Shelly, a Time Warner Cable customer in New York City, ended up with a modem not on the company’s “approved for purchase” list, based on the recommendation of… Time Warner Cable.

Jon Weinberg has devoted more than six hours of his life trying to navigate around Time Warner Cable’s forthcoming $3.95 monthly modem rental fee, with no end in sight.

The 15-year Time Warner Cable customer is just about fed up and has started shopping around for another provider. The Staten Island resident tells Stop the Cap! asking for an additional $3.95 a month for a five year old cable modem is probably the last straw.

“Time Warner’s easy-to-miss postcard probably cost the company around 80 cents to print and mail, but their investment is going to cost them more than $1,500 a year they will shortly no longer be getting from me,” Weinberg said.

Weinberg, along with dozens of other Time Warner Cable customers in the Big Apple have been sharing their stories with Stop the Cap! since they learned the cable company was back for more of their hard-earned dough.

“This is simply ridiculous, because they have gotten enough money from me several times over to have paid for their modem,” Weinberg says. “I could understand if they wanted to charge new customers extra for a new modem ($2.50 a month), but demanding current customers pay $3.95 for equipment that is several years old is out of line.”

Many Time Warner Cable customers are choosing to purchase their own cable modems to avoid the fee, but the cable operator is making that as hard as possible. Customers are complaining about the very limited selection of “approved modems,” incredibly long hold times and delays activating new equipment, and impossibly long lines at the company’s store to return old equipment.

“I called seven times last week, always being left on hold for more than 30 minutes, trying to get my new Motorola 6141 modem activated,” Weinberg says. “When someone finally answers, it sounds like they are working out of a home and don’t understand what I am asking.”

Weinberg and several other readers, including your editor, also endured extended hold times and problems activating customer-owned modems. A supervisor earlier told Stop the Cap! a change to their billing system made it difficult to provision customer-owned modems last week. That problem appeared to be resolved by Saturday, but long hold times of 15-60 are not unusual after telling Time Warner’s automated  attendant you need to activate new equipment.

“Time Warner uses the same relentless hold music with a not-so-subtle prompt to use their online chat function, which connects you to India, Guatemala, or maybe the Philippines, with all of the frustrating results you can expect,” Weinberg says. “I tried that route while waiting on hold for 40 minutes and they told me I should call in because they could not handle my request.”

Krakow

Gary Krakow, senior technology correspondent for TheStreet, suspects this cable modem fee could turn out to be a giant nightmare for customers. Some customers, including Krakow, are initially being told it will take several days to provision customer-owned equipment:

After 5 interactive minutes [with Time Warner’s automated call attendant] I was transferred to Lina (that’s what it sounded like when she spoke into her headset). She’s one of Time Warner’s national advisers. I told her exactly what I wanted to do. She listened attentively and took down a lot of information. She then gave me a “case number” and told me to hold on to speak with someone on the Time Warner Provisioning Team.

After a minute or so I was speaking with Monica, who called herself a Customer Service agent. She began asking me to repeat all my information again, but I insisted that she could find all of that by searching the case number from Lina. After a minute or two (we all had to wait for Lina to exit the file) Monica had all the info she needed and began typing in a new  computer file.

In a minute or so she was done. She gave me a confirmation number (different from the case number) and told me that I’ll get a return call when they were ready. It turns out it will take as much as three days for a technician to make the change.

“But wait!” I exclaimed. “Your postcard had me go to your Web site, where I followed the instructions – installed the new modem – and called you to turn it on.”

Monica’s response: “Put back the old modem”.

Krakow is annoyed Time Warner gave New York-area customers just two weeks’ notice of the forthcoming fee and has so far dropped the ball helping out customers trying to avoid it.

“I can’t describe how pissed off I am with the cable company right now,” says Shelly, a Stop the Cap! reader from Manhattan. “I almost threw out their postcard because it looked like it was printed by someone on their personal ink jet printer. Time Warner has been totally unprofessional and unhelpful.”

Shelly ended up getting conflicting information from Time Warner about what modem to buy. A call center representative recommended modems from the company’s rental list, not the approved for purchase list.

“I bought and received the exact same modem Time Warner gave me a year ago for my service and then they told me they cannot activate it because it is not on their list,” Shelly says. “It’s the exact same modem so it must work, but they absolutely refused to help me and now I am out a 15% restocking fee and return postage to send this thing back.”

A supervisor offered her a $5 courtesy credit for the misunderstanding. Shelly was not impressed.

“It will cost me $15 in restock and shipping fees to deal with the problem they created with their money-grubbing.”

