that lower Manhattan is not going to be back up until May,” Bloomberg said in a recent speech.

The mayor is upset with Verizon’s timetable because a number of major buildings in the area cannot be reoccupied by business tenants until telephone service is restored, and Verizon is facing questions about why it will take a half-year to get phone service back up and running to everyone that wants it.

When local cable news channel NY1 asked Verizon how many customers were still without service, a spokesman told the reporter it did not know, adding some customers have priorities more pressing than phone service.

Verizon has chosen not to replace much of the damaged copper infrastructure and plans to invest in more reliable fiber optics in its ongoing effort to meet its FiOS rollout obligations in New York City, but that does not satisfy many business owners who cannot process credit card transactions or, in some cases, run their businesses as long as phone lines remain out of service.

This week a coalition of interest groups petitioned New York’s Public Service Commission asking them to impose new requirements on the state’s utility companies to develop comprehensive emergency response plans that acknowledge climate change and the extreme weather events that accompany it.

The petition was filed by the Columbia Law School Center for Climate Change Law, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York League of Conservation Voters, Pace Energy and Climate Law Center of Pace Law School, Municipal Art Society of New York, Earthjustice, Environmental Advocates of New York, and Riverkeeper.

The petition notes in the past two years alone, New York City has been hit by two of the largest hurricanes in history (Irene and Sandy).

The group’s observations are shared by some of the state’s highest elected officials.

“In just 14 months, two hurricanes have forced [New York City] to evacuate neighborhoods — something our city government had never done before,” New York City Mayor Bloomberg wrote in an editorial for Bloomberg View. “If this is a trend, it is simply not sustainable.”

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo echoed Bloomberg’s concerns:

Extreme weather is a reality. It is a reality that we are vulnerable. And if we’re going to do our job as elected officials, we’re going to need to think about how to redesign, or as we go forward, make the modifications necessary so we don’t incur this type of damage…. For us to sit here today and say this is a once-in-a-generation and it’s not going to happen again, I think would be short-sighted…. I think we need to anticipate more of these extreme weather type situations in the future and we have to take that into consideration in reforming, modifying, our infrastructure.

The coalition claims current utility policies are designed for short-term disaster response procedures, which they call inadequate.

Most utility companies develop plans based on historic weather patterns the environmental groups argue cannot take into account the more extreme weather patterns afflicting the state. The PSC can mandate utilities do more.

New York’s utility infrastructure is also deemed outdated, with much of it exposed above-ground, vulnerable to storm damage. The state also lacks more advanced technology including smart electricity grids, telecommunications fiber rings that can reroute around cable cuts, and reinforcement of vulnerably placed generator plants, telephone switches, and utility substations.

Despite the criticism, Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam remained upbeat about Verizon’s performance, particularly noting strong growth in wireless.

In the third quarter when Sandy struck, Verizon picked up 1.54 million more contract customers, exceeding the 901,000 estimate predicted by analysts polled by Bloomberg News. The wireless profit margin at Verizon also reached a new milestone – 50 percent, up from 49 percent in the second quarter.

[flv width=”534″ height=”320″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY1 Bloomberg Criticizes Verizon For Slow Recovery Of Service 12-6-12.mp4[/flv]

NY1 reports business customers in lower Manhattan are not too pleased waiting for Verizon to repair their landlines.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Restoration of Verizon’s Lower Manhattan Cable Vault 11-12.flv[/flv]

Verizon produced this video showing off its own restoration efforts in a downtown Manhattan cable vault.  (3 minutes)

Union members of the Communications Workers of America, unhappy that customers are not going to receive automatic service credits for the extensive outages caused by Hurricane Sandy, are robocalling possible Cablevision customers to help them secure refunds.

In response, Cablevision’s lawyers threatened to sue the union, claiming they were engaged in “deceptive and illegal” practices, and accused the union of stealing customer records.

Cablevision is one of the few holdouts that require customers to personally request service credits for outages caused by the October storm. Most providers in the hardest hit areas have issued automatic blanket credits for affected customers. Companies requiring customers to contact a customer service representative to request credit are assured many will not, either because of long hold times, other matters taking precedence, or simply because customers forget to ask.

Union officials say the robocalled numbers were gathered from publicly available phone records in the affected areas and did not come from Cablevision’s customer database. Cablevision also objected to the suggestion the union was calling “on behalf” of the cable company — a charge also denied by the union.

“We are just calling people in the affected area to let them know they are eligible for a refund and help them get it if they are entitled to it,” CWA organizer Tim Dubnau told the New York Daily News.

Callers who are interested in pursuing a claim are transferred by the union direct to Cablevision customer service for assistance.

Cablevision and the CWA have been at odds ever since the union began attempting to organize workers in Brooklyn and the Bronx.

