Charter Cable, which has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy since March 28, has been among the worst hit cable operators by an American economy in trouble, accusations of poor service, excessive executive compensation, and spiraling debt.  Before entering bankruptcy protection, the company had $21 billion in debt — a significant amount for a cable operator serving just 5.5 million customers in 27 states.

Company founder Paul Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft who controlled 91 percent of Charter Cable before bankruptcy, will control just 35 percent of the company as it emerges from reorganization in the coming weeks.  Allen’s attention will then turn to the bankruptcy of another one of his concerns – Digeo Inc., which is best known for its Moxi HD DVR.

Despite the bankruptcy, Charter Cable aggressively continues to upgrade its broadband service to DOCSIS 3 in many of its service areas, introducing new faster broadband products to customers.  But broadband service from Charter is just one of three services they offer customers, and many are not satisfied with the service they are getting.

Beyond bankruptcy, Charter Cable continues to face bad press for providing poor service, hassling customers with aggressive telemarketing calls, dramatic rate increases, and in one shocking incident this week, a Charter Cable technician in Victorville, California was attacked and killed while on a service call.

Authorities are still searching for a motive for Monday’s unprovoked attack on 25-year-old Trevor Neiman, of Phelan, California.  After surviving three tours of duty in Iraq, Neiman was killed with a small hammer in a Victorville home.  Police say the attack came from a relative of the homeowner who was visiting at the time of the assault.  The suspect, Hesperia resident Johnny Acosta, 45, was arrested on suspicion of murder a short time after fleeing the scene.

“There was no exchange of words. There was nothing that occurred before the unprovoked attack,” said Jody Miller, a spokeswoman for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department told KTLA News.

[flv width=”600″ height=”336″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KABC Los Angeles Charter Cable Installer Killed With Hammer 11-10-09.flv[/flv]

KABC-TV Los Angeles shares the tragic story of Charter Cable technician Trevor Neiman, and the devastating impact Monday’s attack had on his wife and family. (2 minutes)

Beyond that horrific incident, Charter Cable has been irritating subscribers with a series of rate increases and annoying marketing campaigns across the country.

In West Covina, California Charter Cable is ridding itself of senior discounts and also dramatically increasing rates.  Broadcast basic cable customers face a whopping $10 monthly increase in their cable bill, and the more popular expanded basic service will increase by $5.25 a month.  The company claims the rate increases are part of “an investment in improving the overall customer service experience.”

Resident Hermine Deemer, 83, told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune her bill will increase to $67 a month from $53 – a 26 percent hike.

“That’s a big increase,” Deemer said. “Nobody gets that big of an increase. I know things go up but not that much.”

Charter Cable is calling customers trying to market bundled services including broadband and telephone, claiming the savings from bundling services together would be “higher than the senior discount ever gave.”

Deputy City Manager Chris Freeland said the city has received several calls on the increases but there is little they can do about it.

“We would much rather have the senior discount,” Freeland said. “It’s really beyond our control. The economy is tough and every little dollar for seniors is so precious.”

Customers commenting on the rate increase have encouraged seniors to cancel service and switch to DISH Network satellite service, and several seniors lament they are housebound and television is their primary window to the outside world.  With no increase in Social Security in 2010 and increasing medical costs, many seniors will face difficulty coping with the rate increases.

In Pendleton, Oregon, the city attorney blasted Charter Cable for a $5 increase in broadcast basic service (providing local broadcast channels and some public affairs cable networks) and a $3 increase in expanded basic, claiming it unfairly falls on those least able to afford it, all to subsidize discounts on their bundled service packages.  Peter H. Wells wrote an open letter to Charter Cable published in the East Oregonian:

Per-channel costs for Charter Cable in the Pacific Northwest

By imposing the same $5.00 increase for all service tiers and, in fact, a lower increase for those with expanded basic service, the basic tier customer is paying for a greater portion of the company’s total costs than before the fee increase.

Through February 2005, less than five years ago, basic tier service cost the customer $12.91 per month. The rate change effective in December to $24.99 per month is such that those customers will have had a 93 percent rate increase in the past five years. It also appears that Pendleton’s basic tier customers are paying the same for less service than basic tier customers in other nearby service areas.