Verizon FiOS is not yet in her neighborhood, but Shelly says she will remember the modem fee when Verizon knocks on her door.

“This is an excellent example of how Time Warner treats customers,” she says. “They are in a real hurry to charge us more but can’t be bothered when customers want to avoid their crap.”

Weinberg finally managed to get his modem activated on Sunday, after another 45 minutes on hold. But his aggravation is not over.

“I decided to drop off my old equipment at the cable store and was told there would be at least a 90 minute wait with 20 people in line ahead of me, several with their own cable modems to return,” Weinberg reports. “They had two people working the desk while two others seemed to be doing paperwork. I left.”

Krakow ran into the same problem at the Time Warner Cable store on Manhattan’s Upper West Side.

“The line was out the door,” Krakow said. “I was told there was a one hour wait to ‘get a number and wait some more.'”

One strange side effect of the modem rental fee is that Time Warner Cable will allow you to keep your current cable (eMTA) modem if it is also used to support the company’s phone service. If you purchase your own cable modem, the company will deactivate the cable modem ports on the modem/eMTA they supplied and will not charge you a modem rental fee, even though you are still using their equipment.

Phillip “You Guys Need a Timeout” Dampier

AT&T and Time Warner Cable are complaining they have gotten a raw deal from Kansas City, Mo. and Kansas City, Ks., in comparison to the incentives Google was granted to wire both cities with gigabit fiber broadband.

“It’s time to modernize our industry’s rules and regulations…so all consumers benefit from fair and equal competition,” read a statement from AT&T.

“There are certain portions of the agreement between Google and Kansas City, Kan., that put them at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field,” said Alex Dudley, a Time Warner Cable spokesman. “We’re happy to compete with Google, but we’d just like an even playing field.”

The Wall Street Journal seemed to suggest Google was getting the keys to both cities, with grants of free office space and free power for Google’s equipment, according to the agreement on file with the cities. The company also gets the use of all the cities’ “assets and infrastructure”—including fiber, buildings, land and computer tools, for no charge. Both cities are even providing Google a team of government employees “dedicated to the project,” says the Journal.

The Google Fiber project was so desired that the local governments rolled out the red carpet. In Kansas City, Mo., for instance, the city is allowing Google to construct “fiberhuts,” small buildings that house equipment on city land at no cost, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The cities are discounting other services, as well. For the right to attach its cables to city utility poles, Google is paying Kansas City, Kan., only $10 per pole per year—compared with the $18.95 Time Warner Cable pays. Both cities have also waived permit and inspection fees for Google.

The cities are even helping Google market its fiber build-out. And both are implementing city-managed marketing and education programs about the gigabit network that will, among other things, include direct mailings and community meetings.

Several cable executives complain that the cities also gave Google the unusual right to start its fiber project only in neighborhoods guaranteeing high demand for the service through pre-registrations. Most cable and phone companies were required by franchise agreements with regional governments to build out most of the markets they entered, regardless of demand.

But the Journal missed two key points:

1. Time Warner Cable has been granted the same concessions given to Google on the Missouri side, and AT&T presumably will also get them when it completes negotiations with city officials on the matter.
2. Both cable and phone companies have the benefit of incumbency, and the article ignores concessions each had secured when their operations first got started.

The Bell System enjoyed a monopoly on phone service for decades, with concessions on rights-of-way, telephone poles and placement. AT&T was a major beneficiary, and although the AT&T of today is not the same corporation that older Americans once knew, the company continues a century-long tradition of winning the benefit of the doubt in both the state and federal legislature. AT&T has won statewide video franchise agreements that give the company the power to determine where it will roll out its more advanced U-verse platform, and enjoys carefully crafted federal tax policies that helped them not only avoid paying any federal tax in 2011 — the company actually secured a $420 million “refund” subsidized by taxpayers.

Cable operators also won major concessions from local governments under pressure from citizens eager to buy cable television. At the time, cable companies were granted exclusive franchises — a cable monopoly — to operate, an important distinction for investors concerned about the value of their early investments. Local zoning and pole attachment matters were either negotiated or dealt with legislatively to allow cable companies the right to hang their wires on existing utility poles. Franchise agreements permitted the gradual roll-out of cable service in each franchise area, often allowing two, three, or more years to introduce service. It was not uncommon for neighborhoods on one side of town to have cable two years before the other side could sign up. That sounds awfully familiar to AT&T U-verse today.

Google’s proposal to build a revolutionary broadband network delivering 1Gbps deserved and got the same type of treatment then-revolutionary phone and cable service won back in the day.