The cable company is also facing a $250 million lawsuit filed separately on behalf of subscribers Irwin Bard, a retired businessman from Oyster Bay, N.Y. and his son Jeffery, a lawyer from Huntington.

Major cable and phone companies are rolling out new bundled packages and promotions designed to protect their cable television packages from cord cutting.

Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have all run promotions that carry a clear message: cancel your cable television and your wallet gets it.

The Wall Street Journal shared the story of Comcast subscriber Cathy Vu, who decided she no longer wanted cable TV and tried to downgrade to a broadband-only account.

Comcast gave her an offer she could not afford to refuse when the representative explained canceling cable television would increase her monthly bill $20. As a result, Vu decided she would save more money keeping her cable television turned on.

Welcome to the new world of double and triple play bundled pricing promotions that bring downgrade penalties customers cannot ignore.

The idea of repricing cable service to protect vulnerable cable television and phone service began in earnest after analysts like Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett began noticing customers were no longer addicted to keeping cable television, no matter the cost. He proposed a solution: price broadband service higher and cut the cost of cable television.

The result: carefully constructed promotional and bundled package offers that entice customers to purchase services they might not even want, to get the best (and sometimes lowest) price. Gone were promotions that offered phone, broadband, and television service for $33 each. In their place, new pricing that charges $60-70 for the first service, and heavily discounted prices for each additional service.

You know the pitch:

“Yes, I am calling to sign up for broadband service,” you say.

“Certainly, I would be glad to help you with that. But did you know that for just $20 more a month, you can also get cable television?”

“Really, it’s only $20 more? Sure.”

“I am thrilled to hear you say that. But I hope you are sitting down because I have more good news. For just $10 more, we can give you a phone line with unlimited local and long distance calling. How much do you pay the phone company now?”

“Too much, that sounds like an amazing deal, so I get everything together for $99 a month?”

“You sure do, for the first 12 months anyway.”

One year later when the promotion ends, you call to begin downgrading service to lower your bill. But cable and phone companies are increasingly ready for you.

First they will offer you a slightly less attractive promotional retention offer to keep your business. If you accept, the company gets to book the extra revenue and probably locked you into an annual service agreement.

If you don’t bite and insist on a downgrade, they have some bad news for you — that broadband service you still want will now cost you $60-70 a month, including the modem fee.

If you bail early on a promotional discount offer, the bite on your wallet can be significant.

The Journal found unbundling just does not pay:

• Comcast: TV + Internet for about $50/month for the first 6 months vs. standalone same speed Internet for about $70/month.
• Verizon FiOS: TV + Internet for about $85/month (two-year contract) vs. standalone Internet for about $80/month.
• Time Warner Cable: TV + Internet for about $50/month for 12 months vs. standalone Internet for about $45/month for 12 months, then up to $60 after that.

At the end of the day, Moffett and the rest of Wall Street get their wish — preservation of the all-important growing average revenue (ARPU) collected from each customer. Downgrades lower ARPU, so they must be discouraged at all costs.

Cable operators “recognize that their most advantaged product is broadband,” said Moffett. “They don’t want to sacrifice that advantage by giving the opportunity for customers to cherry pick their best product at a low price and take the rest of your services from somebody else. In effect, they are pricing the broadband at a price that discourages you from taking broadband only.”

Customers primed for cord cutting (or who have never bought cable TV) are likely to receive targeted mailings from Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable encouraging subscriptions to cable TV and prices that nearly give the service away.

Comcast’s Blast Plus promotion in selected markets delivers 30Mbps broadband with Digital Economy television service, both for $50 a month for six months. Internet-only customers would pay $70 per month for the same speeds without television.

Time Warner Cable in New York City wants to be your cable TV supplier so much, it offers a package of broadband and throws in Broadcast Basic service for just $5 more per month. Combined, Turbo Internet and television will cost $49.99 a month for a year. Standalone Internet on a promotion runs $45 a month for 12 months.

On a strict cost basis, charging more for Internet does not make sense. The Journal reports that about 90% of your monthly broadband bill is pure profit for cable operators, because the cost of delivering the service has continued to plummet to all-time lows. Cable television is no longer the cash cow it used to be for cable operators because programmers increasingly demand a piece of the profit pie. Today, cable operators only get to book about 35% of your monthly cable television payment as profit.

[flv width=”640″ height=”369″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Cable Cord Cutting Less Attractive 11-13-12.mp4[/flv]

The Wall Street Journal examines the trend towards repricing broadband service so that customers feel compelled to keep their cable television package or face even higher bills.  (5 minutes)

Two Cablevision customers in Nassau and Suffolk counties are the lead complainants in a $250 million class action lawsuit filed Tuesday in New York State Supreme Court alleging the cable operator is illegitimately charging customers for service knocked out by Hurricane Sandy.