Charter representatives claim that the service charge increases over the past few years were to compensate the company for upgrades to the physical plant in Pendleton. I believe that argument is not appropriate. The physical plant upgrades were to allow Charter to provide additional services of telephone, digital cable and Internet. The cost of those upgrades should be borne by the users of those services, not the basic tier customers on whom the increase is being disproportionately imposed.

Unfortunately, Charter Cable’s rates are not within the control of the city management, so Wells could only ask that concerned residents contact Charter Cable and complain.

At least one customer fed up with Charter’s marketing practices found g0ing to a local TV station’s consumer watchdog reporter was even more effective.

Carole McGuire of Madison, Wisconsin turned down Charter’s relentless marketing of their “digital phone” product, which she doesn’t currently purchase.  Despite her disinterest, the visiting salesman left an application, and called her the next day to see if she changed her mind.  After that, McGuire began receiving a barrage of automated phone calls from Charter claiming she ordered the service, and needed to obtain third party verification to meet Federal Communications Commission obligations and process her order.

Not having placed an order, she ignored the calls, but they kept coming… over and over.

Exasperated, she turned to WISC-TV’s On Your Side reporter Erick Franke to see if he could get Charter to stop calling her.

[flv width=”530″ height=”316″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WISC Madison Charter Cable Telemarketing 11-3-09.flv[/flv]

WISC-TV Madison’s On Your Side segment from November 3rd helps a Madison resident put a stop to annoying Charter Cable telemarketing efforts. (3 minutes)

Unfortunately, not even TV stations are immune from dealing with problems with Charter Cable.  About a month ago, residents in Clarksville, Tennessee discovered WKAG-TV in nearby Hopkinsville, Kentucky missing from their cable dial.

Charter Cable had removed the low-power 18,500 watt station claiming it couldn’t obtain a strong enough signal to carry it.  WKAG-TV happened to be the only station in the entire region that produced news programming for Clarksville residents, and had consistently served the community of 100,000 with local newscasts, sports coverage, weather, and public affairs programming.

WKAG management was surprised by the decision to drop the station, and mounted a public campaign to dispute Charter’s poor signal strength assertions.  Charter Cable ignored the station’s first press release and has now been confronted with embarrassing video evidence that the station can be received with a good over-the-air signal with just a two foot antenna from the top of a building at a location even more distant from Charter’s TV reception tower, and from a lower overall height.

[flv width=”640″ height=”480″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WKAG Hopkinsville Charter Cable Dispute 11-5-09.flv[/flv]

WKAG-TV Hopkinsville, Kentucky prepared a web video showing evidence Charter Cable could restore the station to the cable dial in nearby Clarksville, Tennessee. (11/5/09 – 5 minutes)

Charter Cable used to import WKAG from a direct fiber feed, but dropped it several years ago in an apparent cost-cutting move.

Despite complaints from Clarksville residents, Charter continues to ignore customer demands for WKAG’s restoration.

From one side of the country to the other, Charter Cable’s finances are not the only challenge the company faces.  Providing affordable, responsive, and quality service to customers apparently also remains a challenge Charter Cable has yet to surmount.

When utilities want to “charge you for what you use,” it would be nice to trust the meter is accurately measuring your usage, California consumer advocates say.

In a growing controversy, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is now being accused of installing so-called “smart meters” that were smart for PG&E profits, but financially devastating for California consumers who face higher bills and growing questions about just how accurate those “smart meters” really are.

Customers across California who have had new meters installed, which are supposed to help consumers save energy by charging lower prices at off-peak usage times of day, report enormously higher bills from PG&E after installation.

State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), reports he has seen bills from customers that don’t begin to make sense.

California Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter/Kern County)

“One farmer was charged $11,857 for running a piece of equipment that was never turned on. A local attorney at the hearing clutched a $500 bill from July, a month in which she was visiting family out of state and almost every appliance in her house was shut off,” he reports.

Florez quotes the woman — “My smart meter keeps reading these spikes in usage at noon. But no one was in the house,” she said. “It’s obvious to me that this technology is not ready for prime time.”

Customers across the state with smart meters have reported similar stories, and are angry with PG&E’s response to their concerns, which can be boiled down to, “the meter is right, you are wrong, now pay us.”