Time Warner Cable also won much the same treatment Google is now getting, and the cable operator has gotten $27,000 in fees refunded and will avoid another $100,000 in permit fees going forward. Time Warner Cable and Google will both receive free traffic control services during network construction — not that Time Warner Cable plans much of a change for customers in either Missouri or Kansas.

AT&T will likely also receive the same treatment, although it would be hypocritical of them to complain that Google gets to pick and choose where it provides service. Large swaths of Kansas City and suburbs are still waiting for U-verse to arrive, and many areas will never get the service. Cable operators had to wire a little further, but also benefited from years of monopoly status and network construction expenses paid off years ago when there literally was no competition.

Those paragons of virtue at Goldman Sachs are appalled Google has such a good relationship with Kansas City officials more than happy to have the gigabit speeds neither AT&T or Time Warner Cable would even consider providing.

Google’s rights “appear to be significantly more favorable than those cable, Verizon or any other fiber overbuilders achieved when striking deals with local governments in the past,” Goldman Sachs analyst Jason Armstrong told the Journal. “We’re surprised Time Warner Cable hasn’t been more vocal in its opposition.”

But then the cable company has secured most of the same benefits Google has, so why complain at all?

In fact, city officials had to browbeat Time Warner to modernize its network in ways it would have not done otherwise without the new agreement.

Both AT&T and Time Warner have every right to be concerned. Their substandard networks and high prices (along with a lousy history of customer service, according to national surveys) put them at a competitive disadvantage if Google does not make any major mistakes. Neither cable or phone company has made any noise about upgrading service to compete, and should customers begin to leave in droves, then both companies may actually have something to cry about.

The Wall Street Journal’s report on the concessions granted to Google wanders off into the Net Neutrality debate for some reason, and misses several important facts reviewed above.  (3 minutes)

Most Time Warner Cable broadband customers across the country will soon pay a $3.95 a month cable-modem lease fee in an effort by the cable operator to boost revenue by as much as $300 million annually.

New York City-area customers will be the first to see the modem rental charge, and customers began receiving postcards this week informing them of the new fee, which begins Oct. 15.

“It’s an outrage considering how much Time Warner Cable is already charging for broadband service,” says Stop the Cap! reader B.J., who received notification in yesterday’s mail. “My Ubee cable modem is four years old and they want to charge almost $50 a year for something that costs $40 retail brand new? Not a chance. I am calling Verizon. Goodbye Time Warner.”

A Time Warner Cable spokesperson said the company is busily printing notification cards that will arrive in customer mailboxes across the country in the next two months.

“Customers have the choice to purchase a modem from a third-party retailer to avoid paying the $3.95 per month,” according to the cable company.

Last year, Time Warner began gradually rolling out a $2.50 modem rental fee for new customers, but exempted current ones. Now the cable operator has increased the rental fee and intends to impose it on everyone except Starter Internet, Connected Learning, SignatureHome and certain IntelligentHome customers.

The cable operator may get resistance from customers, but Wall Street analysts state other cable operators, including Comcast, already charge up to $7 a month for modem leases.

Many customers will elect to buy their own cable modem, but the cable company has severely limited its approved device list in many areas to just a single manufacturer: Motorola Mobility, despite still leasing out often less-costly models from seven other manufacturers.

“It’s convenient how they will lease out inexpensive Ubee cable modems made in China but they won’t let you buy one,” says B.J. “There is nothing wrong with Motorola modems, but it reduces customer choice.”

Time Warner Cable (and Stop the Cap!) recommends all customers who plan to buy modems choose a DOCSIS 3 model for future compatibility. The company has switched out cable modems for customers at least twice over the decade plus history of cable broadband service. If history holds, the estimated useful life for a DOCSIS 2 cable modem will probably be five years or less before future standards make them obsolete. DOCSIS 2 modems are not capable of supporting the fastest broadband speeds, while DOCSIS 3 modems often cost just a little more.

Time Warner Cable’s Approved Modem List in the Northeastern U.S. And Our Reviews (all prices approximate, from Amazon.com — consult Time Warner Cable’s website for specific modems approved in your area):

DOCSIS 3

Recommended Motorola SurfBoard SB6141 DOCSIS 3.0 Cable Modem ($100): The SB6141 is now on the approved list for most TWC service areas and has gotten excellent reviews. It is an upgrade from the 6121, now off the list of approved devices. The 6121 could only support four-channel bonding for upstream and downstream, while the 6141 supports up to eight downstream channels and four upstream channels increasing data rates to over 300Mbps for received data and over 100Mbps when sending data. The only downside is that it is harder to find in stock for purchase.