The suit claims that unlike other cable and phone companies in New York and New Jersey extending automatic service outage credits to impacted customers, Cablevision is only giving credits to customers who self-report outages within 30 days.

Cablevision was the hardest hit cable operator in the region, with its coastal service areas on Long Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey receiving the brunt of storm surges and wind-related damage. At least half of the company’s three million customers were without service after the storm hit Oct. 29. Nearly 80,000 customers are still without power and utilities are signaling some may wait until after Christmas before lights are back on. Some of the most devastated areas are not scheduled for restoration at all because those properties will have to be abandoned or rebuilt.

The plaintiffs claim Cablevision, “only agreed to rebate some of its most favored customers on a discretionary basis and in varying amounts, and only after the customers’ contacted Cablevision for the rebate.” The suit also alleges customers threatening to cancel service are getting the most generous rebates.

The suit suggests Cablevision should have known not to bill or accept money from customers that remain without service. Many Cablevision customers are on the company’s electronic billing and autopay programs, which will continue to deduct money from bank accounts for services customers cannot actually receive.

“The lawsuit misstates the facts and is without merit,” Cablevision said in a statement. “But lawsuits aside, we have an extremely broad and customer friendly credit policy following Sandy. Blanket or arbitrary credits for cable outages could shortchange customers because each case is different and our policy covers the entire period of time when Cablevision service was out, including when the service interruption was caused by the loss of electrical power.”

Cablevision says the amount of damage to its facilities is so extensive, it could impact the next quarter’s financial results. Company officials also admit some of their customers will not be coming back because their homes and businesses no longer exist.

Two class-action lawsuits were filed Tuesday on behalf of Time Warner Cable customers in 29 states to force the company to refund ill-gotten modem rental fees in violation of consumer fraud laws.

“It’s a massive hi-tech consumer fraud accomplished by low-tech methods,” said attorney Steven L. Wittels. “Send customers confusing notice of the fee in a junk mail postcard they’ll throw in the garbage, sock them with a $500 million dollar a year rate hike, then announce on your website that customer satisfaction is your #1 priority. That’s some way to deliver satisfaction.”

The context for the class action suit is that Time Warner Cable began imposing the fee Nov. 1 without giving customers appropriate notification. New York City residents had little more than two weeks notice in the form of a poorly printed postcard. Some residents in western New York and other cities have still not received notification from the cable company, either on bills or in the mail.

The two lawsuits were brought on behalf of Manhattan resident Kathleen McNally and Fort Lee, N.J. resident Natalie Lenett, but the suit asks the court to order refunds for all Time Warner Cable customers charged modem fees across their national service area.

The Consumerist thought the company’s failure to meet the timely notification requirement about the forthcoming modem rental fee might have the cable company dead to rights:

Pricing and Service Changes

Unless otherwise provided by applicable law, Time Warner Cable will notify you 30 days in advance of any price or service change. Notice of these changes may be provided on your monthly bill, as a bill insert, as a separate mailing, in the Legal Notice section of the newspaper, on the cable system channel(s) or through other written means.

But on closer examination, that provision only applies to pricing and service changes for Time Warner Cable’s television service, not broadband or home phone service.

In fact, Time Warner Cable’s new Subscriber Agreement has reserved the right to change just about anything it likes, just by updating the terms and conditions on its website:

We May Change our Customer Agreements

(a) We may change our Customer Agreements by amending the on-line version of the relevant document.  Unless you have entered into an Addendum that ensures a fixed price for a period of time (for instance, a Price Lock Guarantee Addendum), we may also change the prices for our services or the manner in which we charge for them.

(b) If you continue to use the Services following any change in our Customer Agreements, prices or other policies, you will have accepted the changes (in other words, made them legally binding).  If you do not agree to the changes, you will need to contact your local TWC office to cancel your Services.

(c) Any changes to our Customer Agreements are intended to be prospective only.  In other words, the amended version of the relevant document only becomes binding on you as of the date that we make the change.

One significant change Time Warner inserted in its Subscriber Agreement (the one printed in tiny print on tissue-thin paper, occasionally mailed with your bill) was deemed so important, it appears highlighted and in bold language:

Time Warner Cable now requires customers to submit disputes individually to binding arbitration, denying the right to bring or participate in any class action case. However, customers can opt-out of this provision simply by notifying the company through an online form. (You will need your Time Warner Cable account number.)

In practice, this would require McNally, Lenett, and millions of other customers to individually submit to a time-consuming arbitration proceeding — all to fight a $3.95 monthly fee. Few would bother. Wittels told The Consumerist the lawsuit still has merits because of other language Time Warner Cable maintains in its agreement which he believes holds the door open to a class action challenge.

Although customers are invited to purchase their own cable modem equipment to avoid the fee, the lawyers involved say the options are limited and expensive.