PG&E claims that during its own internal reviews, it found nobody being overcharged. Spokesman Jeff Smith says “in all 1700 of those cases we have not found an instance thus far of the smart meter transmitting inaccurate information or incorrect usage information.”

The California Public Utilities Commission doesn’t think that’s enough and has begun ordering an independent review of the “smart meter” program and accuracy of meter readings.

Liz Keogh spent 14 years collecting and analyzing data at the Institute for Social Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and now lives in Bakersfield, California.  She has been pulling out her old PG&E bills and records showing her utility use all the way back to 1983.  What she found since the “smart meter” was installed on her home was disturbing.

Her analysis was printed in the San Francisco Chronicle:

My July, August and September 2009 bills showed the highest usage and cost in 26-plus years, even though I rarely go over “baseline usage.” The dollar difference from 2008 to 2009 was $20 to $30 each month. Billing costs are a product of usage multiplied by kilowatt-hour rates, which, like the federal income tax structure, is “tiered,” so that the more you use, the more you pay – and at higher and higher rates. Analysis of usage is the first step toward understanding fluctuations in cost.According to the smart meter installed on Sept. 12, 2007, the increase in my 2008-09 usage over 2007 was:

	2008	2009
May	+5.6%	+28.6%
June	+7.5%	+32.6%
July	+10%	+50.2%
Aug.	+3.1%	+41.1%
Sept.	-4.8%	+67.9%
Oct.	+4.9%	NA

PG&E’s own data show there was not a significant difference in temperatures for each comparable month. Why, then, did my “usage” increase range from 30 percent to 70 percent in 2009, while the 2008 increases were no more than 10 percent?

Simple answer: Meter malfunctioning, whether accidental and idiosyncratic, or, as some claim, intentional.

The suspicion that funny business is going on might be justified when considering Bakersfield residents have been through this all before.

“[Several years ago] Bakersfield is where PG&E first realized it had made a $500 million mistake, installing tens of thousands of inferior meters that would never live up to the promise. So the utility purchased a new generation of meters from Silver Spring Networks Inc. of Redwood City. PG&E insists that these new meters are glitch-free, though it concedes that it has tested only 50 out of 250,000 meters in Kern County,” Florez said.

At a time when some broadband providers want to install their own meters to overcharge customers for their Internet service, the PG&E experience is telling.  Independent oversight of any meter comes down to the enforcement mechanism available to guarantee accuracy.  But broadband service in the United States is unregulated, and no such enforcement mechanism exists.

And just when you thought you could believe the rhetoric that utility customers who conserve their usage will save more money, another electric and gas utility in San Diego filed a rate increase request that will charge customers who have managed to cut their usage even higher prices than those who have not.

[flv width=”640″ height=”480″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KGET Bakersfield Senator Florez Questions SmartMeters 9-23-09.flv[/flv]

KGET-TV Bakersfield talked with Senator Florez on September 23 about the SmartMeter controversy (4 minutes)

More video coverage below the jump.

… Continue Reading

Your Money = Their Money

Time Warner Cable has mailed letters to subscribers in its Northeast Ohio and Western Pennsylvania division announcing that “with many of our fixed costs escalating, we are forced to adjust the prices of some of our services accordingly.”

That price adjustment takes Road Runner’s 7Mbps broadband service to $49.95 per month, if the subscriber also takes cable-TV service from Time Warner, according to one subscriber in Cleveland.  Another subscriber in Erie, Pennsylvania also noticed Road Runner Lite was also increasing in price to $24.95 per month with the rate change, effective November 24th.

A Canton, Ohio subscriber sent Stop the Cap! a copy of the letter their family received regarding the rate hike.

The company suggests customers might use the letter as a motivation to inquire about subscribing to even more services from Time Warner as part of a bundled package.

An Alliance, Ohio subscriber called the company’s rate increase pathetic, noting the division has some slow broadband speeds compared with other Road Runner service areas.

“With 768kbps upload speed, give us more then we will pay more,” he writes.