Motorola SURFboard Gateway SBG6580 DOCSIS 3.0 Wireless Cable Modem ($117): The 6580 includes built-in gigabit Ethernet and a Wireless-N router, so it theoretically could replace your home router. My personal experience with cable modem-router combinations has been less than glowing, however. Consider this only if you do not already have a Wireless-N router. This model gets overall good, but not excellent reviews.

DOCSIS 2 – Consider a DOCSIS 3 modem to guarantee future compatibility.

Motorola Surfboard SB5101 Cable Modem ($50): This workhorse DOCSIS 2 cable modem has been around since 2003 and is popular with cable companies and customers, with a proven track record of performance. But it is not DOCSIS 3-capable, which means its useful life may be shortened as cable broadband standards continue to evolve.

Motorola Surfboard SB5101U Cable Modem ($53): Functionally equivalent to the 5101, the 5101U was introduced in tandem with Motorola’s cheaper 5101N model that omitted the USB port and driver CD. Choose the 5101 or 5101U based on which model is currently selling at the lowest price.

Not recommended Motorola SURFboard Gateway SBG901 DOCSIS 2.0 Wireless Cable Modem ($84): Overpriced and mixed reviews plague this aging Motorola DOCSIS 2 modem with built-in wireless G support. You would do better buying a Wireless N router yourself, or consider the SBG6580 if you absolutely need built-in Wi-Fi.

Updated 4:54pm ET: Readers report the SB6141 now has the best chance of being on TWC’s list of approved equipment, so we’re deleting the 6121 and replacing it with the 6141. If you happened to place an order for the 6121, make sure you verify whether it is on your area’s approved list. If not, cancel the order.

Update #2 10:00am ET 10/17/12: After publishing, Time Warner Cable overhauled their entire website. We have updated the link for the current approved list. None of the models have changed as far as I can see. I have also deleted the model 6121 entirely from the story — it is not on any approved list I’ve seen. As of today, the gouging continues on eBay with the 6141, still selling for up to $200. Amazon.com sellers have also jacked up the price to take advantage of current demand, though not as much.

Do NOT pay eBay sellers $200 for the 6141, which normally sells for $99. It only encourages the bottom-feeding speculators. If you want the 6141, I recommend you wait until prices drop to between $99-125. Do not pay more.

Some readers are finding used/refurbished cable modems that work perfectly fine on Craigslist and eBay. There is generally nothing wrong with these, unless they happen to be stolen or unreturned modems that really belong to Time Warner Cable, which will in turn not activate them. Be careful.

PC Magazine has declared fiber to the home service America’s fastest broadband technology, and among larger providers, Verizon’s FiOS once again took top honors for delivering the fastest and most consistent broadband speeds.

Over the past nine months, the magazine’s readers have been conducting regular speed tests using their personal broadband connections. The magazine found fiber optics remains the best current technology for delivering cutting-edge broadband service, with an average speed rating for FiOS reaching 29.4/16.7Mbps. Since PC Magazine readers were subscribed to various speed tiers while conducting the tests, the magazine’s ratings do not measure the fastest possible speeds on offer from different providers. Verizon’s most-popular service bundle includes 15/5Mbps service, heavily weighting Verizon’s speed rating which is capable of even faster speeds with their 50-300Mbps premium service tiers. But on average, consistently fast speeds kept them in the top spot.

Cable broadband technology was the second-best choice, depending on how cable operators implement it. Cable companies depend on a singl, shared broadband pipeline in each neighborhood. DOCSIS 3 upgrades allow a cable operator to vastly expand that pipeline by “bonding” several channels together to increase the maximum bandwidth. Cable operators that combine the latest technology with the smallest number of customers sharing a connection do the best.

Midcontinent Communications (better known by customers as Midco), achieved first place nationwide. The company, which serves customers in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Wisconsin, took top honors with an average speed of 24.7/4.4Mbps — the best of any cable operator.

Ratings sometimes show the level of investment made by cable operators in their network. A sudden boost in average speeds is a sure sign a cable operator is rolling out network upgrades. A speed decline can expose a cable company trying to oversell an already constrained network. Charter Cable, which has routinely gotten poor ratings in Consumer Reports’ rankings, showed dramatic improvement in PC Magazine’s ratings, achieving third place with an average speed increase from 15Mbps to 18.5Mbps. But while the added speed is nice, the company’s usage caps are not. Conversely, WOW!, which achieved top scores in Consumer Reports’ ratings, scored towards the bottom of PC Magazine’s tests.

Comcast, which last year trumpeted its high rankings in controversial ads claiming to deliver the fastest broadband in the nation has now been overrun by both Midco and Charter. Comcast Xfinity is now in sixth place, hardly the fodder for any future ad campaign.

