Time Warner Cable will increase the broadband speed for its most popular Standard service to 15/1Mbps across the country over the next 60 days.

With increased competition from Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network and AT&T U-verse, Time Warner is boosting Internet speeds to stay competitive with aggressive promotions on offer from phone companies throughout its service area.

Rob Marcus, chief operating officer for Time Warner, today told investors U-verse was available in about a quarter of the company’s footprint, with Verizon FiOS offering service in 12% of the areas where the cable company provides service.

“Last quarter, U-verse featured fairly aggressive double play promotions, especially in Texas and the midwest, while FiOS continued to aggressively enter new buildings in New York City,” Marcus said.

Marcus

Time Warner Cable failed to meet investor expectations for broadband growth during the third quarter, and some are questioning the company’s wisdom narrowly-targeting promotions to specific segments of its customer base. Bloomerg Industries analyst Paul Sweeney suggested the company was struggling to market the correct bundles of services to its customers.

Marcus reported Time Warner has seen the largest growth in DOCSIS 3.0 enhanced broadband so far, with 73,000 new customers signing up for the company’s 30/5Mbps Extreme tier or 50/5Mbps Ultimate tier during the last quarter. Combined with Turbo customers, this represents over 22% of all Time Warner’s residential broadband customers.

But while the company celebrated its new revenue from cable modem rental fees, the new charge has alienated a number of customers, some now shopping around for a better deal from competitors.

“In essence, this is a rate increase on [broadband] service, but the key is our customers have a choice,” Marcus said. “If customers prefer to buy their own modem from a qualified list of options, we’re all for it. After all, if the modem is on the customer’s balance sheet, that is less capital expense for us and fewer truck rolls.”

Marcus’ statement conflicts with one made earlier by Joli Plucknette-Farmen, communications manager for Time Warner Cable in western New York. She told WGRZ-TV last month the new fee was not  a “rate hike dressed up as a fee”, as some critics have suggested.

The company made no announcements about increasing the speeds of its higher-speed tiers to maintain their value in light of the forthcoming speed increase for Standard service.

Looking for new revenue opportunities

More than half (52 percent) of all U.S. consumers say Internet service is their home’s most important utility, according to a survey conducted by Verizon Communications as part of their Verizon FiOS Innovation Index project.

But Verizon’s research surveys go well beyond simply identifying who loves Internet access. Verizon’s real interest is identifying so-called “borderless consumers,” — customers who are seeking a seamless online experience and connectivity both inside and out of the home.

The convergence of wired and wireless broadband networks is a potentially enormous money-maker for Verizon, especially if you happen to be a Verizon Wireless customer.

“As the borderless consumer segment continues to grow, so will the need to identify, understand and anticipate what consumers truly want in their increasingly connected lives – today and in the future,” said Eric Bruno, vice president of FiOS strategy and development for Verizon.

Fran Shammo, Verizon’s chief financial officer, has previously told investors that monetizing data usage goes beyond text messaging and web browsing. The next frontier for enhanced revenue will come from the machine-to-machine segment. As consumers strive for a more connected future, enabling wireless connectivity for home appliances, automobiles, medical equipment, and other devices will create new revenue streams for the company.

Verizon’s new research surveys help the company target its future marketing to consumers most likely to be living the “borderless lifestyle.” Are you? Here are some key attributes:

• Above average income: Most are college educated, own their home, and nearly half earn $75,000 or more annually, so they can afford higher broadband bills;
• They are 18-34: Generation X and Millenials grew up in an increasingly connected world. Baby boomers are not far behind, but seniors are;
• Women somewhat outnumber men in their need to remain connected;
• You already have a computer, smartphone, or tablet and are connected to high speed Internet. Most of you want faster speed, if you can get it.

Verizon’s study becomes murkier over the issue of cord cutting. Verizon found that video streaming continues to drive Internet traffic growth, but at least 89% still prefer watching shows on their televisions. Verizon defines that as live TV, DVR, or on-demand from “TV/Cable service.”

But they did not ask whether consumers are watching more or less television provided by their cable, satellite, or phone company or if a larger proportion of viewing now comes from Netflix or other streamed content. That is a key indicator of whether a customer is gradually shifting viewing habits, which could ultimately make it easier to dump cable television.

With 90 percent of those surveyed looking forward to the day when every connectable device in their house can seamlessly interconnect and work together, Verizon’s potential revenue opportunities are enormous, if customers use Verizon Wireless for connectivity and not free Wi-Fi. Machine-to-machine wireless traffic can boost profits without costing the company much, especially under Verizon Wireless’ new Share Everything pricing. The impact of short data exchanges likely from home appliances and other similar devices is expected to be negligible. The profits from charging at least $10 a month to add each of those devices to a Verizon Wireless account are not.

The Federal Cable-Protection Commission

Problem: Solved?

The Federal Communications Commission last Friday unanimously voted to free cable operators from their obligation to sell cable channels they own to rival satellite and phone companies.

In a bizarre justification, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said ending the unambiguous rules would prevent anti-competitive activity in the market because the FCC would retain the right to review industry abuses on a case-by-case basis. Lawmakers called that an invitation for endless, time consuming litigation that will deprive consumers of competitive choice and favor the still-dominant cable television industry.