Time Warner's letter to customers in northeast Ohio and western Pennsylvania (courtesy: kba4)

An avalanche of iPhones is to blame for AT&T's wireless problems, according to a Slate columnist

Telecommunications companies love people like Farhad Manjoo.  He’s a technology columnist for Slate, and he’s concerned with the congestion on AT&T’s wireless network caused by Apple iPhone owners using their phones ‘too much and ruining AT&T’s service for everyone else.’  Manjoo has a solution — do away with AT&T’s flat data pricing for the iPhone and implement a $10 price increase for any customer exceeding 400 megabytes of usage per month. For those using less than 400 megabytes, he advocates for a “pay for what you use” billing model.  Will AT&T adopt true consumption billing, a usage cap, or just another $10 price increase?  History suggests the latter two are most likely.

Stop the Cap! reader Mary drew our attention to Manjoo’s piece, which predictably has been carried through the streets by cheering astroturf websites connected with the telecommunications industry who just love the prospect of consumers paying more money.  They’ve called the organizations that work to fight against such unfair Internet Overcharging schemes “neo-Marxist,” ignoring the fact the overwhelming majority of consumers oppose metered broadband service and still don’t know the words to ‘The Internationale.’

Manjoo’s description of the problem itself has problems.

His argument is based on the premise that the Apple iPhone is virtually a menace on AT&T’s network.  He blames the phone for AT&T customers having trouble getting their calls through or for slow speeds on AT&T’s data network.

Every iPhone/AT&T customer must deal with the consequences of a slowed-down wireless network. Not every customer, though, is equally responsible for the slowdown. At the moment, AT&T charges $30 a month for unlimited mobile Internet access on the iPhone. That means a customer who uses 1 MB a month pays the same amount as someone who uses 1,000 MB. I’ve got a better plan—one that superusers won’t like but that will result in better service, and perhaps lower bills, for iPhone owners: AT&T should kill the all-you-can-eat model and start charging people for how much bandwidth they use.

How would my plan work? I propose charging $10 a month for each 100 MB you upload or download on your phone, with a maximum of $40 per month. In other words, people who use 400 MB or more per month will pay $40 for their plan, or $10 more than they pay now. Everybody else will pay their current rate—or less, as little as $10 a month. To summarize: If you don’t use your iPhone very much, your current monthly rates will go down; if you use it a lot, your rates will increase. (Of course, only your usage of AT&T’s cellular network would count toward your plan; what you do on Wi-Fi wouldn’t matter.)

First, and perhaps most importantly, AT&T not only voluntarily, but enthusiastically sought an exclusive arrangement with Apple to sell the iPhone.  For the majority of Americans, using an iPhone means using AT&T as their wireless carrier.  If AT&T cannot handle the customer demand (and the enormous revenue it earns from them), perhaps it’s time to end the exclusivity arrangement and spread the iPhone experience to other wireless networks in the United States.  I have not seen any wireless provider fearing the day the iPhone will be available for them to sell to customers.  Indeed, the only fear comes from AT&T pondering what happens when their exclusivity deal ends.

Second, problems with voice calling and dropped calls go well beyond iPhone owners ‘using too much data.’  It’s caused by less robust coverage and insufficient capacity at cell tower sites.  AT&T added millions of new customers from iPhone sales, but didn’t expand their network at the required pace to serve those new customers.  A number of consumers complaining about AT&T service not only mention dropped calls, but also inadequate coverage and ‘fewer bars in more places.’  That has nothing to do with iPhone users.  Congestion can cause slow speeds on data networks, but poor reception can create the same problems.

Third, the salvation of data network congestion is not overcharging consumers for service plans.  The answer comes from investing some of the $1,000+ AT&T earns annually from the average iPhone customer back into their network.  To be sure, wireless networks will have more complicated capacity issues than wired networks do, but higher pricing models for wireless service already take this into account.

Business Week covered AT&T’s upgrade complications in an article on August 23rd:

Many of AT&T’s 60,000 cell towers need to be upgraded. That could cost billions of dollars, and AT&T has kept a lid on capital spending during the recession—though it has made spending shifts to accommodate skyrocketing iPhone traffic. Even if the funds were available now, the process could take years due to the hassle and time needed to win approval to erect new towers and to dig the ditches that hold fiber-optic lines capable of delivering data. And time is ticking. All carriers are moving to a much faster network standard called LTE that will begin being deployed in 2011. Once that transition has occurred, the telecom giant will be on a more level playing field.