Cox Cable actually lost ground since last year, with average speed now down to 14.8Mbps. The bottom four: Time Warner Cable, Mediacom, WOW!, and Suddenlink — are all hampered by slow upload speeds and more anemic “take-rates” on higher speed broadband plans with the speeds on offer. With fewer premium speed customers, average speed ratings take a hit from the larger proportion of customers sticking with standard service.

Phone companies barely appeared in the magazine’s top ratings. AT&T’s U-verse could not even make the top-15. While 25Mbps was adequate when U-verse was first deployed, the broadband speed race has quickly overshadowed the company’s fiber to the neighborhood service, which still relies on home phone lines and antiquated copper infrastructure in the immediate neighborhood.

Phone companies still offering traditional ADSL on almost all-copper networks turned in even more dismal results — most too low to rate. Only Frontier’s adopted FiOS network kept them in the rankings in the overall broadband “slow zone” in the Pacific Northwest, along with CenturyLink’s acquired ADSL2+ and bonded DSL networks built by Qwest.

ISPs that perform poorly typically criticize the methodology of voluntary speed tests as the basis for speed and performance ranking. Most criticize the apparent lack of consistency, random sampling, the possibility rankings may be weighted in certain geographic areas, and may mix a disproportionate number of customers with standard or premium level speeds to unfairly boost or diminish average speed rankings. But overall, PC Magazine’s rankings show some technologies superior to others. If a customer has a choice, finding a fiber to the home provider is likely to provide an improvement over what the cable company offers, but the differences between phone company DSL and cable broadband are even starker.

The FCC speed test program, conducted by SamKnows, takes more regular snapshots of broadband quality from volunteer panelists. Your editor’s home broadband connection from Time Warner Cable is profiled above, showing results from January-September 2012

A 52-year old Los Angeles woman was bill shocked when she found Time Warner Cable charged her for 17 pay-per-view adult movies ordered over four days, often within minutes of each other.

Total charge: $154.65.

The actual number of adult movies watched, according to Time Warner customer Carol Scott: Zero.

Time Warner Cable’s initial response to Scott’s billing complaint: “We don’t make mistakes. You must have watched all those movies.”

The Los Angeles Times‘ David Lazarus reported on the plight of the healthcare lawyer the cable company thinks can’t put down her remote control:

On one day, the bill shows, a dirty movie was ordered at 9:55 a.m., followed by additional orders at 9:57, 10:03, 10:04, 10:05 and 10:06. Each movie came with a $7.98 charge.

Two days later, according to the bill, Scott’s craving for porn returned in a big way with orders for adult movies at 10:39 a.m. and 10:40, and again at 2 p.m., 2:01, 2:03 and 2:04.

She was apparently in such a randy mood, the bill shows that two adult movies were simultaneously ordered twice that day at 2:03 p.m. and 2:04.

The next day, a little more afternoon delight was seemingly in order. Scott’s bill indicates that two more adult movies were ordered, at 12:15 p.m. and immediately after at 12:16.

Unfortunately, Time Warner’s bill doesn’t specify the titles of the various films, so we can only guess at the range of tastes on display.

Scott explained she never ordered an adult pay per view movie in her life, much less 17 of them — a fact Time Warner Cable could have taken into account had it appropriately investigated her pay per view order history.

Instead, the representative insisted he had proof the movies were directly streamed to her television (was he outside her window?). If she wasn’t the one watching, someone else was — or several people, considering Scott’s bill showed she had as many as six sleazy sex flicks running at the same time.

Scott’s request to block adult pay per view titles from being ordered ever again was blocked by Time Warner. A customer service agent explained it was all or nothing — block all pay per view titles or none of them.

When the Los Angeles Times reporter called Time Warner Cable on behalf of Scott, the cable operator got nervous and had premature explanations.

Scott said one representative suggested electrical shorts could have resulted in her pay per view porn escapade, or perhaps someone got inside her cable box. Another repeated the company’s earlier insistence she must have watched the movies.

Jim Gordon, a company spokesman, didn’t really want to talk about it.

“We take customer privacy seriously, which we know our customers appreciate, and as such we are not able to comment on a particular customer’s account,” Gordon said.

Gordon passed the newspaper reporter to Motorola to discuss cable box hacking, as the Time Warner Cable set top box involved was manufactured by them.

In the meantime, under threat of going public with a relationship gone bad, Scott’s account was credited $154.65 and the cable company found its way clear to configure a block on future adult pay per view titles on Scott’s account.

If you do not use your cable company’s pay per view service, why not consider avoiding being the next lucky victim of cable porn roulette and ask your provider to block all pay per view purchases.