“The sunset of the program access rules could lead to a new dawn of less choice and higher prices for consumers,” said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the original authors of the rules. “If we do not extend the program access rules, the largest cable companies could withhold popular sports and entertainment programming from their competitors, reducing the competition and choice that has benefited consumers. I urge Chairman Genachowski and the FCC commissioners to extend the program access rules that have helped to level the playing field in the paid television marketplace.”

The FCC’s decision could have profound implications on would-be competitors, particularly start-ups like Google Fiber that could find itself without access to popular cable networks at any price.

At a time when cable companies and programmers are constantly pitted against each other in contract/carriage disputes, the deregulatory spirit at the FCC is likely to irritate consumers even more.

Phillip “How nice of the FCC to think about poor cable companies” Dampier

The FCC claims it will continue to protect sports programming from exclusive carriage agreements — a potentially critical concession considering the history of “exclusive, only on cable” programming contracts was largely focused on regional sports channel PRISM.

Comcast successfully kept the popular Philadelphia-based network (today known as Comcast SportsNet Philadephia) off competing satellite services and cable operators by only distributing the network terrestrially. A controversial FCC rule (known as the “terrestrial exception”) states that a television channel does not have to make its shows available to satellite companies if it does not use satellites to transmit its programs. Cox Cable has its own implementation of that loophole running in San Diego.

Derek Chang, executive vice-president of DirecTV, says Comcast’s local market share dominance is a direct consequence of SportsNet. More importantly, Chang believes even if Comcast says it will sell the network to competitors, it is free to set prices for SportsNet as high as it wants.

“They win either way,” Chang said. “They’re either going to gouge our customers, or they’re going to withhold it from our customers.”

Verizon FiOS has secured the right to carry the channel on its system, but won’t say how much it pays.

The PRISM case is today’s best evidence that exclusive agreements do hamper competition — Philadelphia is hardly a hotbed of satellite dishes, with a 40-50% reduced satellite subscriber rate attributable to the lack of popular regional sports on satellite.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s cowardly lion act is back. Will anyone at the FCC stand up to Big Telecom companies while busy watering down pro-competitive policies?

Historically, satellite dish owners and wireless cable customers were the most likely victims of exclusive or predatory programming contracts, with some cable networks refusing to sell their programming to competing technologies at any price.  Others charged enormous, unjustified mark-ups that made the technology non-competitive. Today, wireless cable television is mostly defunct and home satellite dish service has largely been replaced with direct broadcast satellite providers DirecTV and Dish.

Today’s programming landscape is more complicated. The FCC would argue that unlike in the 1980s, most cable programmers are no longer directly controlled by yesteryear’s Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) and Time Warner (Time Warner Cable was spun off into an independent, unaffiliated entity in March, 2009), which collectively controlled dozens of popular cable networks. But programmers’ know their best customers remain cable operators which maintain a dominant market share in every major American city.

Friday’s ruling has implications for telco-TV providers and satellite dish companies that may find programming negotiations more complicated than ever. AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS may find access to cable-owned programming difficult or even impossible to obtain if cable operators decide their unwanted competition is harmful to their business interests.

But an even larger challenge looms for the next generation of video competition: Google Fiber TV and “over the top” online video.

Nobody is complaining about Google’s robust gigabit broadband offering, but Kansas City residents originally expressed concern about the company’s proposed television lineup. As originally announced, Google Fiber TV was missing HBO and ESPN.

A competing cable system without ESPN is dead in the water for sports enthusiasts.

Google has since managed to sign agreements that expand their channel lineup (although it is still missing HBO). But nothing prevents channel owners from dramatically raising the price at renewal. That is a concern for smaller cable operators as well, who want protection from discriminatory pricing that awards the best prices to giant multi-system operators like Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

The most important impact of the FCC’s decision may be for those waiting to launch virtual cable systems delivering online programming to customers who want to pick and choose from a list of networks.

The FCC’s “new rules” give programmers who depend on tens of millions of cable subscribers even more ammunition to kill competing distribution models like over the top video. Start-up providers who cannot obtain reasonable and fair access to cable programming will have to depend on the vague policies the FCC claims it will enforce to prevent egregious abuse. But the FCC is not known for its speed and start-up companies may face enormous legal fees fighting for fair access that is now open to subjective interpretation.

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.

[flv width=”448″ height=”276″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/David Cay Johnston The Fine Print How Big Companies Use Plain English to Rob You Blind 9-19-12.mp4[/flv]

Fellow Brighton, N.Y. resident and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston hits the nail right on the head describing the Big Telecom Swindle that promised America it was going to get something magical called “the information superhighway.”

Over a half-trillion dollars in rate increases later, AT&T and Verizon instead spent a lot of that money on an enormously profitable wireless business that redefines the average American family’s monthly phone bill at $100+. Johnston talks about the broken industry promises of ubiquitous broadband, leaving millions of potential FiOS and U-verse customers behind.

With vast lobbying arms, large cable and phone companies have manipulated public policy to assure they can gouge customers, shortchange workers, and erect barriers to fair play. If consumers don’t pay attention, politicians armed with fat campaign contributions will continue to represent corporate interests, not those of the average American.  

[Note to Mr. Johnston: He isn’t the only reporter paying attention. Hat tip to Stop the Cap! reader Pat McDermott who shared the video.]  (17 minutes)