And there are limits to how fast AT&T can move. While it may take only a few weeks to deploy new-fangled wireless gear in a city’s cell towers, techies could spend months tilting antennas at the proper angle to make sure every square foot is covered.

Karl Bode at Broadband Reports also points out a good deal of the iPhone’s data traffic never touches AT&T’s wireless network and he debunked a piece in The Wall Street Journal that proposed some of the same kinds of pricing and policy changes Manjoo suggests:

iPhone users are using Wi-Fi 42% of the time and the $30 price point is already a $10 bump from the first generation iPhone. The Journal also ignores the absolutely staggering profits from SMS/MMS, and the fact that AT&T posted a net income of $3.1 billion for just the first three months of the year. That’s even after the network upgrades the Journal just got done telling us make unlimited data untenable.

Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett has been making the rounds lately complaining that a wireless apocalypse is afoot, telling any journalist who’ll listen that the wireless market is “collapsing” and/or “grinding to a halt.” Why? Because as new subscriber growth slows and the market saturates, incredible profits for carriers like AT&T and Verizon Wireless may soon be downgraded to only somewhat incredible. Carriers may soon have to start competing more heavily on pricing, driving stock prices down. That’s great for you, but crappy for Moffett’s clients.

You’ll note that neither the Journal nor Moffett provide a new business model to replace the $30 unlimited plan, but the intentions are pretty clear if you’ve been playing along at home. As on the terrestrial broadband front, investors see pure per-byte billing as the solution to all of their future problems, as it lets carriers charge more money for the same or less product (ask Time Warner Cable). Of course as with Mr. Moffett’s opinions on network upgrades, what’s best for Mr. Moffett quite often isn’t what’s best for consumers.

If AT&T doesn’t have the financial capacity or willingness to appropriately grow their network, inevitably customers will take their wireless business elsewhere, and perhaps Apple will see the wisdom of not giving the company exclusivity rights any longer.

Manjoo’s proposals (except the $10 rate increase, which they’ll love) would almost certainly never make it beyond the discussion stage.  A pricing model that automatically places consumers using little data into a less expensive price tier, or relies on a true consumption “pay for exactly what you use” pricing model would cannibalize AT&T’s revenue.  Past Internet Overcharging pricing has never been about saving customers money — they just charge more to designated “heavy users” for the exact same level of service.  Need more money?  Redefine what constitutes a “heavy user” or just wait a year when today’s data piggies are tomorrow’s average users.  Now they can all pay more.

The average iPhone user already pays a premium for their AT&T iPhone experience — an average $90 a month for a combined mandatory voice and data plan — costs higher than those paid by other AT&T customers.  AT&T accounted for the anticipated data usage of the iPhone in setting the pricing for monthly service.

The biggest data consumers aren’t smartphone or iPhone users. That designation belongs to laptop or netbook owners using wireless mobile networks for connectivity.  Those plans universally are usage capped at 5 gigabytes per month, far higher than the 400 megabyte cap Manjoo proposes.  If AT&T felt individual iPhone customers were the real issue, they would have already usage capped the iPhone data plan.  Instead, they just increased the price, ostensibly to invest the difference in expanding their network.

Perhaps at twice the price, everything would be nice.

Manjoo admits AT&T does not release exact usage numbers, but it’s obvious a phone equipped to run any number of add-on applications that the iPhone can will use more data than a cumbersome phone forcing customers to browse using a number keypad.  That in and of itself does not mean iPhone users are “data hogs.”  In reality, 400 megabytes of usage a month on a network also handling wireless broadband customers with a 5 gigabyte cap is a pittance.  That’s 10 times less than a customer can use on an AT&T wireless broadband-equipped netbook, and still be under their monthly allowance.

Here’s a better idea: end the monopoly AT&T has on the iPhone in the United States. That would immediately do a lot more for AT&T customers, as the so-called “data hogs” that hate AT&T flee off their network.

Manjoo’s alternatives are a “pay $10 more” solution that won’t save consumers money and “pay exactly for what you use” plan that AT&T will never accept.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Courtesy: vgm8383

Bay area residents are fuming over Comcast’s latest round of rate increases.  The din grew so loud, Drew Voros, the Oakland Tribune Business Editor, noted “the annual outcry over Comcast rates is louder than any rate increase for electricity or water I have come across. A possible exception being California’s energy crisis earlier this decade.”

Voros then casually dismisses consumer outrage by telling his readers “cable TV is not a utility. It is not a vital service with transparency, public input and debate. There is no recourse for poor service through regulatory bodies or the ballot box.”

We know where this is going.

Voros doesn’t suggest that the rate increases are unjustified and unwarranted, nor does he have a bad word to say to Comcast, although he does fixate on one aspect of the regulatory framework (the wrong one) that he believes is at the core of the problem of unchecked rate increases.

His suggestion is to watch free over the air television or try DirecTV, Dish Network or AT&T’s U-verse.

Let’s explore those alternatives.

For some, assuming they get reasonable reception, and many Bay Area residents do not, getting local over the air signals might be good enough, but won’t help with those pesky rate increases on broadband service, or for those channels like C-SPAN or cable news outlets residents access to get coverage of events local broadcasters ignore.

DirecTV and Dish Network are also fine alternatives, assuming you have permission from a landlord to install the reception equipment, and/or your view to the satellite isn’t obstructed by trees or buildings.  AT&T U-verse is an even better potential choice, assuming it’s actually available in your area.

For everyone else, it’s Comzilla or go without.

Voros then goes too far into the weeds and gets lost in what suspiciously looks like “blame the government” rhetoric:

What many TV viewers do not realize is that the franchise agreements are loaded with fees and payments to the cities, funded through annual rate increases. There’s give and take between cable companies and the cities they serve. It’s a business deal with you in the middle.

But consumers are not bound by any franchise agreements, and the options for television services have grown immensely since the first cable TV line was connected in the 1970s. That is why the franchise agreements are out of date. Technology has overtaken that legal document. There’s no monopoly on television content delivery.

Comzilla attacks San Francisco with rate hikes.

Ask any city official if they’d rather enjoy the incremental increase in franchise payments (which amounts to a fixed percentage, usually 3-5% of gross revenue) made possible by the annual rate hike, or the peace and quiet from constituents not upset over an industry that routinely increases rates well in excess of inflation.

Doing away with the franchise system to resolve cable rate hikes would be like using a ShamWow to deal with the after-effects of Hurricane Katrina.

Most cable companies used to include the “franchise fee” as part of the cost of the monthly service, but now routinely break that charge out onto its own line on your bill (and many never lowered the price for the original service, pocketing that as a hidden rate increase as well).  A rate increase may add a few pennies to the franchise fee on a customer’s bill, but then there is the other $3-5 dollars to consider.

Franchise agreements are negotiated for wired providers.  AT&T had to obtain one to provide U-verse.  That’s because local communities demand that a business tearing up their streets provide something in return for the community.  That usually includes: a small percentage of gross revenue, an agreement to provide free service in community centers, government offices, and public schools, and that they set aside several channels for Public, Educational, and Government access, known collectively as “PEG channels.”  It’s a very small price to pay for an industry that earns billions in profits.

Those agreements typically are renegotiated every ten years, so if consumers object to the franchise fee arrangement, they can appeal to local government to reduce or eliminate it.

Voros also suggests consumers try to obtain television programming online.  That is also sometimes possible, but as Stop the Cap! readers know, that also takes a broadband connection, and Comcast just raised the price for many of their customers for that as well.  With the industry’s new TV Everywhere project, dropping your cable subscription, as Voros suggests, will also likely cut you off from many of your favorite cable shows online — TV Everywhere is for paid television subscribers only.

The industry has every angle covered, right down to suing to remove the exclusivity ban on cable networks and programming.  Should the DC Court of Appeals agree, Voros’ contention that there’s no monopoly on television content delivery will also be thrown into doubt.

The solution is not to blame “outdated” franchise agreements.  The cable package business model is the larger problem.  Customers are expected to pay for ever-growing and more costly basic and digital cable packages filled with channels they don’t want.  Of course competition should be encouraged, but allowing consumers to choose and pay for only the channels they wish is a far better solution to runaway cable pricing.